Reviews

This is very highly recommended if you're a genuine boxing fan. Goes well into the psyche of the sport while covering fighters in Jimmy Tibbs stable including his own son Mark (I think that's his first name), the soon to be retired Mark Kaylor and...Bradley Stone. That's what really hits you, knowing that this charming young fighter talking about his views/worries about the sport would himself be dead a few years after the film due to injuries sustained in the ring. I could probably go on about this, it's great to spot the fighters from that time (you see many, Chris Pyatt, Derek Angol, Michael Watson, Chris Thompson all very shortly) but also to see the East End from that period - you can see Canary Wharf in the skyline out of the gym which I guess hadn't been there all that long at that point. Also for those not into boxing, it's great to see fighters in their "changing" rooms waiting to go on, a sight people are unaware of that perhaps should be. The documentary is of its time so don't expect anything snazzy, though in a way that's another good point as it makes you aware how ridiculously "style-ised" things have got in recent times. Check it out.

I'm sure that even if you're reading this you're very possibly curious about what it's like and I would recommend it...though perhaps only if you've got nearly three hours to kill and you're heavily into samurai flicks, or I guess like Tatsuya Nakadai.

Basically this is very inconsistent, with flashes of real genius (and clearly an influence on modern western directors) and then there are other parts that make no sense at all. In fairness, I gather these films tend to get badly edited and that may explain a lot and as a Westerner there are always references made in these films, or ways characters deliberately behave, that we culturally just don't understand and it doesn't help us as western viewers. However, that's not to criticise our own "anglo-saxon" notion of how a story should develop, and its not to detract from the fact that there are parts of the film that frankly don't make a lot of sense, but as said, give it a watch if you are curious, just don't worry if you go "Uh!?" a lot thinking the film is a work of demented intelligence and you don't get it...the point is parts of it just don't make sense. But still, I did find if captivating and I just ignored the dodgy bits.

As for lovers of lots of blood in your samurai flick - you will definitely love parts of this. In fact, next time my friends are over I'm going to show them the gory bits! Well you know...boys...

Let's just say if you've seen the end of Kurosawa's Sanjuro, this is the same, except it happens a few times more...and in colour.

I was really, really looking forward to this. Huge fan of the book, out for Christmas, big-budget etc etc and find myself watching one of the worst films I have seen in years! I'm still in shock, if you haven't read the book, do so, you can do it in a couple of hours and like me you'll think, "If they film this, they just can't mess it up, it's brilliant! It's scary! It's got everything, it's just asking to be filmed, they just can't go wrong."

Oh...but they can...oh yes they can!

Actually, there are many good points about the awfulness of this film already made by others so I won't go on, read them, but firstly, the voting...I'm no longer convinced by it on this site anymore, I've seen far too many poor films get high votes that I'm simply left incredulous by. I really don't won't to be left with the notion that people are that thick, and I know they're not so all I can say is don't trust the voting system with modern blockbusters.

But, if it is true then I've noticed that most high votes are by "children" under 18 so I can forgive them their ignorance and lack of life experience, not that reading a short novella really takes any time or anything kids...

Secondly, why CGI? Surely the studio knew it looked awful (and it really does look dire), why on earth didn't they use actors? Surely 28 Days Later set a benchmark, and that was one of ours! (Sorry Brit here, used to low budgets you know, you have to like, improvise...) Of the million and one ways you could make a vampire/zombie type thing look scary and you totally and utterly fail on every count. Or was it deliberate? To maybe add to the unbelievability of the story? Or was this deliberate sabotage? I'm serious, they looked that awful I'm left wondering if there isn't more to it...

Then there's the third and more serious point I want to make. This is a classic science fiction novel, about the "science" of vampires. There's an awful lot to digest, and it's fairly light stuff really, let alone the heartbreaking stuff with the heroes (or antihero depends how you look at it)wife returning from the dead.

