Reviews (1)

Beautiful music, romance and troubled times in one's life.
A wonderfully written story about a Spanish painter, Francesco Goya,and his viewpoint of life during the Spanish Inquisition, and his obsession with an intriguing and beautiful woman, the Countess of Alba. This is a movie worth seeing. It tells of life during the inquisition , of trying to stay in favor with the courts and also keep their social standing even when associating with the common people. Beautiful Spanish music makes you feel as if you are there. This movie has a combination of love and romance, jealousy, hatred and death and combined together makes a very good story. Anthony Franciosa and Ava Gardner were very believable in their portrail of these characters. They draw you into the story and make you feel as if you are a part of it all. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Yes, you can get too cerebral in a Frankenstein movie
The title of "Frankenstein Unbound" is an allusion to the Greek tragedy "Prometheus Unbound" by Aeschylus, which makes sense since the subtitle of Mary Shelley's novel was "The Modern Prometheus." Now, in terms of understanding the novel "Frankenstein" the most important thing to understand is that Dr. Frankenstein's crime is not in creating the creature, but rather in abandoning it after it comes to life. "Frankenstein Unbound" takes the counter-position and does so in a rather convoluted manner.

The idea here is that the story of Frankenstein is both a real story and a novel. That story is based on the novel of the same name by Brian Aldiss with the screenplay by F.X. Feeney and director Roger Corman. John Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a scientist in the year 2031 who is working on a new secret weapon for the government that dispatches the enemy by sending them into another time. Buchanan ends up being randomly dispatched by his machine and going back 200 years to find himself in the part of Shelley's novel where the younger brother of Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia) has been killed by the creature (Nick Brimble); I know he is called the monster, but since I always consider the doctor to be the true monster so on principle I always call the creature "the creature." However, an innocent girl, Justine Moritz (Catherine Corman), is being blamed for the murder and the locals are going to execute her as a witch. Buchanan also runs into Mary Wollstoncraft Godwin (Bridget Fonda), the future Mrs. Shelley, and gets her to help in a futile effort to save the girl. Lord Byron (Jason Patric) and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence) show up as well, but there is little time to discuss 19th-century English poetry since the creature is out there ready to kill again. Then it dawns on Buchanan that the technology that sent him back to 1831 might be of some use in writing the wrongs (at which point every Frankenstein movie ever made will cease to exist).

The greatest sin of this 1990 film is that it almost works. The ideas are provocative enough and the cast is too good for "Frankenstein Unbound" to descend to the level of camp. Certainly Corman is trying to make something more pretentious than his nominal fare. But at the end of all this that a lot more is being unbound than Frankenstein pretty much blows your mind. We understand that Doctors Buchanan and Frankenstein are mirrors of each other, and that sooner or later the former will recognize himself in the latter. But the intentional use of anachronisms is glaring rather than creative, the creature's make up suggests Frankenstein needs to work on his sewing technique, and there are enough Cormanisms throughout this film to belie the fact that for the first time in his career he had a decent budget. This is not a Frankenstein film that anyone would want to randomly pick up. At the very least you need to have read the original novel to at least be able to appreciate what Corman (and Aldiss) were trying to accomplish here.

The terror never ends
From the get go, this movie is one of the worst I've seen so far. The fact that the actors have actual talent really makes me wish I liked it, but alas...the terrible special effects, poor plot design, and lousy period costumes and scenes really made me want to turn it off. You can't UNsee a movie, so lets just hope there are better options out there.

Thumbs up!
After 19 years of absence, legendary director Roger Corman returns to direct "Franenstein Unbound". This version is based on Brian Aldiss' novel. It's quite different from the other classic approaches. The idea is about a man (John Hurt) who lives in the future 2031 & moves back in time (19th Century) and meets an earlier scientist Frankenstein (Raul Julia). Frankenstein has created a Monster who has already killed his 6-year-old brother and is now threatening the entire city...

It's wonderful how they blended the life of Mary Shelley - the young woman who will later write the novel FRANKENSTEIN!

What was this load of ... aboot !
When i first saw this movie i thought it was some sort of sci-fi channel spoof, but i guess i was wrong it was meant to be a "serious" sci-fi film! To call this movie campy is an understatement, Frankenstein was'nt just unbound it was a whirling dervish! Jeez... roger corman used to make better ....
later guys.

I am Unbound...
Despite campy moments and the occasional silly special effect, Frankenstein Unbound surprisingly offers up an intriguing morality tale. While it is definatly a horror/sci-fi film, it really is (as the box claims) a monster movie for the thinking person.

When a future scientist (John Hurt) creates an invention that implodes space, he finds himself catapulted back to 19th century England. There he meets Mary Shelly, Percy Shelly, and, of course, Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.

The relationships between Frankenstein, Hurt's arrogant scientist, and their respective "monsters," explore the idea that once you create something you cannot un-create it. Even if you destroy your creation you can never make things the way they were before--It is unbound.

I agree with "THNEEBAN" about the monster--it is the best Frankenstein I have seen on film. I too found the ending surreal and very fitting. While not for all tastes, I am always surprised by how long this film--especially the ending--lingers in my mind. ... Read more

Reviews (53)

The most magical childrens' (& adults') movie ever made!
I have been completely enchanted with The Black Stallion since first seeing this movie in the theater at the age of 7 and then having the opportunity to meet Cass Ole in Washington, D.C. shortly thereafter. I remember being the first in line to have my picture taken with that horse!

I have never seen a movie more beautifully filmed. From start to finish you will be riveted during the trauma of the sinking freighter, the desert island scene (about 45 minutes with no speaking - you will be amazed at well they pull this off!), The Black's homecoming to New York and the final race.

I still watch this movie on occassion and my heart beats harder each time as Alec and The Black are rescued from the island and during the race. Still, my favorite scene is during the final credits where we return to the island and see Alec and The Black playing together and rolling in the sand on the beach as the most beautifully reminiscent music plays.

This is the stuff dreams are made of - I have always wanted to be Kelly Reno on that island!

Cinematography and visual storytelling at its best
If you can get past the labelling of "children's story" or "melodramatic fable", The Black Stallion has the kind of stunning filmwork reserved only for the grandest epics. The first half of the movie -- about a boy and horse shipwrecked on a small island -- is basically a silent movie. It is a story of friendship and trust that is told without the benefit of dialog. Deschanel's wonderful cinematography conveys both the island's beauty and Farley's storytelling without becoming maudlin or trite. The still photography alone brings to mind Adams, and the haunting score is near perfect for the occasion. The second half of the film reverts back to a formulaic Nerd-wins-Girl, or in this case, Boy-and-Horse-Win-Big-Race, but the performances are superb and the movie never patronizes to its adult viewers. Predictable ending aside, The Black Stallion is an awesome, visual masterpiece masquerading as a children's movie.

