Reviews (106)

Better Than "Silence of the Lambs" or "Natural Born Killers"
Yes...this is another movie review by PR...but please don't delete and move on until you've read this.

I just finished watching a film I never knew existed until my demented camera film processor guy once again suggested I see a film that would knock my socks off.

He's done it again!

This one, entitled "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", makes "Natural Born Killers" look like a baby. This thriller has it all...and the title tells all.

Hannibal Lechter was frightening and sometimes unreal...HENRY IS REAL!!!!! AND SO FRIGHTENING you may not survive the first 5 minutes. If you do, then fasten those seat belts and get ready for one of the most chilling crime thrillers you have ever seen.

And figure this. Most chillers, thrillers and killers involve the cops. Not once during this 2-hour film do you see a cop trying to find this maniac. This is, definitely, a "portrait" of a maniacal killer...and there are scenes that are so real, you may wanna add an extra bolt to your door, look more often into your rear view mirror, and never see another chiller again.

Henry is portrayed by little known Michael Rooker. He is the spitten image of Woody Harrelson in "Natural Born Killers", but much more believable. This guy is totally in tune with being insane...and he's great in this insane role.

Then there's Tom Towles as "Otis", just as deranged, and even more so a total pervert. He is the brother of love interest "Becky", played by Tracy Arnold.

This one is a solid "10" for crime buffs. If you loved "Silence of the Lambs" and "Natural Born Killers", ya gotta see "Henry".

Each of you needs to have a buddy like I have at the local camera shop. This guy is even more deranged than me. He loves the same flicks that I do...and he has been an invaluable resource.

In the crime thriller...deranged serial killer...totally insane murder flick genre', "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is a top notch TEN....10...10...10. Don't miss this one!

AN OVERRATED MOVIE
I'm sure you've kown that situation in your movie lover life : - all your friends have seen a movie you haven't seen yet and they keep telling you it's the best movie of the year and they can't understand why you're the last one of the whole wide world who is still resisting. And you feel a little bit ashamed. Oh, just a little bit but painfully ashamed ! That has happened to me with HENRY. So, eight years later, spread the news, folks, I have bought the DVD ! Yesterday, I sat in my sofa, put the DVD in the player and watched. ... 90 minutes later, I have watched it, I was still in my sofa and I felt terrible. How TIME Magazine could put that movie in its list of the ten best of 1990 ? HENRY is a kind of clinical film ; it depicts the life of a serial killer living with an ex-con and his sister. John McNaughton chose to show us the pure facts without any critical point of view and, in fact, without any linear story. So, we see Henry kill, eat, laugh and drive and we don't know, at the end of the movie, the motivations which lead him to kill. Because Henry always lies even when he seems to make a confidence. It's OK for me if the director had the purpose to present a documentary but if he wanted to present a movie, he failed. For me, I have another word to qualify this kind of stuff : A BOOK. Without pictures. A DVD for the butchers, a corporation I admire very much.

Brutally Candid Horror..
Body after body is depicted together with murdering agonizing screams as a background sound. This is the beginning of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which instills a nightmarish vision of the mind of a serial killer. The film is loosely based on Henry Lee Lucas who was emotionally, physically, and sexually abused as child by his mother while living with his handicapped father who had lost his legs in an train accident. Henry had been forced to wear dresses and watch his mother having sex with strangers, which has created internal enraged emotions toward women. In addition, Henry shows an emotional numbness whenever he has killed someone as if he had just finished the last of his coffee.

The story takes place in the Chicago area where Henry lives with Otis and Becky. Otis spent time in jail with Henry where the two became friends. His sister Becky has recently escaped an abusive relationship while Henry goes about trying to find odd jobs and killing women in random ways as it will not leave a trail back to him. However, when living in close quarters with others it is does not take long before Otis finds out about Henry's secret, but instead of going to the police they partner up. Henry teaches him the secret of killing for pleasure and together they begin to find ways of sharing these grotesque moments with each other.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer has some interesting cinematic moments where a camera is use for the main point-of-view, which later is transferred into the living room. This brings a morbidly surreal experience to the audience as the fetish of the disturbed characters is brought to the eyes of the audience in a revolting manner. Yet, it is a subtle transition, which most people have experienced through their own home video moments. The story is filmed with highly grained film stock, which enhances the realistic acuity of the environment as it brings further horror to the minds of the audience. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a highly disturbing film that experiments with audience participation in the film in a most clever way, which leaves the audience with a truly horrific cinematic experience.

Now THIS is a truly scary horror flick
After watching the entire run of 'Nightmare on Elm Street' and a few of the 'Friday the 13th' flicks, I found myself rather unimpressed by the whole slasher-horror deal. I was given a couple starts here 'n' there, and was occasionally grodied-out by a few of the more gratuitous scenes of gore, but overall I didn't find any of the flicks particularly scary or disturbing. Thanks to these movies I was about to give up on the horror scene, seein' as how I wasn't actually scared, shocked, or all that disturbed by what I had witnessed. That's when 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' came to the rescue. Now, THIS film really is quite disturbing, and is very scary at times. It's most likely due to the fact that it's loosely based on the exploits of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, and was set in the real world where there aren't any Christmas-sweatered burn victims killing you in your dreams, nor a seven-foot-tall hockey-masked machete-wielder aimin' to hack you to bits. The whole this-could-actually-be-happening-right-now-somewhere angle helped fill me with a good sense of dread, and gave me more of a scare than any ghost-&-goblin fare could ever hope to.

I couldn't believe the pleasure the titular character and his buddy, a near-'tard of a killer-in-training, took in the murder of a motorist and an abusive fence (stolen goods dealer). Then there's the home invasion that they video taped for posterity, which I understand caused some viewers to walk outta the theater at a few of the film festivals this played in. The eye-stabbing scene was pretty hard to witness, even though it was a rather brief cut, and it was apparent that the head that received the eyeball-stab was a dummy head made up to sorta look like the character who suffers the injury. Topping things off is the utterly strange 'romance' that develops between Henry and Otis' sister, which culminates in one of the saddest most eff'd-up endings I've ever witnessed. Put these all together and combine 'em with Henry's deceptive façade of harmlessness, and you've got a horror movie that's truly horrible. I'd finally found what I was lookin' for...

Included with the DVD edition of the movie is a half-hour-long interview with writer-director John McNaughton, who discusses his filmmaking background, what inspired him to create 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer', and a few of the difficulties he encountered making the movie and keeping it within its low budget. Also thrown in are brief text production notes, English subtitles, and trailers for 'Henry' 1 and 2. Although I haven't heard too many good things about Part 2, the trailer to it looked promising. Methinks I know what I'll be checkin' out, next time I hit the local Blockbuster...

'Late

Mean as a junkyard dog
The reputation of John McNaughton's "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is enormous in the realm of independent cinema. Made on a budget of over one hundred thousand dollars back in the 1980s, the movie went on to polarize viewers and critics alike. Some praised McNaughton's unflinching vision, his nihilistic portrayal of two lower class killers with nothing to live for and nothing to lose. The other camp rejected the film outright, deriding it as the worst sort of exploitative trash cinema. I tend to favor the former opinion; I think McNaughton's film is a brilliant look at a microscopic segment of society we all know exists even if it is rarely discussed. Besides, bashing the film as exploitative beggars the question of who it is exploiting. Serial killers? Guys like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Henry Lee Lucas (the killer McNaughton loosely based the film on) could stand to have a bit more mud slung on their already malevolent reputations. I cannot find one scene in the movie that idolizes what these two guys do in their spare time. And, unlike slasher films and sundry other horror films, "Henry" demonstrates that violent acts have serious consequences.

"Henry" takes place in the dirty, gray streets and alleyways of Chicago. Henry (Michael Rooker) and his prison pal Otis (Tom Towles) spend their days working low paying jobs, drinking beer, and watching television. Otis toils at a gas station in between trips to his parole officer. Henry works as an insect exterminator (!). Things start looking up when Becky (Tracy Arnold), Otis's sister, moves in with the pair to escape the doldrums of small town life. Although she has some problems back home with a troublesome boyfriend, Becky takes a shine to Henry almost immediately. She pesters her brother for information about the man and is not disturbed in the least when Otis tells her that Henry went to prison for murdering his mother. In fact, she finds this information rather intriguing. Henry comes to like Becky too, so much so that he steps in when Otis treats her in a disturbing manner. The presence of Becky complicates the odd relationship between the two men, a relationship that is soon to take a horrific turn as Otis discovers what Henry does in his spare time.