How dare someone then, turn this into a dodgy polemic on racism! Or at the very least in an extremely banal way on "bad" people. Is it me, or did all the infected look like members of the Neo-Nazis? Even then, what's with the religious spin? What's going on with a "colony" of uninfected in Vermont...land of the chosen few? Puritans!?!? The first settlers!? I noticed a lot of very dissatisfied grunts in Greenwich cinema, admittedly a more educated audience than most, but it really didn't sit well at all. Most I'd guess are expecting science-fiction, not some seriously messed up and confused comment on current US morality.

Fourthly was simply how much was missing. Will there be a fuller cut in the future perhaps? Was it cut to shreds for some reason? There's an awful lot unexplained and when it is it's done poorly. In fact when Anna and Ethan arrive I genuinely thought the film was going to return to the book and have them as more "evolved" vampires or something. But, oh no, they came all the way up from Brazil, all sweet and sound, totally safely and saved Will's life when he was having a bit of a turn. I mean, for crying out loud!! We went through this with 28 Week's Later - will studio types stop insulting our intelligence!!

Oh yeah, and what was it with the leader Nazi/infected headbanger? He some former "bad" man or something? Maybe political? Gee, maybe like, he was supposed to be George Bush Jnr, and like Will was the righteous man fighting for truth, you know like, keeping it real, right to the end.

Actually the sad thing is, Will Smith is really quite good in this, his performance simply cannot deny what a truly awful film this is. I'm a little disappointed to see however the film get rave reviews simply because he is in it, that's a shame, but credit where it's due. If the film was half decent they'd be talking about him in this in years to come. They won't now.

Still, I'm left feeling that I want to cry now.

One day someone will make a really good film of "I am Legend". They Will, really. (OK, terrible pun...)

This has recently come out on DVD and I've realised now that over the years I've seen lots of this famous programme on numerous others in various bits and pieces so its nice to see it in its entirety and fully restored.

As someone who was not of the sixties (far too young) but has always had a great deal of interest in the politics of the counter-culture I found this absolutely superb. A cliché, but you really don't get things like this anymore. Makes me realise how dumbed down TV has got over the years, really before I would ever be aware of it. If you're interested in the era, either a student or simply a lover of the music then this is more than a must see, its prime essential viewing. Things really have changed...and I'm not sure whether I can say for the better or not.

The interviews are fascinating, some at times quite profound and prophetic. Some are sad now, seeing Hendrix still "young" at that point it does make you bitter about what was done to him, again (and a sad irony it is) this does emphasise the richness of the programme, as one of the themes of the programme is how big business sucks the life out of "us" and creates a world full of untruths making a mockery of mankind. The fact that the sixties was rebelling against rigid structures is forgotten today, it's sad that most think it was just about sex and drugs.

Again, this is not for the casual viewer but for those with an interest, and for the fact that you're reading this means you probably are, so I can't stress enough how much that you must see it.

I guess I still wonder what really might have happened had we "won".

Oh, and good on Mr Palmer for saying that McCartney talks b%$£%$£s! (The interview part of the DVD is great too)

Some of the comments I've read for this do amaze me. I suppose I have to try not to sound smug or imply that some people really just don't get it...but I guess I'm going to have have to sound smug and imply that some people really just don't get it. Maybe some of the hippies were right after all, put acid in the water supply and everything will be all right in the end.

Of course, not the greatest film ever made but there is definitely a work of demented genius here, and in that splendid European way. Excellent use of shots, (especially when thinking of the budget), terrific use of colour, very clever use of movement and music and wonderful humour. The tongue was so firmly in cheek I'm surprised in didn't burst out leaving psychedelic blood up the wall.

I won't go into this too much, but suffice to say, if you're a fan of sixties kitsch cum psychedelic tunes and counter cultural wit and humour then this is the film for you. Admittedly yes, perhaps its a wavelength thing and might not be your fancy, but to think of it as a "bad" film, comparing to Bond etc etc, really drives me to despair. In fact in fairness, the Italians themselves were modelling the work if anything on the original Batman series and films...and they weren't exactly serious were they?

