Reviews

Chaucer this ain't! Mindwarp is a low budget horror flick that makes no pretensions, and delivers no surprises. Starring the always reliable Bruce Campbell, and a very weak Marta Alicia, the movie is your basic post-apocalyptic romp with monsters, mutants, evil wizards, etc. Higher on the gore content than many of its compatriots, the movie also lacks the tongue in cheek humor that makes some of these flicks fun to watch (Sam Rami's Army of Darkness comes to mind).

The movie does elicit good performances from Bruce Campbell, who has made a successful career fighting heavily made up extra's in movies and Rami's Herc/Xena series. Campbell knows the score and delivers the deadpan hero mode needed to make these pictures bearable. Surprisingly good back up work by supporting actors Angus Scrimm and Elizabeth Kent, doing something with very little in the dialogue department, also add to the film. The one big problem is the female lead, Marta Alicia, who has obviously forgotten that she is no longer in Grade 10 drama, and delivers her lines in a one note (ie. - whiny) tone. Forgetting that her major role is to scream, look frightened, and lose most of her clothing at strategic intervals, Alicia instead appears to be trying to ACT, mainly by looking annoyed and whining a lot.

Overall, the flic ain't bad. The writing is better than expected, with several plot twists at the end and even a hint of an Electra complex (shades of Freud) along the way. The special effects aren't, and the budget was obviously stretched in the makeup department, as most of the 'mutants' look like trick or treaters wearing Holloween masks from Walmart.

I rented this at Blockbuster for 99 cents. That's about the right price.

This is a movie, that in the famous words "coulda been a contenda", but instead appears doomed to the status of 'also ran' in the annals of vampire flicks. Carpenter appears to have had a serious case of ambivalence with this film. Did he want a semi-spoof of the vampire genre, the potential is there in the sardonic humour. Did he want a surrealistic horror film, moments appear, especially with some of the cinematography. Did he want an action flic, there are lots of explosions, gunfire, and macho leaping about. However, what appears closest to Carpenter's vision would be the teenage slasher flic. Gore, blood, and fake body parts fly with abandon. But none of it works. The characters are almost parodies of classic movie types, the tough and stoic leader, the loyal sidekick who betrays him, even a hooker [albeit a vampire hooker] with a heart of gold. But Carpenter does nothing with them. Holes are shot in the old vampire myths (no crosses and garlic here) but nothing fills there place. The movies plods from action sequence to action sequence with little or no character or plot development. Then there are the gaffs. Vampires arise from the ground covered in the red earth of New Mexico. Next scene, they stride across the same location looking well bathed and more like neo-goth models than the undead. The supreme vampire looks more like a refugee from Belarus than the titan of unholiness. Sure they diss the Catholic Church, but an institution that survived the Reformation is unlikely to be bothered by John Carpenter's lame jibes. Add disjointed continuity, dreadful dialogue, and the world's most boring vampires (why be undead if things are this dull?), and you get a movie which is not worth the effort.

Overall, give it a break. If you want to see a class act in Vampire movies, try to catch the old '70's version of Dracula with Louis Jordan. It pops up on the tube from time to time. Little gore, no guns, but more real chills and superlative acting than you'll see in any of Carpenter's recent efforts.

I must premise this review by saying that I was only able to watch the abbreviated video version of Anzacs, which was released in North America. This is a seriously truncated version of the mini-series, and it shows. My suspicion is that all anyone who see's this version is being shortchanged, certainly I felt so and I don't feel it's fair to try to review the series adequately based on a chopped up version.

Therefore, I'll restrict my comments to the premise of the film, and what I could observe of the acting and production. First, the premise. The story of the Anzac's in the First World War is one of the great stories, and tragedies, of that dreadful conflict. Enthusiastic, if only partially trained, the Anzac's were first commited to the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey, an event which matched or exceeded any carnage seen on the Western front. Commanded by British generals whose incompetence exceeded even that of Douglas Haig and his crony's, they were slaughtered in their thousands fighting a useless and ill lead campaign. The Anzac's eventually were forced to surrender their hard won slivers of Turkish soil when the campaign was abandoned. Subsequently sent to the Western Front, they were placed under the command of 'Butcher' Haig and his merry men, where such joys as Paschendale and other acts of carnage ensued. Despite their repeated abuses at the hands of British idiots, the Anzac's gained a reputation as hard and skilled fighters, showing innovation and courage in a war marked mainly by incompetence and slaughter.