Henry is a serial killer, a despicable murderer who preys on total strangers. He thinks nothing of following a potential victim home from the mall, or picking up strangers in bars and then dispatching them in grisly ways. Henry likes the feeling he gets from his crimes, and he soon involves Otis in his gruesome activities. Why his friend decides to help is a mystery. Perhaps he feels Becky driving a wedge between him and Henry. Otis exhibits many of the behaviors associated with a follower, and Henry is definitely a take-charge sort of guy, so maybe that is the overriding reason. Whatever the case, Otis soon becomes as enthusiastic about murder as Henry. When Otis complains about being angry one evening, his pal helpfully relieves the tension by tricking a passing car into stopping so the two can shoot the driver. A broken television set provides the impetus for a killing at a fence's office. The absolute worst crime involving these two, however, is something we see on videotape as Henry and Otis relive their thrills. Predictably, Becky soon discovers what her brother and his friend do when they aren't at home. The conclusion to the film is a shocker.

Any way you cut it (no pun intended), "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is an excruciating experience. The crimes, while not overtly gory, revel in the sheer sadism of the act. If McNaughton was attempting to evoke a sense of outrage on the part of the audience, he succeeded wildly. You cannot even stand to look at these people after awhile, so repulsive are their actions. I found myself praying for a police officer, a security guard, a neighborhood watch guy-anybody in authority to show up and put a stop to these two goons' activities. But as evil in real life often goes unchecked, so do Henry's and Otis's extracurricular activities in Chicago. The film accomplishes what it sets out to do largely because the performances of the two actors playing the principal characters do such a good job. "Henry" was Michael Rooker's first film, and I agree with McNaughton when he says in the interview on the disc that this actor had star written all over him. Rooker plays Henry as a sort of withdrawn, soft-spoken type that probably would appear unthreatening to potential victims. Just as good is Tom Towles as the grubby Otis, who portrays his character as an insufferable extrovert who occasionally sinks into pouty silences. Without these two actors, one wonders whether "Henry" would have become the cult classic it is today.

The DVD version of the film is a good one. A lengthy interview with John McNaughton tells the viewer everything they ever wanted to know about the movie. The director explains the long road to finishing the project, his experiences when it finally opened in a theater, and the lengthy battle with the MPAA over the rating for the movie, a battle which saw the censors pushing for extensive cuts to avoid the dreaded 'X' rating while McNaughton fought to keep his vision intact. Considering some of the extreme films floating around out there today, the concerns of the censors seem rather archaic now. Still, the film has lost little of its power to disturb deeply. Fans of offbeat cinema, if they have not done so already, will wish to pick this one up soon. ... Read more

Reviews (94)

A Classic Cult Film!!!
Repo Man is THE classic cult movie. It's a real original! A wacky and complex masterpiece that defies description. Emilio Estevez, in his one and only good role, is the title character, a teenage punk who lives with his hippie parents in L.A. The always brilliant Harry Dean Stanton is the veteran repo man who takes Estevez under his wing and shows him the ropes of the trade. To reveal more would be wrong, one of the many pleasures of this movie is the wild surprises and twists that the film springs on us. Let's just say the film mixes a punk attitude with bizarro science fiction, hysterical comedy, satire, a GREAT soundtrack and much more. With this film and the brilliant Sid & Nancy (another film you should see if you have'nt)Alex Cox announced himself as a great director. Unfortunately, he seemed to want to self destruct a promising career with the release of two deeply flawed but nonetheless interesting films Walker and Straight to Hell. This is a man who needs to direct again? Where is he now??

Cult classic
Of all the low-budget films to come out of the Eighties, Repo Man, Alex Cox's dark cult comedy about Eighties urban sprawl and alien paranoia, is one of the better ones. Emilio Estevez stars in one of his earliest roles as Otto Parts, your modern apocalyptic teen up to his armpits in drugs, sex, and parental neglect. He soon finds a way out through Bud (Stanton), an ace repo man, who gives him a job and teaches him the ways of the car repossessing trade. The two wander through the guts of L.A. in search of a '64 Chevy Malibu, priced at 50 thousand dollars, and run into a cast of bizarre street characters: feds, girls in distress, a lobotomized nuclear physicist, and really, really dumb criminals. Estevez gives one of the best performances of his career, honing his acting skills as a punk white boy just in time for his role in Coppola's The Outsiders, released later that year. Cox, who wrote and directed the film, creates a strange but hilarious view of our culture, a brilliant satire on modern society.

What the f*ck do I know?
One thing I do know is this film is a modern day masterpiece.Unlike anything made before it.A true work of art and absolutely essential to any great DVD collection.Better than Gone With The Wind.It will make you wanna go to L.A. but stay home and watch Repo Man instead.I really wish they'd release the made for TV version of it as well.Along with the high art of Richard Elfman's brilliant Forbidden Zone, Repo Man is in a class all by itself.SUPERB!

not what i had expected
I was thouroughly pleased upon seeing repo man. Though i Admit it was defintitletely not what I had expected. A friend recomended the movie to me saying it was apunk rock thing, and it was actually an acurate portrayal of the punk rock lifestyle of the 80's. WHOA no way, thats the last time i trust that guy. What I did discover was a magical glowing, flying spacecar, which everyone and their mother wanted. It's brilliant, just half way through the movie it takes a twist for the strange. I'd recomend this movie to anyone. This is probably Emelio's only good performance ever so that makes the movie that much more special.

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are."--Miller
Wow, ummm....interesting. Finally something different. No, I mean this is REALLY different. About time to, cuz lately I've seen a string of bvad movies, so it's nice to see something cool and original every now and then. Otto (Emilio Estevez) is a Los Angeles punk, a loser with no direction and no role models. But he discovers a code of honor and higher purpose when he joins a select group of latter-day knights: the repo men. As a fledging apprentice, Otto slowly learns the ways of these high-caliber, overmedicated auto repossessors. And when a $20,000 bounty is placed on a mysterious missing car, Otto eludes the police, feds, religious cultists, and other repo men in a frantic search for this holy grail. Could one man's destiny lie in the back of a 1964 Chevy Malibu? For some, actually for many, this film will come of as stupid and random, but for those of us who "get" it, this is a breathe of fresh air. Using clever, if somewhat odd, story telling, this film should keep you entertained and amused throughout the entire duration of the film. I say rent first, then but. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

Get off my case....................!!
A classic line from Brad Hamilton (Judge Reinhold) as well as "Doesn't anyone know how to knock around here?" or "Sir, if you don't (be quiet), I'm gonna kick 100%...!" As entertaining as Penn was, I think Reinhold did the best acting job in the enitre movie. Directors were som impressed by his work that he started in Beverly Hills Cop's 1 and 2, two of the biggest box-office hits of the 80's. Anthony Edwards (Gilbert on Revenge of the Nerds) did a great job as a stoner bud as well as Harold (Scott Thompson, Copeland on Police Academy), Jefferson, Rat (Police Academy 4), Stacy, DeMone, Linda (Phoebe Cates) and many others.

This movie was based on Clairemont High School in San Diego. I have a friend who graduated from Clairemont High in '82 who constantly tells me stories about incidents that actually happened in the movie as well as at the high school. He remembers when some guy ordered a pizza in history class. The teachers name was Mr. Crocker (not Mr. Hand). BTW, the screen names, including the teachers, are not the actual names of the ones who revolved around the high school. However, the personalities in the movie are very similar to the one's in real life. As for the mall, that was supposed to imitate Unviserstiy Town Center in San Diego. I was told that that was where every teenager wanted to work during that time.

Great movie of a semi-true story!!!

"Why don't you get a job, Spicoli?" "What for?"
Slice of life of Southern California kids dated with great early '80's tunes. Stacy Hamilton (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and Mark Ratner (Brian Backer) are interested in the fair sex, but their more experienced friends Linda Barrett (Phoebe Cates) and Mike Damone (Robert Romanus) give them hopelessly bad advice. Great performances all around, but the scene-stealers are surfer pothead Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn), who thinks nothing of having a pizza ordered in to his history class, Stacey's older brother Brad (Judge Reinhold), who has bum luck with women and jobs, and history teacher Mr. Hand (Ray Walston), who has all the patience of a boiling tea kettle. Unfortunatly, extra scenes that appear on Comedy Central among other stations are not included here, as director Heckerling is not particularly fond of them. Look for Nicholas Cage, Anthony Edwards, and Eric Stoltz as Spicoli's fellow stoners, and Forest Whittaker as Ridgemont's football hero. Bruce Springsteen's younger sister Pamela appears briefly as a cheerleader.