Great flick, poor DVD
The story and the cinematography were excellent. The transfer to DVD was very disappointing. It looked out of focus from time to time, the dark scenes were muddy, and there were film "remnants" in the transfer (scratches, film marks). And the sound, while Dolby, was 2.0 which was rather disappointing, too.
This isn't too recommend against it, just beware, it isn't the great audio/visual feast that it could be.

DON'T BE A HORSE'S PATOOT - SEE THIS MOVIE!
You don't want to miss out on this wonderful family film about a boy and his dog. The fact that Caleb Deschanel was not - huh? - a horse? Oh, yes, of course! A horse. A wonderful family film about a boy and his horse. -------- The fact that Caleb Deschanel was not even nominated for an Oscar for his extraordinary cinematography in THE BLACK STALLION goes to prove what a dog and pony show the Academy Award presentations really are. (Dang! How'd that dog sneak back in here again?) Deschanel's poetic work in this film belongs in an elite class which also includes KOYAANISQATSI and ONE FROM THE HEART. -------- Kelly Reno's work also belongs in an elite class of highly developed performances by child actors which also includes Bobs Watson in ON BORROWED TIME and Haley Joel Osment in THE SIXTH SENSE. -------- But what I really want to focus on with this review is something that only my fellow reviewer Candace Scott seemed to fully appreciate and note in her July 3, 2003 assessment: I was fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity to do a little (VERY little) professional acting in the late l970s and early '80s. It was a craft I seriously studied for many years, and having learned a bit about it, I'm here to say that MICKEY ROONEY's naturalistic performance in this movie is one of the finest ever filmed! I watch THE BLACK STALLION every couple of years and end up slack-jawed every time! -------- In acting there is something known as "False Notes", and these occur when a performer falls out of character and/or plays to the camera or audience. Even the greatest of thespians are guilty of committing False Notes in every performance. MICKEY's performance as horse trainer Henry Dailey may be the only PERFECT performance I have ever seen. Does it seem like he just isn't doing much? Does it seem like he's hardly even acting? EXACTLY!!! The viewer simply can't catch him "acting", and that's the whole point! His actions, his reactions, his speech patterns are so organic to the character he's playing that it simply floors me!!! He may have played a False Note for a brief moment in the scene where he reassures Alec who sits on the car bumper in the rain-soaked night. Maybe. MAYBE! It's arguable. I've seen many an extraordinary performance in my (nearly) 45 years, but this one is really something special. (You actors out there know exactly what I'm talking about, don't you?) There are many excellent reasons to see this film, but Mickey is the best of them. At least for me. -------- I suppose I should mention the movie's one notable flaw even though it is of such little consequence: The editing in the horse race always disturbs me a little. As they cut from the closeup on the thundering hooves to the long establishing shot and then back again, it leaves the false impression that The Black's position changes in the field of horses. But c'mon, are we gonna let a little detail like that spoil such an overall artistic success for us? No way! The bottom line is: THE BLACK STALLION is a real winner; you can bet on it!

the girl
i will like a boook on the girl. i will buy it for $5.00 ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A Sexy,Sensuous Delight!!
Matthew Modine stars as a dashing swashbuckler in old Italy being relentlessly pursued by the beautiful woman (Faye Dunaway) after losing a gambling debt and escaping with various physical and romatic encounters along the away.Also,starring the beautiful Jennifer Beals(Flashdance).It's a must see movie!! ... Read more

Description

CBS-TV. "Pontius Pilate," with GERALDINE FITZGERALD, CYRIL RITCHARD, FRANCIS L. SULLIVAN. 59 minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Paul Tripp Saves Christmas in this Musical Yultide Classic!
Pioneer kids tv educator:Paul Tripp makes his leep to

The big screen in this musical Christmas tale that is

both heartwarming,funny and pogient.

"The Christmast That Almost Wasn't"tells the story of

a mean and vindictive miser:"Phinease T.Prune"(played by

romantic singing lead:Rosino Brazzi of "South Pacific

Movie Fame).Who hates Christmas and Santa so much..that

he buys up the entire North Pole..Including Santa's work-

shop and home and raises his rent bill so high!

That Santa can't pay the rent and he hires a struggleing

lawyer:"Sam Whipple"(Paul Tripp)to help him deal with

"Mr.Prune".

Seeing that "Prune"will not listen to reason and he

refuses to disregard the rent bill.

"Whipple"gets Santa a job at"Prim's Dept.Store"where

he listens to the kids'Christmas wishes ,entertains them

and helps to sell "Mr.Prim's"(played by another well known

kids tv personality:"Wonderama's","Just For Fun's"and

"Let Take A Trip's"Sonny Fox)toys during the holidays.

But "Mr.Prune"is not one to be foiled by two good

guys.

And he conspires with his manservant:"Bascome"to

ruin the plans of our heroes.

Will he succeed in evicting The Clauses and their

workers and ruin Christmas for everyone?!

The film has a wonderful story and beautiful songs

performed by Mr.Tripp(who also wrote the tunes with Mr.Ray Carter),Mr.Brazzi and the actors playing
Santa and Mrs.Claus(Played by Mr.Brazzi's late wife Lida).

The sets are dark but charming and the acting is superb.

For anyone..who wants a truly charming and tuneful

Yultide Fantasy?

This is the one film to have.

One of best old time Family Holiday movies
If you are looking for a great family movie for Christmas, this is it!! My family has been watching this every year since it was released in 1966. My grown children still come home ( with thier children) to watch this movie together.

dvd a little different ...
great seeing this on DVD, but beware, a few changes have been made. the opening title of the film is not in english. the logo that opens the film is missing. the ending credits aren't in english either. the gag at the end of the film ("all characters are purely fictional -- except for santa claus!") is missing. to see the stuff cut here, buy a used copy of the old hbo vhs tape. oddly, this DVD has no extras; not even a trailer -- and it isn't widescreen. all that said, however, the quality is great, looking much better than the old tape. i like this film; if you do, buy the DVD. i only wish they wouldn't have cut anything out.