Alas, the video version of the movie captures little of the true story of the Anzac's, focussing instead on the quite weak stories of the characters. A tepid love story between nurse and a soldier ensues, various secondary characters die, and most gratingly, Paul Hogan does his interpretation of a WW1 Sgt. Bilko. The combat scenes are poorly portrayed, and little is done to even try to capture the true horror experienced by the Anzac's in both Gallipoli or France.

On the positive side, some effort is made to capture the utter incompetence of the British generals commanding the Anzac's, and there is a recognition in the film of the tragedy of superb soldier's lives being utterly wasted in utterly useless assaults. If more emphasis has been placed on this and the actions of the soldier's in the trenches, it is possible that a very gripping story might have ensued.

Overall, I think that the series would probably be worth seeing, as it does deal with a part of history that has been ignored for too long. It must be remembered that this mini-series is now over 15 years old, and the production values reflect that era. North American audiences should avoid the truncated video, as it does little justice to the subject.

7 out of 10, in acknowledgement of an attempt to honor brave men sacrificed needlessly.

What can one say. The movie plays like one of those great old comic books you read as a kid. The dialogue is so cartoonish that you expect to see balloons appear above the characters heads. The acting is excellent, with everyone taking a tongue in cheek approach and obviously having a good time making the film. Some of the best fight scenes in recent memory, with everyone "kung-fu fighting" at the drop of a hat. Kurt Russel is a hoot as the more than slightly dumb macho hero. Cartoon violence minus the gore, humourous special effects, evil magicians, green eyed damsels in distress, even a monster or two.

A great film for a night of light movies! See it if you get a chance!

If you're going to a movie like this one, kind of a sci-fi/horror version of Waiting for Godot, then the characters and the dialogue are crucial. This is where this film falls down. The characters are essentially one dimensional, and while some show growth and development over the course of the film, most remain undeveloped. The dialogue is at times leaden, with endless and heated discourses on the "military-industrial complex" and other such "political" issues. Like other reviewers, I can see why it was a hit in France. I kept expecting a character to announce something like "OK, lets escape from here and all go to Starbucks to discuss the philosophical implications on the destruction of individualism and it's impact on society". This is the sort of leaden discussions one continues to read in European intellectual circles, and seems particularly popular amongst some of the intelligentsia in France. Alas, class issues and the nefarious doings of the military industrial complex have little resonance in 1999 USA.

In the story itself the characters actions often seem illogical and forced at times. I know that they're supposed to be under stress, but they also seem pretty slow to catch on for a group of hyper bright people. The portrayal of the autistic savant came perilously close to being insulting, saved only by the actors skill. The other actors (mainly no-names) also give it a good shot, particularily give the material they had to work with. The ending seemed contrived, and some plot resolution in terms of the why and how would have improved the film.

The best role I see for this film is as a discussion piece for undergraduate Poli Sci and Philosophy classes. Professors and TA's take note.

5 out of 10, mainly for acting and the innovative use of cheap sets.

The other comments have captured the essence of the movie perfectly. When you combine snakes, semi-nude vampires, Hugh Grant and Ken Russel, the results are going to be unusual. Although the dialogue is at times a bit lame, the special effects (such as they are) very un-special, the film is a hoot to watch. Ken Russel loads it with all sorts of not so subtle symbolism, and besides, having the lead vampire chick verify the heroines status as a virgin (the only really tasty treat for the snake god) with a large pointed statue and you know this is not your typical low budget horror flick!

A surprisingly restrained showing of Hugh Grant (as noted in other reviews, he is not the white knight rescuing the damsels in this flic) is actually to the films benefit, as his classic "Hughy" mannerisms wouldn't work in this genre. The snake/vampire priestess is often semi-nude, and certainly leads one to improve ones opinions on reptiles. The overall effect if to combine Ken Russel weirdness with Bram Stoker gothic to good effect.

Slither out and see it if you get a chance. The film is subtitled, so that the mute button is a useful tool when the dialogue gets too leaden.

5 out of 10

I was in Grade 9 when this movie came out in 1970. I always remembered it, as the ads in the local paper featured a pouty young nurse with her uniform falling off her shoulders. Pretty hot stuff for a junior high school student in Western Canada in 1970! Naturally, I couldn't go see it, as it was rated "restricted adult", and in the years after the ardour faded and I never got around to viewing it until recently.

Thanks to good ol' cable and their willingness to screen almost anything, I finally got a chance to view this 'hot' artifact of my adolesence. The result, a chance to drift down memory lane and view a classic early 70's youth flic.