The background of Fast Times...
The film itself is a classic, from the soundtrack (which features recently broken-up members of The Eagles), Stevie Nicks, and Jackson Browne. Cameron Crowe wrote the true story of teenagers in late 70s San Diego (Clairemont High) from his own perspective, originally written for Rolling Stone magazine. Because he looked so young at the time, he was able to go to school and fit in. Even though Crowe changed the city to the LA area (the movie also takes place in LA), the Clairemont High schoolers were upset with a lot of it. "Rat" is now the writer of some of the "Dummies" books.

The film itself is an essential 80s comedy classic, a lot of subjects bold at the time, a lot of new talent to move on to bigger paychecks (Forest Whittaker, Sean Penn, Nicolas Cage).
Cameron Crowe should make a film about the story behind making "Fast Times" as a sequel to "Almost Famous".

I think it would be great if Crowe and Heckerling did a commentary with the original cast members as well as the Clairemont High students to give added perspective on the fact and fiction of it all. I think people would want to know if these people really existed, and what happened to them.

movie
This movie has no real point to it. But its fun watching different teens in the same school and follow their lives as they try to be as cool as they can be. I wish Sean Penn got more scenes because he made this movie a definate classic.

Greatest teen comedy ever made
OK, "greatest teen comedy ever made" really isn't setting the bar all that high, but this really is a wonderful film. I almost docked it a star for being at least partially responsible for a lot of copycat garbage that followed, but that would be punishing it unfairly. It deserved the tons of money it made.

Many of the other reviews on this site have rehashed the plot(s) and the fact that it introduced an amazing array of acting talent to the world. What I think is most impressive however, is the honesty and poignancy this film delivers while being hysterically funny. The relationship between Brad and his sister is incredibly touching. The characters are real, three-dimensional people (yes even Spicoli; I knew someone almost exactly like him in school and I'll bet you did too). It is beautifully written, directed, and acted. It is also one of the most quote-worthy films this side of Tarantino ("All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine").

On a final note, I disagree with the Amazon reviewer's assessment that Cameron Crowe is an overrated director. "Say Anything" is probably the best teen movie made since this one, and "Almost Famous" is a stone cold masterpiece, IMHO. ... Read more

Amazon.com

For those who like their love stories dipped in decadence, LilianaCavani's dark and disturbing 1974 drama--about a concentration camp survivorwho fatefully comes face to face with her ex-Nazi captor and lover--has held up quite well over the years despite its sensationalistic tone. It helps that the mysterious,cobra-eyed Charlotte Rampling plays the survivor, Lucia, and that theunctuous and languid British actor, Dirk Bogarde, is former SS officerMax, a now-benign night porter at the Vienna hotel where the paircoincidentally collides. There is a haunted hollowness to these charactersthat resigns them to relive the sordid past that tragically binds them.Criterion's DVD offers the film in its best available condition, and thecolor has been restored to enhance its symbolic significance. The Night Porter uses landscape as character, and its desaturated tones evoke memory of theHolocaust and a shady 1950s Vienna plagued by post-World War IIguilt. In fact, this is a film full of shadows and shame, and Max and Lucia arevictims of this frightening world in which nothing can be trusted and aroundevery corner lurk spies in their house of forbidden love. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Not likely to pop up late night on TBS.
Despite the misleading cover photo, this is not another stab at exploitive and kitschy WW2 sick humor a la "Ilsa:She-Wolf of the SS", but a far more ambitious and artful work of cinema. Disturbing and repulsive, yet quite compelling, "The Night Porter" brilliantly uses a depiction of sado-masochism and pycho-sexual politics as an effective allusion to the horror of Hitler's Germany. Dirk Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling are both broodingly decadent as a former SS officer and concentration camp survivor, respectively, who end up in a twisted, doomed relationship years after the war. You would have to search high and low to find two braver performances than Bogarde and Rampling give in this complex story (Harvey Keitel and Holly Hunter in "The Piano" comes the closest). Like the film "Seven Beauties", the "sex" you think you're watching is really a subliminal lesson on the ugly politics of facism and oppression. Obviously, this is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but recommended for any cinema buff up for a challenge.

Mediocre at Best
I just received my copy of the Criterion Collection edition of Liliana Cavani's 1974 drama The Night Porter. Upon reflection, I cannot even imagine myself sitting through this film one more time. The premises are so interesting and the story has SO much potential. The synopses I read online for this movie made it seem so incredibly interesting.

At the beginning, when the story is beginning to be established, there are some extraordinary moments that, with amazing subtlety captivate one's imagination and disturb one at the same time. However, once these premises are established the film stagnates. It is extremely slow paced (something I have NO problem with), but once I understood the film, the last hour of it seemed excuciatingly boring. The underlying message is that people never change, or at least, a terrible event like the Holocaust keeps all those involved in it--both victim and victimizer--forever captive. Neither Max, his lover/victim, nor his ex-Nazi comrades can get away from the Holocaust. Cavani takes too long trying to visualize this.

Another detraction from the movie is that it is an English-language movie written by a non-English speaker. The acting by some of the secondary actors is just plain bad.

Though packed with potential for greatness and some superb moments, The Night Porter is ultimately disappointing.

Doesn't it sound exciting?
It's really not. Who'd a-thunk a film with subject matter as sensational as this could be so dull? And not even a respectable, important dull. This is BORING. You WILL be disappointed. Not that I expect you to move along and pick something else, but when you come back to this page to add your own "0 STARS" review, just remember I told you so.

a distubing film
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

13 years after the end or WWII, a concentration camp survivor, meets her former captor/lover working as a porter at a hotel in Vienna. They then resume their odd, sadomasochistic relationship.

The film had much less [adult content] in it than I would expect from a film with relationships described that way. It also has several flashback scenes. The film still has nudity and [adult content] but less than many R rated films that are around today. There are several former SS officers living in Vienna who are hiding from the international community trying to jail them for their crimes.

The DVD has no special features which is not common for Criterion Collection releases, but as always had the liner noted and the film is presented in it's original theactrical aspect ratio.

Ehhhhhh. It was Alright...Nothing great.
I keep reading all these reviews (the ones that made me buy the flick in the first place) talk about how great this movie is.....It's ok. I wouldn't tell anyone to go out and rent it, alone buy it. I love Criterion dvds and collect them, this one is definitely on my watch a couple times list. It's not that I'm offended or anything, it's just kind of average. I watched it twice and I don't hate it but I wouldn't buy it for over $15. Criterion has no extras and the transfer is grainy. There is a hair in the lens for awhile too. ... Read more

Reviews (76)

A tokin' cult classic
For those of you who grew up in the 70's, Cheech & Chong where the Laurel & Hardy or Abbott & Costello of those times. Seeing this film in DVD is a joy, since I must have seen it on tape more than a 100 times, till it was unwatchable. Now, for the first time we can see the film in it's original panoramic (widescreen) format, and for those who saw it before on tape, you'll see all you've missed before. The copy is pristine clear, and it includes a load of deleted scenes, some actually funnier than what we saw on the original run of the film. Included on those missing scenes, is the infamous one featuring Harry Dean Stanton, who doesn't remember ever appearing in a Cheech & Chong film. Plus there is an audio commentary by Cheech himself and Lou Adler, the director, who prior to this, had never directed a film before. You'll be astonished to learn how much this film influenced other people, guys like Quentin Tarantino, for example, not to mention the numerous rock groups who grew up watching this guys and re-recorded their music. All in all, a real pleasure to discover this seminal gem from the 70's, given it's full use or advantage on DVD. If you saw this guys' films way back then, do yourself a favor, and get hold of this DVD. For those too young to remember them, but who heard of them from an older brother or "stoner" uncle, get hold of it and discover what kept us laughing during those daze, er, uh, days. Filmakers of today, take notice that films can be made without a million cuts per second and only with long continous shots.