Just remember, those whose heads are still not leftfield yet: One pill makes you larger One pill makes you small And the ones that Hollywood gives you, don't do anything at all.

(Well sometimes anyway)

I saw this recently on a late night "British Film Celebration" series, showing various odds and sods of yester-year. In some ways I wished I had videoed it now, as thinking about it afterwards (and thinking about it is certainly something you'll do)there's clearly something going on with the characterisation that was far more important than lets on at first. A second viewing was perhaps needed, certainly the characters don't seem quite fleshed out and when thinking about it I was wondering if that was the point. But here's what I mean by the characters:

• The spiritually hurt "old/young" man played (and in fairness, perhaps miscast) by MacDonald Carey, desperate in some way to "complete" himself; the numerous old English establishment/power figures, feeling out of time and place, as if powerless to deal with the worlds changes, still "in" power but somehow no longer; the devout artist, passionate about her work, which in itself is a little dehumanising (there is a great, heart rending scene, where she cries in agony as Oliver Reed destroys some of her art work, that will stay with me for a while); the young girl unable to "become" what she wants, perhaps of her "possessive" brother, who really genuinely wants to protect her from the evils of the world; the emotionless children, full of potential but ultimately radioactive and poison, and most of all the "angry young men" lead masterfully by Oliver Reed, They represent the irrational human, simply wanting to "be" and nothing more.

While trying to follow some sort of standard narrative, there seems to be something else going on in this film that is talking about a far wider, human theme with actually makes it much more of a "pure" science fiction/philosophical film than it maybe gets credit for. Yes, you can look at it at face value and ultimately see it as nothing more than a curious English B movie, but...

The film moves very slowly, but its shift from what looks to be a critique on teenagers turns into a science fiction film with a very gritty message about human survival and with its grim ending its something you tend not to see much in films, either then or now.

Perhaps I am reading FAR too much into the film, but cold war polemic aside there seems to be something far more rhetorical being said about "radiation" and the death of humanity/culture/civility. There seems to be comments made on how the individual deals with a world that can face potential catastrophic change at any moment which will deny you your very humanity and dignity. I'm not saying the film does this successfully, but nonetheless it's a very interesting "attempt" and well worth a little look.

Oh...and as for the "Black Leather, Black Leather, Smash, Smash, Smash" song. Well, it's interesting... Maybe there's a comment being made there too...about inanity? Perhaps I need to get out more.

It takes a lot, even with a very bad film (and like you, I've seen some humdingers in my time) to be frustrated to the point that I have to forward wind the last odd ten/twenty minutes of a film as I've realised it's pointless carrying on; it's getting annoying, nothing more needs to be said, my intelligence and sense of human empathy is being insulted and I simply can't take anymore etc.

I suppose I can be fair and talk about good performances and well shot scenes, but I find myself getting genuinely concerned if the western film business is going to start putting out films like this more and more. I certainly don't mean to offend, but there is something deeply, deeply wrong with western society (sorry, I guess I mean our friends across the pond and a few Brits really, rather than continental Europe, who along with many from the rest of the world would have been seriously bemused by this film) if we feel we can watch things as totally disconnected and detached as this and somehow feel that we are re-engaging with our "humanity". It's a falsehood.

It's awfully immature to apply the "butterfly to hurricane" notion to human beings, it's something I find very warped, though sadly very modern too. 21 grams was superb, but it worked because it focused on a specific incident and its immediate affects to those it concerned. It did this beautifully. But when you are relating it to peoples around the planet, applying extremely tenuous links, with cultures that are terribly diverse; that the writer/director/producers clearly don't really know a great deal then your heading for trouble and this did big time. It doesn't make for a coherent story and it certainly is not good art.

If I was someone from Morocco I would be asking myself "Good God! What do these people think of us!? Is this why the Americans are blowing the s*&t out of us overhere all the time!? Do they think we are savages!?" It simply isn't going to cut with educated audiences and I'm worried that films like this will show the rest of the world that many in the west are very well meaning, but simply divorced from the realities or their worlds, in increasingly more and more concerning ways.