My First Movie
This was the first movie I saw in a movie theater. I, too, remember standing in line during a cold winter in Levittown, Long Island waiting with my friends to see this movie. Now, I share the memories with my own children.

tops
i remember waiting on line for this big time santa movie back in the early 70's on a cold saturday on long island at the old country movie in plainview lines around the block.the movie made you cry and at times you jumped out of your seat.f.t prune was the bad guy trying to take away christmas and almost falling off my seat until all the kids came thru for santa.thank charlie,remember him screaming out for help one of the best movies.i am trying to purchase the movie for my boy so we can watch it together.. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Demons 3, The Church, whatever the title, it disappoints
I am a huge Dario Argento fan. His style is just amazing. One day my eyes fell upon The Church because it had the Dario Argento name on it, and finally decided to fork over the money for it because the back stated "originally know as Demons 3", and I loved the first two Demons films and with Argento producing, how could this film goe wrong? It does. The film starts off very promisesing with a great beginning score by Goblin and then switching to knights galloping to a town full of witches. When the film changes to modern day, and then the film falls apart. It's not director Michele Soavi'd fault, he just has very little to work with in Argeno's script. The script just has huge plot holes. So big, that they insult my intellegence. Sometimes people are possessed by demons just because and some because they are scratched (like in the first two demons movies). The church was originally full of children when it was closed up, and suddenly the kids disappear. What was with Asia Argento's character also appearing in a past flashback. People who have seen this know what I mean and those of you about to see it will see what I mean. Sure Demons 2 had plot wholes, but at least it was fun to watch. The Church, sadly doesn't have near the entertainment value. The only thing that keeps the film moving is Michele Soavi's catchy camera work. Otherwise if fails miserably. I've seen the film two times and I can't get forgive some of these mistakes. Michele Soavi has directed some great horror films (Cemetery Man comes to mind), but The Church isn't one of them. Argento fans should buy this with caution. Only buy if you find it cheap or if your a Argento collector. The film just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Was I the only one who gave this a chance?
I don't know why so many people chose to ignore this movie. While I love Fulci and Argento, many critics of Church consider mediocre efforts such as New York Ripper, Phenomena, and Demons to be "Italian Horror Classics". This movie makes those films look like boring puddles of puke.
Sure, there are things wrong with this movie, but I've made a list of reasons why this deserves to be a classic:
1. The church itself is amazing! While many "Catholic Metaphysics" horror films come off as un-researched and exaggerated, this movie seems truly authentic.
2. The style of this film, worked by director Michele Soavi, has the same level of atmospheric moodiness that made movies like "The Beyond" and "Suspiria" classics. Any time you can make the day seem creepy you've done something right.
3. ... horror movies ... because if they aren't plain cheesy, they lack anything distinct and memorable that you could recall ten minutes after watching. (example: New York Ripper)
This film is LOADED with all sorts of creative and twisted gags, I can't even remember all the things that stood out to me while I watched it.
4. It has a crazy score by Goblin (for those uninitiated, sorry)
5. The subject matter and subtle historical references are intriguing and mostly accurate. (I never knew anything about alchemy or Fulcanelli, but now i'm scouring the internet for it)
6. Most "we're trapped in the haunted house" movies reduce themselves to frantic pandemonium reminiscent of the end of "Project X". Soavi shows incredible restraint in using body counts, gore, or cheap predictable pops to maintain the action.
(Although there is gore, and creative gore at that, it doesn't become a crutch)
7. This movie has total party value. Classics work in the context of being home alone at night, and having a bunch of people hanging around drinking beers. Church had my friends saying "Oh ..., rewind that!"
8. The special effects are clever and impressive. I didn't see the climax coming simply because I didn't even think that any film made on a horror budget could afford something that dope.
9. You get to see Asia Argento act as a young kid (even back then, writer Dario Argento had his little girl being menaced by demons and abusive fathers)
10. The failure in the plot doesn't wholly distract you from what's going on. For the most part, the little cracks in the plot help the uneasy feel of the movie, especially when you're watching it at 1 o'clock in the morning.
With respect to the horror experts, I think that many of them have a bias against any Italian horror film that wasn't made during the classic era of Italian horror (Church was made in the 80's, and to be fair, horror movies ... big time in the 80's)
Horror critics have a inclination to like something more if it belongs to a genre, or has a cult name director.
Church is only [money], give it a whirl.

hard ending
First of all i got to say this movie had the best devil ive ever seen in a movie before and it did have some scary scenes espiclly the awsome biggining but i didint get the endning i dont know maybe i just have to see it more i liked it but ive seen better but never a better devil oh and very very hot girls

THE UNSUNG BAVA
For all the hype he has gotten in recent years (some of it, admittedly, well deserved and long overdue), I must say that I find Mario Bava to be an uneven filmmaker at best. The movies of his that I love ("Lisa and the Devil", "Hatchet for the Honeymoon", "Black Sabbath") I REALLY love. The majority of his work, however, leaves me wanting. I understand the historical significance and stylistic influences to be found in flicks like "Twitch of the Death Nerve" and "Black Sunday", I just don't find them particularly engaging. I think Mario's biggest weakness as a filmmaker lay in his almost total lack of storytelling ability. I'm not saying every film has to have a linear narrative. Indeed, "Lisa and the Devil" has anything but traditional narrative structure. I do think, however, that eskewing traditional narrative in favor of a more experimental approach is, by definition, a gamble. And you know how it is with gambling: Sometimes you win. Most times you lose.

Which brings us to the works of Mario's son Lamberto and the movie "The Ogre" in particular. While often lambasted by fans and critics alike for his stylistic debts to dear old dad and mentor Dario Argento, I find Lamberto's opus (while not always as risk-taking) far more consistently entertaining than either of these. This is not to say that the younger Bava does not stretch himself. One look at his resume reveals films running the gamet from psychological horror that would do Roman Polanski proud ("Macabre") to gross-out over-the-top horror/action/comedy hybrids that, twenty years later, should still please fans of the post-Raimi horror scene ("Demons" and "Demons 2") to works of dark fantasy that play like fairy tales come to life. It is in this latter category that I would place "The Ogre". Those looking for the kind of wacky-splatter on display in the two Demons films are strongly advised to look elsewhere. Indeed, I think the linking of this film with those earlier works does all involved a disservice. If you absolutely must see this film as a sequel to something, I advise you to see it under one of it's many other monikers: "Ghosthouse 2". Fans of Umberto Lenzi's original "Ghosthouse" would probably find much more to like here than those who go into this surprisingly gentle yarn expecting severed heads and wall-to-wall viscera. In a way, both films operate on a very similar level. They are both exercises in some well-worn genre trappings. Any fan of horror will almost immediately guess where both films are headed. Nonetheless, both manage to bring a sense of wonder and joy to the proceedings as well as a few new artistic flourishes that you may not see elsewhere. I would say "The Ogre" fares much better than "Ghosthouse" in terms of cinematography and production design. It is a beautiful looking film and, if given the chance, a very good old-style monster movie. Give it a shot.