Plot-Free Pot-Fest -- Big Whoop about Very Little!
Definitely DATED, this film has 70s "High Times" written all over it. These guys have not much more than "pot" on their brain. All jokes lead to the same subject...dope, man!

Cheech and Chong, already celebrated novelty song artists with several best-selling albums to their credit just had to take their "message" to the next level. "Up In Smoke" gave them plenty of exposure and secured a solid fandom. 25 years later, though, the laughs drop drastically on the dime-bag-scale.

When I was still in high school (and I didn't give in to the smoking of anything, then or now), I may have enjoyed this sort of nonsense more. As a middle aged intellectual, I can offer only a few tired smirks. Give me Laurel & Hardy instead!**

best stoner movie ever!
hello cheech and chong fans i may only be a teenager but i have been a fan for like 4 years now and this is the funniest movie i have ever seen might be the best comedy ever!.and if ypur going to order a cheech and chong movie get this one but if i were you and you had some money to spend buy all of them and all of there cd's.and im so glad chong is finaly out of prison and to all of you die hard c and c fans the new cheech and chong movie is going to start production in september chong and cheech were both on jay leno on july 9th so there back together for awhile. anyways dont get to high later.

THIS IS A PARODY, DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT?
This film does not advocate drug use, this film, and Cheech and Chong's act are parodies of people who do drugs. If anything it takes every stereo type of all kinds of drug users and makes fun of them. If you watch this movie again and think about what I have said you will actually think this film is even funnier than you did before. I have known most of these types of people and think this movie is halarious, one of the funniest films ever made and I do not do drugs.

ALL Pot and NO Plot makes this ONE DULL MOVIE!
Campy trip back to the smoky 70s. Definitely DATED, this film has "High Times" written all over it. These guys have not much more than "pot" on their brain. All jokes lead to the same subject...dope, man!

Cheech and Chong had already enjoyed celebrity as novelty song artists with several best-selling albums to their credit. This effort of "Smokin' Dope - The Movie" takes their "message" to the next level. "Up In Smoke" gave them plenty of exposure and secured a solid fandom. 25 years later, though, the laughs drop drastically on the dime-bag-scale.

When I was still in high school (and I didn't give in to the smoking of anything, then or now), I may have enjoyed this sort of nonsense more. As a middle aged intellectual, I can offer only a few tired smirks. Give me Laurel & Hardy instead!** ... Read more

Description

Five spooky stories, written by Stephen King, are shown in a format based on the popular horror comics of the 1950's. ... Read more

Reviews (87)

Spooky fun
Director George Romero (Night of the Living Dead) and horror author extraordinairre Stephen King teamed up for this adaptation/homage to the classic 1950's horror EC Comics, and while the film as a whole has it's share of creepy moments, it's more of a fun horror film, and a labor of love for Romero and King. Five tales are told, beginning with a dead, rich father coming back to life for his birthday cake (yes, you read that right), a simplistic farmer finding a strange meteorite, an insanely jealous husband taking vengeance on his cheating wife and her lover only to get it back to him, a mistreated husband discovering a box containing a monster which he unleashes on his drunken wife, and a man with a severe cockroach problem. Featuring Adrienne Barbeau, Hal Holbrook, Ed Harris, Leslie Nielsen, Ted Danson, and even King himself, plus great gore and makeup effects by the always excellent Tom Savini; Creepshow is a real treat.

Great Original Horror Film!
In this collaboration with Stephen King, director George Romero assembles a distinguished cast and pays vividly hued homage to the E.C. horror comics of the 1950s. (This film appeared years before the TALES FROM THE CRYPT series.) Five creepy tales are strung together by a framing story involving a young boy being punished by his father for reading the gruesome, titular comic book. "Father's Day" tells the tale of a family patriarch exacting beyond-the-grave revenge on the daughter who murdered him. In "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill," a Maine hayseed (King himself in a ridiculously over-the-top performance) is overtaken by a meteor-based plant growth. A cuckolded husband exacts watery revenge on his cheating wife and her lover in "Something to Tide You Over." A hairy beast in a box is used for nefarious purposes at a university in "The Crate." Finally, in "They're Creeping Up on You," a wealthy, arrogant New Yorker with a fear of germs has a disturbing run-in with cockroaches during a blackout.

While the stories are a bit brief, the style is appropriate for the anthology format. Romero's use of garish colors to mimic the ink in comic books is visually appealing, preventing the gore on display from being too off-putting. Featuring early appearances by actors such as Ed Harris and Ted Danson, CREEPSHOW is eerie, engaging entertainment.

There are so many reasons why I like this film. The length of the film. 120 minutes. That's two hours of horror stories. If you notice lately, any movie that has more than two stories is usually about an hour and a half. Stephen King and George A. Romero on the other hand, were able to put together a two hour film.

It's mostly the suspensful scenes, that get you asking, "what if that was me?" Seeing people suffer in this movie, adds a great effect on the audience. Most of the time I could feel the pain they were going through. Like Ted Danson's story, or when Ed Harris was under that grave. Stephen King was funny as he acted as a retarded farm boy.

If you haven't seen this film, then do so. If you get the same effect I did, then my review should be helpful to you.

Oh yeah! if you're one of those guys who like having snacks and pop during a scary movie, then I would suggest you eat up fast before the last story. Trust me on this one!

I hope my review was helpful to you!

Creepy and cool, the best short story horror movie
This is, for me, the best short story horror film i seen so far. I seen a good amount, i am not going to say all but i seen enough to know what is good and not good. This is the best. I love all the stories, some have there weak moments but the one wih the moster in the box and the roaches are the best. I dont want to type a lot but pure in simple this movie is a good rental and worth 10 or 15 bucks in my book.

it has its charm
What can you say about this movie? It isn't the best movie King has written, not by far. Romero has given us better films--Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead. It has bad animation. Bad effects (even though I am a Savini fan). Bad acting, though we get a young Ed Harris and Leslie Nielsen does put in a surprisingly good performance. And it has those annoying comic book frames within frames. There is a lot to hate about this film. But it does have a certain charm to it. Ted Danson helpless and not so suave or in control. A gruesomeness to it. King plays the hokey hick very well. You can't help but to like this movie, bad as it is.

For TALES FROM THE CRYPT fans everywhere!
The film tells the story of a young boy whose comic contains five stories told in the same vein of early 50's horror comic stories. The film is written by Stephan King (who also appears in the second story in his only starring role,) and directed by George A. Romerio (origonal LIVING DEAD trilogy). Included also are a few brief animated sequences.

A man pays a visit to his family from beyond the grave...

A farmer finds a meteorite that, when broken, spills fourth a strange moss that grows on everything, including his own flesh...

A man and his lover seek revenge on her husband AFTER they've been murdered...

A mysterious crate found in the basement of a college hids some thing that should never be let out. You're about to find out what...

Finally, a cold-hearted billionare with a horrible fear of germs and insects finds his penthouse apartment infested with nine hundread QUADRILLION cockroaches! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Sometimes a movie achieves such legendary status that it can't quitelive up to its reputation. Plan 9 from Outer Space is not one of thesemovies. It is just as magnificently terrible as you've heard. Plan 9is the story of space aliens who try to conquer the Earth through resurrectionof the dead. Psychic Criswell narrates ("Future events such as these will affectyou in the future!") as police rush through the cemetery, occasionally clippingthe cardboard tombstones in their zeal to find the source of the mysteriousgoings-on. More than just a bad film, Plan 9 is something of a one- stop clearinghouse for poor cinematic techniques: The time shifts whimsicallyfrom midnight to afternoon sun, Tor Johnson flails desperately in an attempt torise from his coffin, and flying saucers zoom past on clearly visible strings.Fading star Bela Lugosi tragically died during filming, but such a small hurdlecould not stop writer-producer-director Ed Wood. Lugosi is ingeniously replacedwith a man who holds a cape across his face and might as well have "NOT BELALUGOSI" stamped on his forehead. Plan 9 is so sweetly well- intentioned in both its message and its execution that it's impossible not tolove it. And if you don't, well, as Eros says, "You people of Earth are idiots!"--Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (166)

Out of this world!
"Plan 9 From Outer Space" has been dubbed the worst film ever made. I can't disagree with that. Here are just a few of the things that qualifies it for that title.

- When the police drives from the town to the cemetary time somehow switches from night to day back to night.