The plot needs not be repeated here, as the title basically says it all. The student nurses are young, attractive, rebellious, and, of course, sexually liberated. Various turgid plot devices keep things going between romps in bed. Sundry nude scenes help remind us how actresses looked prior to the era of breast implants. Everybody is groovy, everything is cool, except when 'the man' representing adult authority rears his ugly head.

In spite of the above, though, I couldn't help but like this film. Perhaps it's my age, but it personifies an era that seems so much more innocent and fun than the slasher flics or hard edged teenage exploitation films of today. Soft drugs, unprotected sex, and a basic 'nice' approach to life personifies the earnest strivings of the Student Nurses, and captures a side of the late '60's and early '70's that actually did exist for a few years. I was too young to participate, but I witnessed it, and like many boomers, I mourn it's passing.

See the flic if you get a chance. If you're over 40, it'll bring back memories. If you're under 30, you'll get a chance to see the warmer, softer side of the 60's that your parents remember.

5 out of 10 for nostalgia.

What can one say. Face Off was yet another of a seemingly endless supply of late '60's and early '70's "youth" movies produced in Canada with the aid of generous government grants and tax breaks. This movie was unusual in that it actually developed an audience, and was seen by more than 20 people in a real theatre, a claim that few of it's contemporary's could make. The film is now popping up on the Canadian satellite TV networks, and is even getting some international play (I saw it on Trio recently).

The movie itself is a somewhat turgid romance/tragedy, featuring doomed love set amongst the Toronto Maple Leafs (which, as any Leafs fan will tell you, is the only type of love appropriate to that team). The film stars a miscellany of young (and unknown) actors who were active in Canada during the period, plus a young looking John Vernon, who was starting to make a name for himself in Hollywood when this film was made.

The film is extraordinarily '70's looking (can you believe those sideburns), with the low end production values and slightly fuzzy cinematography which marked these type of films. Acting is adequate, but nothing special. Probably the main reason to see this film (aside from re-visiting '70's fashions and hair styles) is for the hockey scenes. It is interesting to compare both the equipment (no pads or helmets in those days) and the playing styles with todays NHL. Even in a fictional setting like this movie, the emphasis on movement, speed, and style contrasts markedly with the steriod induced thuggery which passes for hockey in today's NHL.

See it for the hockey, or to re-visit the 70's.

5 out of 10..

I was in Grade 9 when this movie came out in 1970. I always remembered it, as the ads in the local paper featured a pouty young nurse with her uniform falling off her shoulders. Pretty hot stuff for a junior high school student in Western Canada in 1970! Naturally, I couldn't go see it, as it was rated "restricted adult", and in the years after the ardour faded and I never got around to viewing it until recently.

Thanks to good ol' cable and their willingness to screen almost anything, I finally got a chance to view this 'hot' artifact of my adolesence. The result, a chance to drift down memory lane and view a classic early 70's youth flic.

The plot needs not be repeated here, as the title basically says it all. The student nurses are young, attractive, rebellious, and, of course, sexually liberated. Various turgid plot devices keep things going between romps in bed. Sundry nude scenes help remind us how actresses looked prior to the era of breast implants. Everybody is groovy, everything is cool, except when 'the man' representing adult authority rears his ugly head.

In spite of the above, though, I couldn't help but like this film. Perhaps it's my age, but it personifies an era that seems so much more innocent and fun than the slasher flics or hard edged teenage exploitation films of today. Soft drugs, unprotected sex, and a basic 'nice' approach to life personifies the earnest strivings of the Student Nurses, and captures a side of the late '60's and early '70's that actually did exist for a few years. I was too young to participate, but I witnessed it, and like many boomers, I mourn it's passing.

See the flic if you get a chance. If you're over 40, it'll bring back memories. If you're under 30, you'll get a chance to see the warmer, softer side of the 60's that your parents remember.

5 out of 10 for nostalgia.

Someday, Goddess willing, there will be a film that intelligently and sensitively explores the relationships that gay women have with men. Chasing Amy is NOT that film.

Rather, what we have is another male "make a lesbian into a hot hetero babe" fantasy flick, masquerading as a Gen X insight film. What we get is unrealistic people operating in a make believe world (they don't set the characters in the comic book industry for nothing), who talk endlessly (and in stilted paragraphs) about their sex lives. The acting is wooden when it's not grating, and the dialogue is so leaden that the writer has tried to liven things up by using a variety of profanity in every line. Add a few explicit references to lesbian sexual techniques (oh my, women talking about fisting, how daring) and you have Kitten with a Whip meets Studmuffin McQuade.