Below my expectations.....
When I heard about this movie, I wanted to watch it for it's name alone, I felt nervous watching it because I thought it was going to be as frightening as other horror films involving religion. Now, the acting is very good, the scenery is amazing and eerie, it's what I expected to look like when I saw the cover of it. There is plenty of gore and in very gruesome ways, the subway scene is historic! There is one scene from this movie that is a really famous painting, let's see if you will know what scene I'm talking about. I liked the ending of the movie, it's a real twist, but I was expecting alot more. I kept saying to myself, this has to be the scene where the dead rise! But there are no zombies in this movie so don't expect any, there's alot of de javu in this, but I really expected more, like a battle between good and evil. The atmosphere couldn't have been any better, if you're a horror fan wanting to watch something different, with a really creepy atmosphere watch this movie. If you're looking for a horror movie with tons of action, look elsewhere, though this was fun to watch it leave me wanting to know more about what happened, that's probably the reason I wasn't too satisfied with it, because it leaves you wanting something. Oh and here's some advice, never go into a church with metal doors. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Mel Brooks Is Very Funny
Yes thats right Mel Brooks is on top form, but the trobble is his co star Ezio Greggio is about as funny as a nose bleed, he has a complete lack of comic timing and no directing skills. This film would have been a comedy gem if Mel Brooks' talent had been able to take center stage more and it had some one else in Ezio Greggio part.

Its a shame to see what could have been a very good and funny film turn into total crud.

Funny
I loved this one. It was funny. Mel Brooks is funny as ever in this movie. That topless scene was funny.

...

PS: I would reccomend it to people who like Mel Brooks

madness is subjective
This Italian comedy directed and starring Ezio Greggio features some silly slapstick and pleasing ba-boom rhythm timing in the jokes. It also helps that Greggio is a likeable clown. Here he is the son of the Puccini health food company, a joke on Puccini's unhealthy operas, and ventures to Hollywood to bring back his father's WW2 friend, Mel Brooks. The casting of Brooks as a war hero clues you into what Greggio is getting himself into (and prefigures what happens when Brooks is finally brought back to the father), and Greggio adds to this by making the memory flashback to the act of heroism a deliberately staged event, with scratchy film stock and jumpy projection. Brooks' appearance is a continuation of his Harpo-like hair sticking up look from TV's Mad About You, which is both a lazy immediate indication of his behaviour and a sad indictment of a comediene past his prime. Brooks here is sweetly amusing with his want to burst into Al Jolson routines - that kind of gag defines the period of his humour - but it's hard not to remember a time when he was able to direct his own vehicles. Those films could be faulted but they still gave evidence of his own brand of lowbrow comic genius. Greggio plays off Brooks without upstaging him but, even as the relative straightman, clearly is the fresher performer. While Julie Condra as the requisite female interest doesn't have a comic skill to match Greggio and Brooks to be able to lift the proceedings to a higher level, and some of the supporting cast appear to be dubbed, Greggio stages some clever setpieces. A variation of the auction scene from North by Northwest this time set in a casino with Greggio unintentionally winning is funny, the standard wardrobe selection of having multiples of the same outfit cute, and the idea of the two hiding out in a monastery with monks who have a vow of silence is a delicious one even if the payoff is disappointing. Greggio may include a fart joke but not for gross out effect and the writing of Rudy De Luca and Steve Haberman provides for some running gags. Just when one begins to be deflated Greggio comes up with something to keep one watching.

5 Stars
I think this is the funniest movie within last 10 years. Mel Brooks hilarious as always ... Read more

Reviews (4)

For fans eyes only
The movie was worse than I expected... Bad video, bad acting, bad special effects were all at a level I was expecting, but it is difficulty to beleive that they required 3 screenplay writers to screw-up an ok sci-fi book (at least for a book written early 60s). If you haven't read the Perry Rhodan series please don't waste your money. But if you read a few of them (maybe thousands) you know you will have to check it out one day. Do it now while you still have a vcr because I don't think this movie will make it to DVD.

If you like really bad European Cinema then....
A quirky european film from the psychodelic era that is even worse than Barbarella. The juxtaposition of theme, mood, bad music, and, low- budget production values make it laughable. The only good thing about this film is ESSY PERSSON in those outragous costumes! This movie is so bad that it elevates the work of Dino De Laurentiis to the level of mediocraty. Remember what he did with "Flash Gordon"? Could have been better if Radley Metzger directed this film.

I miss shunned stardust
Unusual film. Hard to think it was made at the same time as 2001: A Space Odessy. Still, it is, at moments, entertaining. Essy Persson's nose looks larger than usual, but she remains cold and fetching. The special effects are (of course) usually laughible. The picture was taken from the popular comic "Perry Rhodan" of the day, not unlike Bava's "Diabolik" (taken from the French comic of the same name) made the previous year. "Mission Stardust" retains the same comic book-logic and ludicrous plot-lines which are the foundation of any great comic. To say the picture drags in places is an understatement, but, if you are in the mood, it is definitely worth a watch. Dig the colorful credits and title song "Seli".

Likeable sexploitation
If you like Essy Persson, you will do fine with this movie. If not, you won't find it amusing enough for bad cinema night. Essy is surrounded by unattractive males, awful sets, and unacceptable, (even for its era), special effects. This of course makes her look even better, but that is about the only likeable quality of this film. ... Read more