- The Swedish accent of wrestler Tor Johnson, playing a police officer / walking corpse.

- The six feet tall, blonde chiropractor that replaced deceased Bela Lugosi.

- The plates-glued-together UFO's with strings completely visible.

- The cardboard tombstones that wiggle.

- The cemetery ground, obviously a piece of fabric covered with leaves.

- The plot, or rather lack thereof.

- The dialogue, hilariosly funny only because it's meant to be serious.

- The actors. Nuff said.

Still, it's also one of the best films ever made. Ed Wood Jr. was a filmmaker with a passion. He wanted to make films, so he made films. You can't help but respect that. That's why this movie deserves five stars, and "Deathstalker III: Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell" deserves none.

Future events such as these...
Uttery obscure until the Medved brothers' 'Golden Turkey Awards' highlighted it as the 'Worst Film Ever Made', this is not so much a 'bad' film as a hysterically incompetent one. Consistently failing to triumph over the lack of money, resources and technique available, it quite neatly shows how films should not be judged in terms of 'bad' or 'good', but in terms of 'entertaining' or 'not entertaining'. Whilst 'Plan Nine' is clearly the work of bungling, but enthusiastic incompetents, it's hugely entertaining in a way that the professionally-done 'Speed 2: Cruise Control' is not. Only 'Robot Monster' comes close the the tone of insane incoherence. Where else can you see such a diverse, iconic cast (featuring the recently-deceased Bela Lugosi, a late-night-television horror movie hostess, a wrestler, and a minor celebrity hypnotist) deliver dialogue such as 'Inspector Clay's dead, murdered, and somebody's responsible'?

Note that there are two DVD releases - this one has a lengthy (longer than the film, in fact) documentary, whilst the other has a plug for Tim Burton's equally-good 'Ed Wood'. This one is slightly more expensive, but worth getting, as the documentary is excellent. Commenting on picture and sound quality seems somehow inappropriate, really.

Well it ain't the worst
In fact besides I'd go as far as to say this is perhaps the most competent Ed Wood movie around. Sure there are glaring errors such as Bela running back and forth to the grave in broad daylight ( when it's supposed to be night-time ) and his replacement is obvious ( come on, he's at least 4 inches taller I reckon ). And indeed the last 20 minutes descended into a farce that unfortunately sunk the film. Yes, it shows a degree of ineptitude on Ed's part but for most of the film there was an almost professional air to how the actors acted.

Ed thought that he'll be remembered for this film. This was his big one and he's right, it's the one we remember him most for. However I don't think he would have liked the tag it's been given but if you want to be remembered he certainly went about the right way in doing it ( even if the results were all wrong )

But if we start at the start with Bela's last real scene where he mourns his lover's death - that was a really touching scene. The emotion in that looks too real that it can't be described as fake or cardboard cut out. If anything that was the most poignant scene Ed ever captured on film. He may have been an inept film-maker but that was a stroke of genius - no kidding!

I get the feeling Ed cast Vampira as Lugosi's wife mainly because if you've seen the Tim Burton movie you'll know that Lugosi thought she was " a honey " and it was certainly a nice gesture to Bela to do that. Vampira doesn't have to do much in this film. Just walk really slowly and look ominous whenever the camera is on her. Looks beautiful while doing so I have to admit. I'm almost certain that she inspired George Romero to make Night of The Living Dead by her walking alone.

Criswell makes his appearance in this film and you have to say, him, along with Vampira and Tor, got almost uncanny lookalikes in Tim Burton's biopic that it seems almost spooky.

Hats off to whoever had the idea of using saucer lids for um the use of flying saucers. Really neat and easily identified even if it was black and white. Still not too bad a job. Oh and who could forget Saturn as a ballbearing - Top Class!

The last 20 minutes are a farce as I've said before mainly because it's supposed to be a showdown between the humans and the aliens....or to be more precise 3 men with guns and a man and a woman in funny clothing that are supposed to be aliens. The acting here is horrifically poor and despite it all being passionately acted it just seems.....well a bit silly. And whatever niggling doubts you had about the film leading up to the last 20 minutes, will no doubt be exposed by the end. A shame because the film showed Ed at his most coherent. And that sadly was the pinnacle of Ed's career.

So all in all it's not the worst movie of all time and certainly not the worst you'll ever see ( unless you're a connoisseur of good taste and in that case what the hell are you reading this for ). Definitely his most enjoyable film. Now if someone could only just tell Criswell to shut up ( I wish Ed had tried, honestly try to do that ).

But for Ed, this would be his shot at greatness and while it backfired, it was about as good as he could make it. Perhaps if he were making these now and not 40 years ago he might have gotten away with it. And I'm sure Ben Affleck would have been great as the dumb pilot if it were made now. Think about it

Here's to Ed though - he may not have been the greatest but he sure knew how to entertain us

Bela Lugosi Lives! (Just not in this film)
How does one describe a movie such as this? Like "Robot Monster," it is a masterpiece, and like "Robot Monster," this is not because "Plan 9 From Outer Space" has even a shadow of an ounce of quality to it. Rather, this is an example of just how wrong everything in any creative project can go if it is in the hands of the right angora-wearing genius.

For nothing (and I mean NOTHING) came out right in this movie. Continuity? Hah! Realistic dialogue? Pish! Convincing acting? Gah! Remotely realistic special effects? Heaven forbid! No, what Ed Wood gave us with "Plan 9" is quite simply a cinematic failure that not even Orson Wells could have duplicated if he had tried. In what other movie is one of your stars dead even before the script is written or shooting begins?

No, "Plan 9" is unique, a thing that we mere mortals can only begin to try and understand. Instead we can only watch, transfixed and trembling in awe that Wood's vision was transmitted so perfectly to the silver screen. This is a movie that well deserves to be ranked among the immortal creations of motion picture history, despite or perhaps because of the fact that it completely lacks any of the features that would normally merit such an inclusion.

To think otherwise can only be the result of stupid minds. Stupid! Your stupid, stupid minds!

"You see. You see. Your stupid minds. Stupid. Stupid."
Also known as "Grave Robbers From Outer Space", Edward D. Wood's masterpiece of horrific filmmaking has been called the "worst movie ever made" by more than a few critics and movie fans. This hasn't kept this unintentially hilarious sci-fi dud from becoming a massive cult classic. And rightfully so. Ed Wood's art for making movies so bad that they're actually good has never been more apparent than it is here.

"Plan 9" revolves around a couple of space invaders in bad suits who fly around in spaceships on strings and resurrect the recently dead to haunt the inhabits of a small town where it seems to go back and forth from night to day a lot. The humans aren't having it though as a joint team of the local police, military, and an overacting airline pilot refuse to be terrorized by the undead creatures (who can't decide whether they're ghouls or vampires). But these visitors from a badly-drawn planet resembling Saturn have their own intentions. They're hear to warn us of a new solar-powered weapon that the Earth will eventually create and wipe out the universe. But our heroes aren't going down without a fight. They've got enough army movie stock footage to send them aliens back where they came from.

What makes "Plan 9" so entertainingly terrible? Where do I start? There's the overly-descriptive narration of Criswell who practically gives play-by-play for every action in the film. You've got Bela Lugosi who appears courtesy of silent footage recorded before his death and with the help of a stand-in who looks nothing like him. And who could forget those cooky cops who don't allow the discovery of their Captain's horrifying death to damper their moods any? Also there's Duke Moore's hards-as-nails detective who fearlessly uses his gun to fix his hat when necessary.From the bargain basement graveyard chalk full of cardboard headstones to the hungry young overactors spitting out silly dialouge, "Plan 9" is truly the "Citizen Kane of bad movies".