Worryingly, this is yet another film from "us" that shows human beings behaving in an extremely poor, unintelligent and (importantly) unrealistic manner. It supports this incorrect world view that many in the "mass consumption west can" assume about human nature and the way human beings behave in various "conditions". People are not stupid, do have a sense of humanity and do act well, despite the wests current psychosis, for it is that, a psychosis. Films set in this style don't help when offering pseudo-religious ideas (though probably claiming to be secular) about humanity. They essentially leave you with a sense of fear that those "out there", other humans, are not to be trusted, for even when well meaning, may cause things to go wrong for you. This is fraudulent, the "real" is simply that - immediate, "present" and more beautiful than you can ever imagine. It is not some distanced, detached and yet "immaculate" looking thing, where you can always take a step back and smugly look on events with hindsight. Western Cinema needs to fight this "hyper-real" style of film and offer us something far more genuine.

I watched this again recently for the first time in fifteen years. Like many, I was so infuriated by the killing off of Newt and Hicks that I refused really to acknowledge what was happening in this film.

However, I was always aware of how good it looked, its atmosphere and general tone and when I realised it was David Fincher that directed it I thought perhaps that maybe I should give this another try.

Mellowed with age (!) I decided to give the film a second chance, and knowing of the controversies with the script and editing etc etc I finally gave it another go, but this time the newer extended version. While still not exactly Fincher's "Directors Cut" (he wasn't allowed to film things he wanted to do I gather) this is for all intents and purposes his version and the one that should have been released.

I watched it on a rainy Saturday afternoon and was frankly stunned. It was absolutely superb, not just standing up to the previous two classics but perhaps even having the edge on them in terms of style and content. Once you grasp the main moral theme of the story it really does grab you. Apart from the fact that it is so terribly and genuinely sad, it offers some interesting metaphysical points (sorry...big word, didn't want to sound that pretentious...really) about the Alien being in a way "Death" and how mankind can defeat it by accepting it (death that is not the monster).

Someone else on IMDb described the film as like a fine wine that matures with age. I agree, and I can't recommend this version enough (simply don't bother with the theatrical release...it's OK don't get me wrong but it's not a classic like this one)especially if like me you're one of these people that was so angered by it after seeing Aliens.

Actually when you realise that it was one of the original scripts that killed off Hicks and Newt I can even more forgive Mr Fincher. Also, and I'm sure proper film fans won't be, the effects are stilted at times especially with the alien. This is because the original idea had the alien coming out of an ox and therefore was supposed to be fairly large when in the theatrical release it came out of a dog. Link this with the aliens "growth", editing and adding effects later in the day partially explains why the alien doesn't seem quite right at times. Either way - you MUST see this version, easily a nine out of ten to the original releases 5.

I must have seen this film over twenty two years ago now when it was shown at school as part of our Christmas "fun". While I must admit I am nostalgic about this as it was an important part of my childhood I did think the film still has that certain "something" about it. I can't understand what some people want with effects these days, and I agree with some of the comments here; the effects in the film look better, stylistically, than many modern films. You still can't beat a good model and good lighting, there's something about the human eye that can still, at the moment anyway, tell computer generated graphics a mile away and they are never totally satisfying.

As for the plot, I'd forgotten how "dark" it was and it's worth watching again just to get that feel for it. Also in those days, and I guess this may insult some of the people that have written comments here, but frankly when I was young, we could actually, like...sit down and like, actually...watch a film and take in the dialogue without getting bored. My generation could do that you know! That's what surprised me with watching it so many years later, all the intense action really is in the last twenty minutes or so and the film builds up pretty nicely up to the end. There is a sinister mood to this which must have influenced me as a child but was too young to fully pick up on what was happening, for those of you that are older and remember the black "robots" you'll see what I mean.