Description

Directed by Enrico Coletti, Honey Sweet Love is a touching love story of a British commander falling in love with a local Sicilian girl in trying times during World War II.Sent to this part of the island to establish a radio station to communicate with allied forces, he finds black market operations, deceit and above all, love. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Interesting Australian Movie!!
Greta Scacchi stars as an Italian immigrant who falls in love with an Australian in the midst of a dockworkers strike using the italian immigrants as scab labor.It's an interesting Australian movie that's worth checking out!! ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Demons 3, The Church, whatever the title, it disappoints
I am a huge Dario Argento fan. His style is just amazing. One day my eyes fell upon The Church because it had the Dario Argento name on it, and finally decided to fork over the money for it because the back stated "originally know as Demons 3", and I loved the first two Demons films and with Argento producing, how could this film goe wrong? It does. The film starts off very promisesing with a great beginning score by Goblin and then switching to knights galloping to a town full of witches. When the film changes to modern day, and then the film falls apart. It's not director Michele Soavi'd fault, he just has very little to work with in Argeno's script. The script just has huge plot holes. So big, that they insult my intellegence. Sometimes people are possessed by demons just because and some because they are scratched (like in the first two demons movies). The church was originally full of children when it was closed up, and suddenly the kids disappear. What was with Asia Argento's character also appearing in a past flashback. People who have seen this know what I mean and those of you about to see it will see what I mean. Sure Demons 2 had plot wholes, but at least it was fun to watch. The Church, sadly doesn't have near the entertainment value. The only thing that keeps the film moving is Michele Soavi's catchy camera work. Otherwise if fails miserably. I've seen the film two times and I can't get forgive some of these mistakes. Michele Soavi has directed some great horror films (Cemetery Man comes to mind), but The Church isn't one of them. Argento fans should buy this with caution. Only buy if you find it cheap or if your a Argento collector. The film just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Was I the only one who gave this a chance?
I don't know why so many people chose to ignore this movie. While I love Fulci and Argento, many critics of Church consider mediocre efforts such as New York Ripper, Phenomena, and Demons to be "Italian Horror Classics". This movie makes those films look like boring puddles of puke.
Sure, there are things wrong with this movie, but I've made a list of reasons why this deserves to be a classic:
1. The church itself is amazing! While many "Catholic Metaphysics" horror films come off as un-researched and exaggerated, this movie seems truly authentic.
2. The style of this film, worked by director Michele Soavi, has the same level of atmospheric moodiness that made movies like "The Beyond" and "Suspiria" classics. Any time you can make the day seem creepy you've done something right.
3. ... horror movies ... because if they aren't plain cheesy, they lack anything distinct and memorable that you could recall ten minutes after watching. (example: New York Ripper)
This film is LOADED with all sorts of creative and twisted gags, I can't even remember all the things that stood out to me while I watched it.
4. It has a crazy score by Goblin (for those uninitiated, sorry)
5. The subject matter and subtle historical references are intriguing and mostly accurate. (I never knew anything about alchemy or Fulcanelli, but now i'm scouring the internet for it)
6. Most "we're trapped in the haunted house" movies reduce themselves to frantic pandemonium reminiscent of the end of "Project X". Soavi shows incredible restraint in using body counts, gore, or cheap predictable pops to maintain the action.
(Although there is gore, and creative gore at that, it doesn't become a crutch)
7. This movie has total party value. Classics work in the context of being home alone at night, and having a bunch of people hanging around drinking beers. Church had my friends saying "Oh ..., rewind that!"
8. The special effects are clever and impressive. I didn't see the climax coming simply because I didn't even think that any film made on a horror budget could afford something that dope.
9. You get to see Asia Argento act as a young kid (even back then, writer Dario Argento had his little girl being menaced by demons and abusive fathers)
10. The failure in the plot doesn't wholly distract you from what's going on. For the most part, the little cracks in the plot help the uneasy feel of the movie, especially when you're watching it at 1 o'clock in the morning.
With respect to the horror experts, I think that many of them have a bias against any Italian horror film that wasn't made during the classic era of Italian horror (Church was made in the 80's, and to be fair, horror movies ... big time in the 80's)
Horror critics have a inclination to like something more if it belongs to a genre, or has a cult name director.
Church is only [money], give it a whirl.

hard ending
First of all i got to say this movie had the best devil ive ever seen in a movie before and it did have some scary scenes espiclly the awsome biggining but i didint get the endning i dont know maybe i just have to see it more i liked it but ive seen better but never a better devil oh and very very hot girls

THE UNSUNG BAVA
For all the hype he has gotten in recent years (some of it, admittedly, well deserved and long overdue), I must say that I find Mario Bava to be an uneven filmmaker at best. The movies of his that I love ("Lisa and the Devil", "Hatchet for the Honeymoon", "Black Sabbath") I REALLY love. The majority of his work, however, leaves me wanting. I understand the historical significance and stylistic influences to be found in flicks like "Twitch of the Death Nerve" and "Black Sunday", I just don't find them particularly engaging. I think Mario's biggest weakness as a filmmaker lay in his almost total lack of storytelling ability. I'm not saying every film has to have a linear narrative. Indeed, "Lisa and the Devil" has anything but traditional narrative structure. I do think, however, that eskewing traditional narrative in favor of a more experimental approach is, by definition, a gamble. And you know how it is with gambling: Sometimes you win. Most times you lose.

Which brings us to the works of Mario's son Lamberto and the movie "The Ogre" in particular. While often lambasted by fans and critics alike for his stylistic debts to dear old dad and mentor Dario Argento, I find Lamberto's opus (while not always as risk-taking) far more consistently entertaining than either of these. This is not to say that the younger Bava does not stretch himself. One look at his resume reveals films running the gamet from psychological horror that would do Roman Polanski proud ("Macabre") to gross-out over-the-top horror/action/comedy hybrids that, twenty years later, should still please fans of the post-Raimi horror scene ("Demons" and "Demons 2") to works of dark fantasy that play like fairy tales come to life. It is in this latter category that I would place "The Ogre". Those looking for the kind of wacky-splatter on display in the two Demons films are strongly advised to look elsewhere. Indeed, I think the linking of this film with those earlier works does all involved a disservice. If you absolutely must see this film as a sequel to something, I advise you to see it under one of it's many other monikers: "Ghosthouse 2". Fans of Umberto Lenzi's original "Ghosthouse" would probably find much more to like here than those who go into this surprisingly gentle yarn expecting severed heads and wall-to-wall viscera. In a way, both films operate on a very similar level. They are both exercises in some well-worn genre trappings. Any fan of horror will almost immediately guess where both films are headed. Nonetheless, both manage to bring a sense of wonder and joy to the proceedings as well as a few new artistic flourishes that you may not see elsewhere. I would say "The Ogre" fares much better than "Ghosthouse" in terms of cinematography and production design. It is a beautiful looking film and, if given the chance, a very good old-style monster movie. Give it a shot.

Below my expectations.....
When I heard about this movie, I wanted to watch it for it's name alone, I felt nervous watching it because I thought it was going to be as frightening as other horror films involving religion. Now, the acting is very good, the scenery is amazing and eerie, it's what I expected to look like when I saw the cover of it. There is plenty of gore and in very gruesome ways, the subway scene is historic! There is one scene from this movie that is a really famous painting, let's see if you will know what scene I'm talking about. I liked the ending of the movie, it's a real twist, but I was expecting alot more. I kept saying to myself, this has to be the scene where the dead rise! But there are no zombies in this movie so don't expect any, there's alot of de javu in this, but I really expected more, like a battle between good and evil. The atmosphere couldn't have been any better, if you're a horror fan wanting to watch something different, with a really creepy atmosphere watch this movie. If you're looking for a horror movie with tons of action, look elsewhere, though this was fun to watch it leave me wanting to know more about what happened, that's probably the reason I wasn't too satisfied with it, because it leaves you wanting something. Oh and here's some advice, never go into a church with metal doors. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Not a word for word adaptation
This story begins with the Israelites in the desert after their flight from Egypt. They are sitting around a fire telling Samuel that they want a king like the rest of the nations. So this sets the stage for the king of kings.