For those looking to pick this gem up on DVD, the Image edition is the only way to go. Not only is the picture the best that it's ever looked but it comes with a feature-length documentary, "Flying Saucers Over Hollywood: The Plan 9 Companion" and the trailer for the movie. Avoid the Passport version which has a company logo imprinted in the bottom corner similiar to the ones that TV networks use. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Peter Greenaway (The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, Drowning by Numbers) continues to delight and disturb us with his talent for combining storytelling with optic artistry. The Pillow Book is divided into 10 chapters (consistent with Greenaway's love of numbers and lists) and is shot to be viewed like a book, complete with tantalizing illustrations and footnotes (subtitles) and using television's "screen-in-screen" technology. As a child in Japan, Nagiko's father celebrates her birthday retelling the Japanese creation myth and writing on her flesh in beautiful calligraphy, while her aunt reads a list of "beautiful things" from a 10th-century pillow book. As she gets older, Nagiko (Vivian Wu) looks for a lover with calligraphy skills to continue the annual ritual. She is initially thrilled when she encounters Jerome (Ewan McGregor), a bisexual translator who can speak and write several languages, but soon realizes that although he is a magnificent lover, his penmanship is less than acceptable. When Nagiko dismisses the enamored Jerome, he suggests she use his flesh as the pages which to present her own pillow book. The film, complete with a musical score as international as the languages used in the narration, is visually hypnotic and truly an immense "work of art." --Michele Goodson ... Read more

Reviews (106)

The Word Made Flesh
The Pillow Book is a rare film that transcends limitations of film and text in a unique handling by auteur Peter Greenaway. Based loosely on the tenth century writings of Sei Shonagon, Greenaway brings to the screen a rich visual amalgam that relies on stunning settings, the physical beauty of actors Vivian Wu and Ewan McGregor, and the joy of ancient and modern systems of writing that is calligraphy. Greenaway's penchant for incorporating art, numbers, books, and architecture in a filmic medium ensure those who enjoy his style will not be disappointed. As a young child, Wu's character has celebrated her birthday's by having her father write the story of creation on her face in a family ritual celebration. However, with adulthood and marriage, her spouse is neither interested nor willing to continue her tradition. Frustrated at her inability to find a lover who is a good calligrapher, or a calligrapher who is a good lover, Wu finally meets a bi-sexual translator, Jerome (McGregor) who offers himself to Wu as a living surface for her erotic creativity. Inspired by the opportunity to obtain revenge on the publisher who blackmailed her father and is Jerome's lover, Wu's character, Nagiko creates the ultimate love poem illuminated in red, gold and black characters and delivered to the publisher on the naked body of Jerome. The Pillow Book is adult eroticism at it's most sensuous and visual best. It is a story that revels in binaries of profane and grotesque, yet delights the eye with Greenaway's ability to translate a vision of love and horror into a singular statement of lush physical beauty and sexuality.

A Finely Created Work of Art
I happen to be a great admirer of the controversial Mr Greenaway. I think his direction in film is bold and produces powerful results. The Pillow Book is a great example of this talent. It is an amazing combination of his narrative technique, experimental explorations and talent for finding compelling stories. The images are beautiful, especially the shot of Vivian Wu standing in the rain covered with writing on her flesh which slowly melts away. Her character is not that complex, but the action of the story is sufficient to carry her along throughout the tale as she fights for independence and a suitable form of artistic expression. Essentially the story is about the fetishisation of books and sex. These things are enough to make a great movie in my mind. Nagiko is a girl who goes through a ritual where her father writes on her back on her birthday as he tells her of a myth. After burning her way out of a suffocating marriage, she grows up to become a radical artist writing on bodies and searching for a man who can replace her father in the birthday tradition. She meets a talented man named Jerome who she falls in love with, but is eventually sacrificed to her father's old enemy. In the course of the narrative she writes her own Pillow Book on a series of men. It culminates in a gruesome act of jealousy and revenge (a notion not foreign to Greenaway's narratives).

The scene of Jerome's suicide is particularly powerful and works well with the screen-in-screen shots because it shows in one shot the sequence between thought and action, self-perception and actual action. This is a new style for Greenaway that works tremendously well in this movie because it fits so well with the egotism and self-obsession of the characters involved. The movie as a whole is a powerful evocation of a great Japanese classic. I highly recommend this movie who is in the mood to watch something eccentric, visually moving and stunningly beautiful.

A porn movie but 'Artistic'
Highly over-rated. It's like when an artist pisses and ejaculates over a picture and calls it 'nature', then people go 'ooooh aaaaaah!such genius!'. That pretty much summarises it.

Beauty and obsession
Two of the most beautiful things in the world are the written word and the human figure. Even the ones that are not special in themselves embody meaning and subtlety. When Greenaway uses the figure to carry words, he creates imagery that can not be forgotten.

There is so much in this movie that I hardly know where to begin. It starts with a child. Her father's birthday ritual is to tell her a story, always the same one, and to paint calligraphy on her face. Maybe it's a little silly, but it's sweet and loving.

Over time, the girl loses her innocence but gains the strength of adulthood. Her memory of that charming ritual develops, too. First, it loses its childhood innocence; it becomes a passion for her, and the standard by which she measures her lovers. In the end, the ritual gains even more strength and becomes the vehicle for a deadly obsession.

I must warn the potential viewer that the movie's second half goes places far beyond where sanity stops. It is not for people with tender sensibilities.

I'll come back to this movie for it sensual beauty. I won't come back too often, though. The raw rage at the end is just too hard.

Ridiculously overrated
A director tosses in some "artful" shots and full nudity for most of the movie and suddenly it's a "beautiful film"???
I kept expecting to see Marilyn Chambers pop up in scenes. I'm not against T&A flicks, but this is trying to be something it isn't, which is sad and pathetic. It's a cheap trashy film that gets a good reputation b/c of who directed it. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

Heartbreaking, Soulful Science Fiction
Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solaris," offered in an absolutely stunning digital transfer from the talented folks at Criterion, is an acquired taste. It's long, incredibly slow in its pacing, and oddly moderate in tone despite its subject matter (the main character, Kris, played by Donatas Banionis, seems too restrained at times, given what he experiences). It contains some idiosyncratic, perhaps even questionable, narrative and aesthetic choices. And it balances the intellectual and the emotional very precariously; even though Tarkovsky wanted to make a film that was more humane and emotional than Kubrick's "2001" (which he found to be cold and sterile), "Solaris" is still a film about abstract ideas, making one wonder if Tarkosvky succeeded in his aims. These elements can get in the way of the film's wonder and beauty if viewers aren't deliberately open to its possibilities.

For all of its techno-scienctific and philosophical approach to its themes of love, life, memory, grief, humanity, reality, and perception, "Solaris" is, at its core, a heartbreaking, soulful mystery that renders its deepest meanings not through space travel or planetary exploration or battles between good and evil, but through a touching, mystical relationship between a grieving widower and the dream-like, tangible apparition of his dead wife. Kris Kelvin, a psychologist, travels to a Russian space station hovering above the planet Solaris to investigate trouble and determine if the station should remain operational. In the process, he gets trapped by Solaris's mystery, the ability of its conscious, sentient life force to probe his memories and consciousness. His late wife Hari (magnificently played by Natalya Bondarchuk) appears and reappears and struggles to understand who (or what) she is, while Kelvin must struggle to understand his grief, his memory, and the proper uses of science and technology.

The remarkability of "Solaris" as a cinematic experience lies not only in the intrigue of its central event, but also in Tarkosvky's subtle, respectful, and appropriate emotional touch. If it takes a seemingly lengthy amount of time before Kelvin (and we) experience Solaris and its mysteries, the methodical pace makes the emotional impact all the more significant. Hari's and Kelvin's struggles are heartbreaking, and precisely because Tarkovsky needn't spell them out; he gives them the time and space they require. In addition, Tarkovsky's visuals are perfectly attuned to his intelletcual and emotional themes. In that stunningly beautiful, dreamlike, famous brief moment when Hari and Kris experience weightlessness in the space station, the film becomes viscerally alive, and you momentarily wonder if you have ever seen anything more beautiful.

"Solaris" is demanding, no doubt, and just when it seems that you have come to understand what it means, Tarkovsky makes it more mysterious by offering an ending that will force you to rethink the entire film. It's also a unique cinematic experience, a testament to Tarkovsky's powerful artistry, and proof that the most demanding of works tend to offer the most lasting rewards.

2001 Anti-Matter...A Different Vision
Made in the Soviet Union a few years after Kubrick's 2001, Solaris is maddening, enigmatic, sometimes illogical and frustrating, but in the end an engrossing, moody, eliptical meditation on science and morality, conscience and guilt, love and indifference.