By far the most grating conceit of the film, however, is the portrayal of the gay characters. The female (read lesbian) lead can't be just another normal person who happens to be attracted to other women. Hell no, she's a former 'loose' woman of the straight variety just waiting for the 'right man' to bring her back into the fold. The main gay male character is played with one foot firmly in 'swish' territory, and one expects the characters from the Bird Cage to appear every time he's on camera. The 2 straight male characters (or are they?) give new meaning to the word boring. The idea that some woman would change her sexual orientation for the male lead is questionable. In fact, I doubt if he could get someone to change their socks for him, let alone a whole orientation.

Overall, do yourself a favor and skip this overly long, overly wordy piece of tripe. You'll learn nothing about how lesbians and straight men interact. In fact, you won't even learn any new profanity. All you will learn is just how long a truly awful film can be!

It is a rare occasion that leads me to want to walk out of a theatre (I actually sat through "Tarzan the Apeman" with Bo Derek), but this movie came close to propelling me into the lobby. The plot (and I use the term lightly) centers on the life and loves by a young "retarded" girl who returns home after having been sent to a 'special school' by her guilt ridden, extremely wealthy parents for several years. In the course of 128 tedious minutes, this girl goes through a number of "challenges", all of which are presented in the most maudlin and melodramatic manner possible.

The faults of this piece of schlock from Gary Marshall are too numerous to mention, so I'll focus only on those elements, which were most offensive. These include: 1. Fatuous acting by the 2 'retarded' characters, both of whom obviously spent a few days with intellectually challenged individuals, but learned nothing other than the most overt mannerisms. These they portray in a way that would embarrass a first year drama student.

2. Playing disabilities and intellectual impairments for laughs. Virtually every five to ten minutes there would be an episode where one or other of the 'retarded' characters would engage in some socially unacceptable or embarrassing behavior, invariably presented as funny. There were several young women behind me who erupted in gales of laughter each time one of those crazy 'retards' did another 'cute' thing.

3. Diane Kenton, whose over the top, hysterical acting as the guilty mother makes us yearn for the subdued and deep performances seen in Something About Mary.

4. A total ignoring of the real issues faced by the intellectually challenged. These 'retards' are rich, physically attractive, with totally supportive families and oodles of friends. No loneliness, rejection, physical disabilities, or poverty to interfere with the fun.

4. Lastly, and most damning, is the fact that there was a potential for a real movie that could examine the issues and lives of the intellectually challenged. Any random sample of such people would reveal incredible stories of courage and heartbreak, which are rarely, if ever, heard.

As someone who has worked extensively with the intellectually impaired, I am offended that such a piece of utter drivel could command the effort and money needed to bring it to the screen. If you want to find out about the intellectually challenged, do yourself a favor, and volunteer with the local agencies that work with this population. You'll learn more in five minutes than you will from 2 hours of this drek!

(2 out of 10, mainly for technical merit in the film production).

I am one of probably a handful of people who actually saw this film in a real theatre in 1973 (it ran about 4 days). A classic of the small budget Canadian 'youth' films that were produced thanks to indulgent government grants/tax writeoffs during the era, the film exudes a certain charm. Visually, the production values and colour are uninspired but again reflect a kind of film school innocence that looks quite charming from today's perspective.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around a man who sees the woman of his dreams (blond, busty, wearing a wind swept blue dress) as she departs on a ferry. Trapped on shore, he feels the angst of knowing that the 'one and only' is sailing away (yes, it is trite). Years later, and on the eve of finally making a committment to his current partner, he decides to make a quest to see if his fantasy girl is in fact 'the one'. Everything ends happily, with all characters resolving their feelings in a true '70's style expression of love, happiness, and unprotected sex.

In fact, the film is a good watch, notwithstanding my somewhat tongue in cheek review. The cast of a classic collage of young Canadian actors who were active in the early 70's, all of whom qualify for the "where are they now award". Noticable is a bit part played by Gay Rowan, who singularly among all the cast went on to Hollywood, where she played bit parts in such films aas SOB and Greatest American Hero. I only remember her as she had a brief writeup in the late 70's about how tough it was for Canadian actresses to break into Hollywood (she was a waitress in LA, as I recall).

The film is out of distribution, and copies are rare. If you get a chance though, see it. It is truly a representative example of an era of Canadian film making which will never be seen again!