This version is in Italian with English subtitles. Although it helps in following the story, it does have a tendency to confuse the viewer. For instance, Jesus is in the Temple listening to the teachers of the Law while his parents are looking for him. When they find him, the teachers are still speaking as are Jesus and his parents. Because two conversations are going at once, it is difficult to see who is being translated. Also, you will need to read fast to keep up in some places.

Some parts of the Gospels are not included. For example, Jesus' temptation in the desert is not covered nor is the wedding party with water turned to wine.

As quick as the action moves in this film, it is still a fairly good adaptation of the Gospels. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

so nostalgic...
Watching these movies brings me back to my early teenage years when Walter Farley's books were the ultimate for a horse crazy girl. Maybe they are not as sophisticated or technologically advanced as newer horse flicks, but they are special in their own right. Four different horses were used for this film, this explaining slight differences in appearance. In accordance to breed standards, an Arabian horse is the only horse that can be purely black, as the members of this breed have predominantly black skin, whereas other breeds have pink. A true black Arabian horse will not "bleach out" as a bay will. Anyhow, great movies for any horse lover.

The Black Stallion
If you have read the book, or just have a horse crazy person in your house you MUST see the movie! THe backround music in The Black Stallion is incredible, it follows the horses movements! You almost feel as if you are ridding the Black!

Speaking as a person who read the books...
I have read every book that Walter and his son have written about the Black. The books always captured a child's point of view about horses. The dream of sailing off into the wind on the back of a really fast steed. I think Coppola captured that feeling in both of these movies. I like the quietness of the first one. The book was written to make you feel rather than listen to dialogue. There was little dialogue to begin with. Slightly off the subject, I think Walter had a passion about Seabisquit and had him in mind when he created the Black.
Kelly Reno was superb. A total natural around horses. Cass- ole was stunning, even in makeup. Oh, if the horse looks brown in the sunlight, remember this, no animal is truly black. They're all just a really dark shade of brown.

Read the book
My suggestion is to read the book, and not even touch this movie. The boy is not a very good actor and the build up to the match race is incredibly weak. If you've seen the movie Seabiscuit, this movie would be a major step down for you.

A good value for the money on these horse-lover classics
Although there is little bonus material on these DVDs, fans of the Black Stallion will enjoy the crisp picture on both DVDs. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Demons 3, The Church, whatever the title, it disappoints
I am a huge Dario Argento fan. His style is just amazing. One day my eyes fell upon The Church because it had the Dario Argento name on it, and finally decided to fork over the money for it because the back stated "originally know as Demons 3", and I loved the first two Demons films and with Argento producing, how could this film goe wrong? It does. The film starts off very promisesing with a great beginning score by Goblin and then switching to knights galloping to a town full of witches. When the film changes to modern day, and then the film falls apart. It's not director Michele Soavi'd fault, he just has very little to work with in Argeno's script. The script just has huge plot holes. So big, that they insult my intellegence. Sometimes people are possessed by demons just because and some because they are scratched (like in the first two demons movies). The church was originally full of children when it was closed up, and suddenly the kids disappear. What was with Asia Argento's character also appearing in a past flashback. People who have seen this know what I mean and those of you about to see it will see what I mean. Sure Demons 2 had plot wholes, but at least it was fun to watch. The Church, sadly doesn't have near the entertainment value. The only thing that keeps the film moving is Michele Soavi's catchy camera work. Otherwise if fails miserably. I've seen the film two times and I can't get forgive some of these mistakes. Michele Soavi has directed some great horror films (Cemetery Man comes to mind), but The Church isn't one of them. Argento fans should buy this with caution. Only buy if you find it cheap or if your a Argento collector. The film just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Was I the only one who gave this a chance?
I don't know why so many people chose to ignore this movie. While I love Fulci and Argento, many critics of Church consider mediocre efforts such as New York Ripper, Phenomena, and Demons to be "Italian Horror Classics". This movie makes those films look like boring puddles of puke.
Sure, there are things wrong with this movie, but I've made a list of reasons why this deserves to be a classic:
1. The church itself is amazing! While many "Catholic Metaphysics" horror films come off as un-researched and exaggerated, this movie seems truly authentic.
2. The style of this film, worked by director Michele Soavi, has the same level of atmospheric moodiness that made movies like "The Beyond" and "Suspiria" classics. Any time you can make the day seem creepy you've done something right.
3. ... horror movies ... because if they aren't plain cheesy, they lack anything distinct and memorable that you could recall ten minutes after watching. (example: New York Ripper)
This film is LOADED with all sorts of creative and twisted gags, I can't even remember all the things that stood out to me while I watched it.
4. It has a crazy score by Goblin (for those uninitiated, sorry)
5. The subject matter and subtle historical references are intriguing and mostly accurate. (I never knew anything about alchemy or Fulcanelli, but now i'm scouring the internet for it)
6. Most "we're trapped in the haunted house" movies reduce themselves to frantic pandemonium reminiscent of the end of "Project X". Soavi shows incredible restraint in using body counts, gore, or cheap predictable pops to maintain the action.
(Although there is gore, and creative gore at that, it doesn't become a crutch)
7. This movie has total party value. Classics work in the context of being home alone at night, and having a bunch of people hanging around drinking beers. Church had my friends saying "Oh ..., rewind that!"
8. The special effects are clever and impressive. I didn't see the climax coming simply because I didn't even think that any film made on a horror budget could afford something that dope.
9. You get to see Asia Argento act as a young kid (even back then, writer Dario Argento had his little girl being menaced by demons and abusive fathers)
10. The failure in the plot doesn't wholly distract you from what's going on. For the most part, the little cracks in the plot help the uneasy feel of the movie, especially when you're watching it at 1 o'clock in the morning.
With respect to the horror experts, I think that many of them have a bias against any Italian horror film that wasn't made during the classic era of Italian horror (Church was made in the 80's, and to be fair, horror movies ... big time in the 80's)
Horror critics have a inclination to like something more if it belongs to a genre, or has a cult name director.
Church is only [money], give it a whirl.

hard ending
First of all i got to say this movie had the best devil ive ever seen in a movie before and it did have some scary scenes espiclly the awsome biggining but i didint get the endning i dont know maybe i just have to see it more i liked it but ive seen better but never a better devil oh and very very hot girls

THE UNSUNG BAVA
For all the hype he has gotten in recent years (some of it, admittedly, well deserved and long overdue), I must say that I find Mario Bava to be an uneven filmmaker at best. The movies of his that I love ("Lisa and the Devil", "Hatchet for the Honeymoon", "Black Sabbath") I REALLY love. The majority of his work, however, leaves me wanting. I understand the historical significance and stylistic influences to be found in flicks like "Twitch of the Death Nerve" and "Black Sunday", I just don't find them particularly engaging. I think Mario's biggest weakness as a filmmaker lay in his almost total lack of storytelling ability. I'm not saying every film has to have a linear narrative. Indeed, "Lisa and the Devil" has anything but traditional narrative structure. I do think, however, that eskewing traditional narrative in favor of a more experimental approach is, by definition, a gamble. And you know how it is with gambling: Sometimes you win. Most times you lose.