The director, Andrei Tarkovsky, had seen 2001 prior to filming Solaris, and was determined to go in a different direction from the meticulous & detailed technologic bent of Kubrick's masterpiece. Special effects here are minimal, but adequate for Tarkovsky to tell his story. His is a messy, humanistic affair, with a trashed and lived-in space station as its setting, quite the oppposite of the coldly logical, icy brilliance of Kubrick's vision. Both films are concerned with the reason and meaning of being and mankind's fate or destiny, but while Kubrick's is related with minimal dialogue, Tarkovsky's people talk and talk.

I found the Solaris dialogue at times intriguing, often ungraspable and opague, enigmatic in interesting ways, and sometimes unnecessarily enigmatic at other times. The great similarity between the two films is the fantastic visual feast both directors bring to their very different stories. Kubrick's film captures the cold emptiness and vast isolation of space, and the tremendous amount of technology required to put fragile humans in that hostile environment. Tarkovky's space station is messy, used, lived-in and familiar, i.e., a human habitat.

The two films have a couple of other things in common: in both films the most "human" character in the story is "non-human", HAL in 2001, and Hari in Solaris; and, both the central characters eventually are taken on a mind-bending journey within themselves and without to a somewhere other than the world they know.

The Tarkovsky film is a 70's film. That means long takes and tracking shots, with a slow narrative that doesn't have jump cuts and the razzle-dazzle of today's editing. It requires patience and probably more than one viewing to absorb. Even at that, it will be open to interpretation, because for all the dialogue, Tarkovsky doesn't explain a lot, and in some instances, refutes the inner logic of this own story. This won't matter to many viewers who will be content with the visual treats and the wonderful evocation of mood and mystery, and a story of the emphemeral nature of love and existence, so easily slipping from one's grasp. Others may find it too confusing and slow and lose patience.

Considering the conditions and restrictions Andrei Tarkovsky was working under , both financially and politically, his achievement here is as impressive as Kubrick's daring and innovative film. Except for a few scenes that may be oblique comments on the Soviet system, you would not know this film had arisen from under the weight of that regime. Although sometimes a bit heavy-handed, Solaris is a film about the nature and meaning of being human, and how that fits in an increasingly cold and technological world. If you aren't in a hurry, it may be worth your while. 4-1/2 stars.

Learning one's place
We find a creature who seems far more advanced than we are. Who we might like to destroy but hardly know if we can. Who can seemingly turn our minds against us. For whom we don't seem to be a priority at all. Of whom our best minds manage only feeble speculations.

I saw this movie first and only recently read Lem's story. Tarkovsky got a great start from Lem. It's difficult to compare text and movie. Tarkovsky seemed to have been reasonably faithful to the contents of the book, but added a long introduction as well as his own ending. Both works are impressive. Tarkovsky seems to linger often so a good deal of patience is a prerequisite for enjoying this film.

Now that I've read Lem's "Solaris", I'm less satisfied with Tarkovsky's "Solaris". Lem's book moved along well. Tarkovskky's added introduction (including moving up the inquiry of Burton) accomplishes little and the ending may be more explicit than is needed: hasn't Solaris already done enough to impress? On the other hand, Tarkovsky's cast is excellent (I especially enjoyed Hari and Snow) and visually the movie is a treat.

A movie of Promethean scope
Tarkvosky's "Solaris" takes on so many deep seated philosophical questions at once that by the end of the film, the casual viewer may feel overwhelmed. It is a madness trip, an intellectual exercise, a visual piece, absurdism, a dramatic catharsis and an uncomfortable probing of the human self all at once. This is not "shut off your mind" stuff. The long and short of it: three scientists visit Solaris, a planet which seems to be an alternate reality, and suffer the consequences. Chris (really the main focus of the film), a scientist, is warned repeatedly by a colleague who suffered a mental breakdown on the station about how dangerous it is, but pays no heed. One commits suicide before the unfortunate Chris arrives. Hari, his wife who committed suicide when he left her years ago, appears and despite Chris' initial attempt to blast her in the space, is seemingly there to stay. Chris is warned by both men (a ruthless scientist and a drunk) that he is being deceived, and that she is not his real wife, but Hari seems to have feelings which are genuinely human despite being an illusion. There are awful scenes in which she splits apart, re-emerges painfully back into 'life', etc. All the while Chris engages in philosophical discussions about the worthy or unworthy nature of mankind, quoting Tolstoy and, of course, Dostoevsky. Some of it is drop dead funny, perhaps without intending to be: an air of absurdity overshadows everything taking place. When the two men on the ship with him decide that itss time Chris gave up the ghost and destroy Hari, he returns home and still seems to be a million miles away. We are not sure if he is sane in the last scene, which is frighteningly reminiscent. He is in slow motion, behaving like a man high on LSD. Will he ever regain his sanity? Was a part, at least, of Hari real? When she viewed his home videos with the 'original' Hari (among the scariest sequences in the film), why did she respond as if she knew? Tarkovsky skillfully keeps us dangling from his parapet. This is a kickass, disturbing movie.

Its Strengths Far Outweigh its Weaknesses
Though it suffers from a maudlin and morbid fascination with negative emotions, Solaris is a tremendous achievement. The achievement is in the extreme physical beauty of the film itself and the challenging intelligence of the ideas raised but not always explored. At issue is nothing less than the nature of humanity. Is a human defined by its conciousness, its memories, its emotions, its senses, its history, its origin, its desire to live or some combination of all or some of those traits. Be forewarned, the film is extremely slow and deliberate & its lacks any real plot. We americans tend to like our movies with plots. It many cultures, the ideas are more important than the plots but in America the plot is generally more important than the ideas. Consequently, idea driven movies like Solaris are seen as dull and boring because there is no forward momentum. Here in America, it is considered acceptable to respond to movies like Solaris by saying, "I don't watch movies to think. If I want to think, I'll read a book." This is what happens when you raise millions of people on television and fast food. ... Read more

Reviews (162)

"Pray for Rosemary's Baby"
This is the greatest horror film, and one of the greatest films ever, period.

Everything in it works. From that terrific tag line to the creepy poster art, to that off kilter lullaby Mia Farrow croons, to every single performance, line of dialogue and scene. The cast is perfection. The terror is palpable. The extras set the movie in its time, but the movie has surpased its time and become, like all true classics, for the ages. The Bramley will never be razed for a parking lot. Ira Levin's superb novel was blessed by Roman Polanski's film. Both are landmarks touched with more than a little genius.

The movie is wickedly funny, deliciously entrancing, groundbreakingly "real" because it's horror is set in present day New York; also, the elderly couple next door, who are the coven leaders, are played to the hilt by nosey Ruth Gordon and the intriguing Sidney Blackmer; therefore, it's easy to come under their spell. Blackmer especially gives an almost noble performance that is rich and wise. The entire cast is at the top of their game.

Maurice Evan's Hutch is the hope and comfort of the film, the logical reality against what is inexorably happening, while Ralph Bellamy's Dr. Saperstein (he was on "Open End," you know)is that soft spoken easygoing evil that you just know hides a little below the surface of most of his ilk. It's also fun seeing Hope Summers (Clara Edwards of "The Andy Griffith Show") as a Satanist. Not out of character here, really. Did Aunt Bea ever find out?

It's ironic that the movie probably could not be made today. The current crop of puritans would rail against it; odd, since the bare bones of the plot hew to what they say they believe. But while those lame Left Behind movies and the others artlessly propound beating foolish stuff into its audiences heads, "Rosemary's Baby" plays knowingly with fiction, with what ifs, with the paranoia come true, all in a twisty gripping eerie exciting film, produced by the great William Castle, who has just the right cameo that comes with the chill first, then the laughter.

Mia Farrow's heart wrenching Rosemary Woodhouse leads us into her terror and pain, then into her first goosebumpy nightmare come true reaction to her son, propelling into that final reaction, maybe even scarier, as the camera wisely pans to the window and the outside of the Bramley. There are some fine character actors as well, always dependable Elisha Cook, Jr. Philip Leeds and Patsy Kelly.

John Cassavetes, as Guy Woodhouse, also creeps us out as he sells himself and Rosemary, and I guess, their baby, and the world, to Satan, to further his acting career. Being in bit parts in "Luther" and "Nobody Loves an Albatross" can only take an actor just so far. Priorities, after all. So settle down with some "plain old Lipton Tea," a bowl of "chocolate mouse" and a Vodkda Blush, and watch a classic again or for the first time. Watch out for mouse bites, though.