Which brings us to the works of Mario's son Lamberto and the movie "The Ogre" in particular. While often lambasted by fans and critics alike for his stylistic debts to dear old dad and mentor Dario Argento, I find Lamberto's opus (while not always as risk-taking) far more consistently entertaining than either of these. This is not to say that the younger Bava does not stretch himself. One look at his resume reveals films running the gamet from psychological horror that would do Roman Polanski proud ("Macabre") to gross-out over-the-top horror/action/comedy hybrids that, twenty years later, should still please fans of the post-Raimi horror scene ("Demons" and "Demons 2") to works of dark fantasy that play like fairy tales come to life. It is in this latter category that I would place "The Ogre". Those looking for the kind of wacky-splatter on display in the two Demons films are strongly advised to look elsewhere. Indeed, I think the linking of this film with those earlier works does all involved a disservice. If you absolutely must see this film as a sequel to something, I advise you to see it under one of it's many other monikers: "Ghosthouse 2". Fans of Umberto Lenzi's original "Ghosthouse" would probably find much more to like here than those who go into this surprisingly gentle yarn expecting severed heads and wall-to-wall viscera. In a way, both films operate on a very similar level. They are both exercises in some well-worn genre trappings. Any fan of horror will almost immediately guess where both films are headed. Nonetheless, both manage to bring a sense of wonder and joy to the proceedings as well as a few new artistic flourishes that you may not see elsewhere. I would say "The Ogre" fares much better than "Ghosthouse" in terms of cinematography and production design. It is a beautiful looking film and, if given the chance, a very good old-style monster movie. Give it a shot.

Below my expectations.....
When I heard about this movie, I wanted to watch it for it's name alone, I felt nervous watching it because I thought it was going to be as frightening as other horror films involving religion. Now, the acting is very good, the scenery is amazing and eerie, it's what I expected to look like when I saw the cover of it. There is plenty of gore and in very gruesome ways, the subway scene is historic! There is one scene from this movie that is a really famous painting, let's see if you will know what scene I'm talking about. I liked the ending of the movie, it's a real twist, but I was expecting alot more. I kept saying to myself, this has to be the scene where the dead rise! But there are no zombies in this movie so don't expect any, there's alot of de javu in this, but I really expected more, like a battle between good and evil. The atmosphere couldn't have been any better, if you're a horror fan wanting to watch something different, with a really creepy atmosphere watch this movie. If you're looking for a horror movie with tons of action, look elsewhere, though this was fun to watch it leave me wanting to know more about what happened, that's probably the reason I wasn't too satisfied with it, because it leaves you wanting something. Oh and here's some advice, never go into a church with metal doors. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Demons 3, The Church, whatever the title, it disappoints
I am a huge Dario Argento fan. His style is just amazing. One day my eyes fell upon The Church because it had the Dario Argento name on it, and finally decided to fork over the money for it because the back stated "originally know as Demons 3", and I loved the first two Demons films and with Argento producing, how could this film goe wrong? It does. The film starts off very promisesing with a great beginning score by Goblin and then switching to knights galloping to a town full of witches. When the film changes to modern day, and then the film falls apart. It's not director Michele Soavi'd fault, he just has very little to work with in Argeno's script. The script just has huge plot holes. So big, that they insult my intellegence. Sometimes people are possessed by demons just because and some because they are scratched (like in the first two demons movies). The church was originally full of children when it was closed up, and suddenly the kids disappear. What was with Asia Argento's character also appearing in a past flashback. People who have seen this know what I mean and those of you about to see it will see what I mean. Sure Demons 2 had plot wholes, but at least it was fun to watch. The Church, sadly doesn't have near the entertainment value. The only thing that keeps the film moving is Michele Soavi's catchy camera work. Otherwise if fails miserably. I've seen the film two times and I can't get forgive some of these mistakes. Michele Soavi has directed some great horror films (Cemetery Man comes to mind), but The Church isn't one of them. Argento fans should buy this with caution. Only buy if you find it cheap or if your a Argento collector. The film just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Was I the only one who gave this a chance?
I don't know why so many people chose to ignore this movie. While I love Fulci and Argento, many critics of Church consider mediocre efforts such as New York Ripper, Phenomena, and Demons to be "Italian Horror Classics". This movie makes those films look like boring puddles of puke.
Sure, there are things wrong with this movie, but I've made a list of reasons why this deserves to be a classic:
1. The church itself is amazing! While many "Catholic Metaphysics" horror films come off as un-researched and exaggerated, this movie seems truly authentic.
2. The style of this film, worked by director Michele Soavi, has the same level of atmospheric moodiness that made movies like "The Beyond" and "Suspiria" classics. Any time you can make the day seem creepy you've done something right.
3. ... horror movies ... because if they aren't plain cheesy, they lack anything distinct and memorable that you could recall ten minutes after watching. (example: New York Ripper)
This film is LOADED with all sorts of creative and twisted gags, I can't even remember all the things that stood out to me while I watched it.
4. It has a crazy score by Goblin (for those uninitiated, sorry)
5. The subject matter and subtle historical references are intriguing and mostly accurate. (I never knew anything about alchemy or Fulcanelli, but now i'm scouring the internet for it)
6. Most "we're trapped in the haunted house" movies reduce themselves to frantic pandemonium reminiscent of the end of "Project X". Soavi shows incredible restraint in using body counts, gore, or cheap predictable pops to maintain the action.
(Although there is gore, and creative gore at that, it doesn't become a crutch)
7. This movie has total party value. Classics work in the context of being home alone at night, and having a bunch of people hanging around drinking beers. Church had my friends saying "Oh ..., rewind that!"
8. The special effects are clever and impressive. I didn't see the climax coming simply because I didn't even think that any film made on a horror budget could afford something that dope.
9. You get to see Asia Argento act as a young kid (even back then, writer Dario Argento had his little girl being menaced by demons and abusive fathers)
10. The failure in the plot doesn't wholly distract you from what's going on. For the most part, the little cracks in the plot help the uneasy feel of the movie, especially when you're watching it at 1 o'clock in the morning.
With respect to the horror experts, I think that many of them have a bias against any Italian horror film that wasn't made during the classic era of Italian horror (Church was made in the 80's, and to be fair, horror movies ... big time in the 80's)
Horror critics have a inclination to like something more if it belongs to a genre, or has a cult name director.
Church is only [money], give it a whirl.