CLASSIC TERROR
Roman Polanski concocted a devilish, stylish witches' brew of paranoia and real terror with this movie -- the movie is literally soaked with detail and imagination. Yet the terrors are mostly psychological, pulled off in the most amazing way, filling you, along with Rosemary, with absolute dread. Ira Levin's story, which reads significantly more outlandish in its terrors, is given a 60's pop art/New York look, what with its fabulous use of the Dakota as the ominous Bram, and Mia's delightful costumes. The dream sequences actually further the plot, and are spectacular visualizations of the narrative, providing insight into her strictly circa-late 60s Catholic upbringing. Mia Farrow is sensational as Rosemary, with her big eyes and winning sweetness; her transformation is riveting. Ruth Gordon provides more than enough creepiness all on her own, and John Cassavettes is absolutely perfect as Rosemary's ambitious, cunning husband. The wildly provocative premise places the son of the devil in Manhattan -- and as the movie cast its spell, you descend into madness with Rosemary, who, after all, simply wants the dream of motherhood in her pretty apartment. The bookend lullaby will continue to haunt you for days.

ROMAN AND MIA`S BEST
With all-star-performances from Mia, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer and John Cassavetes, Polish-director Roman Polanski offers his BEST film.... The seduction-scenes with the Devil - and Rosemary`s nightmares were based on LSD-trips and discussions between Roman and his wife, Sharon Tate. Sharon can be seen briefly in the "making of" and supposedly as an extra when Rosemary is having a party. The film is still disturbing and watchable. Rosemary`s humming is indeed by Mia Farrow.

ROSEMARYS BABY DVD- MIA FARROW
A BRILLIANT MOVIE!! A DEFINITE CLASSIC TO HAVE IN YOUR COLLECTION.ONE OF THE SCARIEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME. MIA FARROW IS EXCELLENT IN HER POTRAYAL OF ROSEMARY AS WELL AS RUTH GORDON AS THE NOSY,WITCH NEXT DOOR. DONT MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH DR. SAPERSTEIN!!!! ALSO,SEE A VERY YOUNG CHARLES GRODIN. THE BEGINNING SEQUENCE IS CLASSIC AS THEY SHOW ALL SHOTS OF THE DAKOTA FROM ALL ANGLES. A MOVIE YOU WILL LOVE.

"What have you done to his eyes?"
The cast of Rosemary's Baby really help bring the wonderful characters of the novel to life. Mia Farrow is perfectly cast as Rosemary, as is John Cassevetes as her husband Guy. I could not imagine anyone other than Ruth Gordon playing Minnie Castevet, the annoying neighbor with a dark secret. Sidney Blackmer as her husband is truly memorable. The supporting cast is equally terrific and the story is suspenseful and chilling, brilliantly written for the screen by Roman Polanski. I have not seen a more faithful adaptation of a novel yet, and it works wonderfully, conveying Rosemary's turmoil and madness effectively. Mia Farrow plays her to perfection, vulnerable yet brave. The ending is truly memorable and creepy. I just wish the tone of the film was darker, but perhaps the subject matter was controversial enough in 1968. Perhaps a darker remake is in order? That would be great! ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the most absurdly violent films ever made, this outrageous comic book of a movie is short on style but makes up for it in sheer audacity and excess. Brooding street kid Ricky Ho (Fan Siu Wang, playing the part of avenging angel with self-righteous earnestness) walks into the corrupt corporate prison system with superpowered martial arts skills and proceeds to punch his way through every bullying thug and sadistic guard who comes his way. Literally. His fist puts a gaping hole through the stomach of a giant sumo-wrestler-sized thug and the jaw of a pompadoured bully, and turns the skull of a pathetic guard into a bloody stump. As Ricky becomes a hero to the downtrodden prisoners, the assistant warden (who keeps breath mints in his removable glass eye) organizes the dreaded "gang of four," the cell block gang leaders, to take Ricky down. Fat chance!

There's nothing realistic about the bone-shattering, blood-splattering spectacle of crushed heads and snapped limbs, but the unrestrained display becomes so preposterously grotesque it hardly matters. You'll be convinced that the "Oh" in Riki-Oh stands for "Oh my God, did I really see that?" Yes, Ricky really does tie a sliced tendon with his teeth, a thug cuts open his gut and uses his own intestines to strangle Ricky, and the warden (for no apparent reason) puffs himself up into a giant rubber ogre. Ricky's curvy, feminine nemesis Rogan is played by Yukari Oshima, the butt-kicking, all-woman star of Angel and others. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (75)

A movie so bad that it's entertaining.
....Riki-Oh: The story of Ricky is a B movie beyond any B movie I've ever seen.As a movie, it gets 1 star,as a form of visual entertainment for the morbid,and/or people with strong stomachs looking for a movie to make fun of,a full 5 stars.The dubbing is bad,the music is bad, the plot is full of holes,and ridiculous things happen in his movie that could never occur in real life,but all this does not matter,because the gore and violence are so over the top. If you have a morbid sense of humor, this movie will definitely do. There are tons of graphic scenes of major mutilation and death.I found it so funny that I often had to replay the scenes in slow motion to see how they did it,and when you slow it down,it looks even funnier.This movie is crazy,and doesn't make a ton of sense,but I find it very entertaining.If you've got that "special sense of humor",you owe it to yourself to buy this DVD,and gross your friends out with it.I have to find/make a T shirt that has the DVD box art on it! Too funny.

Ridiculously violent masterpiece of bloodshed and mayhem.
OK, this is either the worst movie ever made, or the best, depending on how you look at it. By normal standards upon which most movies are reviewed, it doesn't get much more terrible than this. However, based upon sheer violent content that reaches such an unbelievably, unimaginably, outrageously graphic level it achieves comedic sickness whether its meant to or not, it is the best movie ever. Riki Oh is by far the bloodiest, goriest, and sickest film ever concieved. Imagine the game Mortal Kombat... and make it 50x bloodier. Holes are punched through people, heads are crushed, tendons are ripped and tied, intestines are pulled out and used as weapons, body parts fly, eyes shoot out from the sockets, and people are shoved into meat grinders. That is only half of it. Blood flows like water. Watch it, you'll have a good time doing it. You'll be watching the fight scenes over just to make sure that, yes, you really saw Ricky tie his own tendon with his teeth. Watch it with a group of friends, you'll all be laughing your butts off, either that or vomitting profusely. Riki Oh is a tremendously enjoyable experience, however those who are weak of stomache should stray away from this movie at all costs. If you are a gore freak, or just looking for a good distraction from your woes, by all means get Riki Oh. If you are looking for depth of plot and heartfelt acting, avoid Riki Oh no matter what. Again, it cannot be stressed how insanely violent this movie is.

So bad it's funny
Story of Riki is a must see.
It is so bad it's funny. Especially the laughable dubbed version of the film.

The plot is pretty dull but still holds a grudge.
The film is very very Cheesy too.

The violence is over the top but very unrealistic but Still over the top such as the part were Riki pumbles through a guys stomach or of course the part were riki smashes through a guys hans. This film is very very violent and graphic but in a funny way.

The music was acctually pretty good! The story of Riki Rules! And I recomend this too some one who just wants to see some thing F-d up.

Over all this is a horrbily but funny movie even though it's not tended to be funny.

Get it...NOW!!!

Later

Ricky's Great! Ricky's superb!!!!
Recently I've been reading up on Horror movies while on the internet, which naturally leads to discussion of gory films. Not too many non-horror movies would generally come up, except for this one, which was referred to repeatedly. Still, I wasn't too interested til I came across it in a store, and noticed the 'features the hilarious exploding head from the daily show' sticker.

Clearly, this was a film I had to see.

Normally, I write long, tedious reviews, but really what can you say about Riki-Oh. This is the height of camp entertainment. It is compulsively watchable, including the non-action scenes which still have immeasurable camp appeal. The ultra-cheap, inappropriately brightly colored sets are delightful, and the subtitles are absolutely atrocious, both of which add to the film's appeal. Honestly, this movie would be pretty damn amusing even without the delirious effects.

The effects are the real star, and they are fall-down hilarious. Contrary to what you may think, there isn't much kung-fu in this film, especially on the part of Ricky, who generally just lands a single, explosive deathblow with his mighty fist. There isn't all that much variety in the gore fx, but the sheer absurdity and audacity of the bare-handed-explosive-mutilations maintains interest througho