hard ending
First of all i got to say this movie had the best devil ive ever seen in a movie before and it did have some scary scenes espiclly the awsome biggining but i didint get the endning i dont know maybe i just have to see it more i liked it but ive seen better but never a better devil oh and very very hot girls

THE UNSUNG BAVA
For all the hype he has gotten in recent years (some of it, admittedly, well deserved and long overdue), I must say that I find Mario Bava to be an uneven filmmaker at best. The movies of his that I love ("Lisa and the Devil", "Hatchet for the Honeymoon", "Black Sabbath") I REALLY love. The majority of his work, however, leaves me wanting. I understand the historical significance and stylistic influences to be found in flicks like "Twitch of the Death Nerve" and "Black Sunday", I just don't find them particularly engaging. I think Mario's biggest weakness as a filmmaker lay in his almost total lack of storytelling ability. I'm not saying every film has to have a linear narrative. Indeed, "Lisa and the Devil" has anything but traditional narrative structure. I do think, however, that eskewing traditional narrative in favor of a more experimental approach is, by definition, a gamble. And you know how it is with gambling: Sometimes you win. Most times you lose.

Which brings us to the works of Mario's son Lamberto and the movie "The Ogre" in particular. While often lambasted by fans and critics alike for his stylistic debts to dear old dad and mentor Dario Argento, I find Lamberto's opus (while not always as risk-taking) far more consistently entertaining than either of these. This is not to say that the younger Bava does not stretch himself. One look at his resume reveals films running the gamet from psychological horror that would do Roman Polanski proud ("Macabre") to gross-out over-the-top horror/action/comedy hybrids that, twenty years later, should still please fans of the post-Raimi horror scene ("Demons" and "Demons 2") to works of dark fantasy that play like fairy tales come to life. It is in this latter category that I would place "The Ogre". Those looking for the kind of wacky-splatter on display in the two Demons films are strongly advised to look elsewhere. Indeed, I think the linking of this film with those earlier works does all involved a disservice. If you absolutely must see this film as a sequel to something, I advise you to see it under one of it's many other monikers: "Ghosthouse 2". Fans of Umberto Lenzi's original "Ghosthouse" would probably find much more to like here than those who go into this surprisingly gentle yarn expecting severed heads and wall-to-wall viscera. In a way, both films operate on a very similar level. They are both exercises in some well-worn genre trappings. Any fan of horror will almost immediately guess where both films are headed. Nonetheless, both manage to bring a sense of wonder and joy to the proceedings as well as a few new artistic flourishes that you may not see elsewhere. I would say "The Ogre" fares much better than "Ghosthouse" in terms of cinematography and production design. It is a beautiful looking film and, if given the chance, a very good old-style monster movie. Give it a shot.

Below my expectations.....
When I heard about this movie, I wanted to watch it for it's name alone, I felt nervous watching it because I thought it was going to be as frightening as other horror films involving religion. Now, the acting is very good, the scenery is amazing and eerie, it's what I expected to look like when I saw the cover of it. There is plenty of gore and in very gruesome ways, the subway scene is historic! There is one scene from this movie that is a really famous painting, let's see if you will know what scene I'm talking about. I liked the ending of the movie, it's a real twist, but I was expecting alot more. I kept saying to myself, this has to be the scene where the dead rise! But there are no zombies in this movie so don't expect any, there's alot of de javu in this, but I really expected more, like a battle between good and evil. The atmosphere couldn't have been any better, if you're a horror fan wanting to watch something different, with a really creepy atmosphere watch this movie. If you're looking for a horror movie with tons of action, look elsewhere, though this was fun to watch it leave me wanting to know more about what happened, that's probably the reason I wasn't too satisfied with it, because it leaves you wanting something. Oh and here's some advice, never go into a church with metal doors. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Annoying but some fun
The quality of the DVD is very good. Clean and clear image, a few audio drop outs and a grainy segment or two within the film, probably from the transfer of footage from other sources. The story is basically about a sick-o running around a womans loony bin killing patients and nurses with an assortment of mediaeval weapons. There is lots of nudity, a couple of explicit female nude scenes. Not a kids film by all means. The plot is good but the way it the movie was edited together is poor. There are jump cuts, continuity errors and dialogue drop out that will annoy most viewers who seek technically well made films. The director did a great job annoying me with the set up for each sex scene. The director used very loud, confusing, claustrophobic music while adding a montage of flashbacks to make the viewer feel uncomfortable before and durring each nude and sex scene and murder scene. The only highlighting factor for the first 3/4 of the movie are all the nude scenes. The rest of the movie is rather dull. The murders in the last 20 minutes are pretty cool. The director did a great job casting. Kinski is good and the two female leads are beautiful. In my opinion the director did a splendid job annoying me with jump cuts, overdone flashback scenes, bad mood music that kept looping over and over again durring the sex scenes and very ugly, I mean butt ugly male leads. The woman are all cute, except for the one with the bad skin complexion and nasty pimple above her eye. If you like sleazy sex, bad effects, crappy mood music, ugly male leads, hot female leads who like to get naked, jump cuts, annoying flashback scenes that drag on and on plus very long sequences that have no plot value at all then this is for you. If you plan on getting this to fill your need for Klaus Kinski then this drudge will do.

Brutal Film
From the box cover: A brutally erotic film that centers around the day to day activities of a hospital, Slaughter Hotel (aka: Cold Blooded Beast & Asylum Erotica". Heavy sexual themes persist throughout.
Things start cooking when the nurses start getting explicitly disemboweled by a wide variety of antique weapons that just happen to be laying around.
"What lurks inside the dark corridors of a mind gone mad?"
CAUTION: This film contains nudity, adult sexual themes and graphic violence. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A Sexy,Sensuous Delight!!
Matthew Modine stars as a dashing swashbuckler in old Italy being relentlessly pursued by the beautiful woman (Faye Dunaway) after losing a gambling debt and escaping with various physical and romatic encounters along the away.Also,starring the beautiful Jennifer Beals(Flashdance).It's a must see movie!! ... Read more