As for the ending, what a bold move that was! I've read numerous points about what the end is actually supposed to mean but even so, you don't get many films that end as ambiguously as that these days. It's so much the better for it.

If you haven't seen it in a while, take a trip down memory lane. If you're a Sci-Fi buff, give it a whirl as parts of if are thought provoking. If you're a "modern" film viewer looking for popcorn type entertainment it's probably best not to bother, you'll end up disappointed. But if you do, remember this was a Disney film, trying to strike a balance to ensure it was real "family" entertainment and yes, it does absorb a lot of ideas and styles from other films of the decade.

Nonetheless there still is something creepy about Maximillian...

Like many, I find what I have been hearing about Mel Gibson's views rather depressing but I felt it wouldn't be right or fair to judge the film because of him as a person. It's interesting that of the 6 or 7 reviews of this film I had read prior to seeing the film were mostly incredibly negative and I'm now more inclined to think those reviews were biased by the critics personal feelings (of which I do in large agree with, but...)and not on the achievements of the film itself.

I have to say I found the film a wonderful, enjoyable experience that I can't recommend enough to anyone who is vaguely interested in seeing it, either because of the controversy of Mr Gibson or because you are curious about past South American civilisations. While it probably takes artistic liberties with the real history it nonetheless gives an excellent flavour of the past (and pardon, but more "primitive" societies)and is bluntly honest in its depiction not just of violence but of how communities such as this must have cohabited. I'm also very impressed, along with many with the fact that it actually uses the ancient Mayan language. I think this is something many are growing to like about his films.

I do agree with a few other comments on this site, I personally dislike the sadistic nature of many films these days, for example those such as the Saw trilogy, but in this case I can tolerate the gore and cruelty because it has a firm grounding in reality. To deny this sort of real violence would do the film and history an injustice. Because of this, I can't say the violence was gratuitous per se; though I did giggle at one point at the end as it was very "Gibson'esque" in the way the blood spurting out of a mans head was done - and I need to stress I am not a man who does gore particularly.

Give it a whirl and see what you think, for the fact that I'm writing this comment, when I rarely bother is indication that at least something inspired me to write it in the first place.

I was totally shocked when walking into Virgin Megastore nonchalantly one day, to discover that this film thought long forgotten, had been actually released. It's something many people no doubt for decades have wished to see.

This DVD comes with an excellent interview sequence (as long as the 54 minute film) which does explain things if you get a little bit confused! While admitting, that yes, I knew of this film as a hardcore Pink Floyd fan (whom indeed provide some great musical moments) the film is nonetheless an excellent example of the type of "art" films of the period and is well worth investigating.

If your into Kafka, Hesse, The Prisoner, Sixties "pop" Psychology, New-Left Politics, Antonioni (spelt right?), Godard, Bergman etc etc then I do recommend this film. It's perhaps more of a period piece now of course, and the director himself admits flaws, but this is still a thoughtful experience and its sad in a way that it seems so fresh amidst all the more intelligent, commercial films of today. This is especially a point worth noting; when thinking that the film is of its time, and was designed for a receptive, cool, hip audience. Today while claims are made that a film is made commercially but in a more intelligent way for a mass audience it still just seems to say "Well there you go, watch the flashing lights, a few nice things to think about - happy now?" Actually it's interesting that the writer in the interview section cites The Matrix as a comparable example, when discussing the themes of the film.

The decapitation scene is quite shocking even by todays standards, especially when the head is sewn back on! Also, while admittedly biased there is an excellent, memorable scene with various individuals walking around an office with a wonderful repetitive piece of music by the Floyd.

Certainly not for everyone, but if you're in the know and looking for an experience I would certainly give this film a try. I struggled whether to vote it 7 or 8 out of ten, but then, I'm writing this so it must have made an impression!

Enjoy.

Funnily enough a few years ago I wrote this (...BUT): First things first, for those that are concerned (and I'm sure you will be as I was), Toshiro Mifune is NOT playing the Yojimbo character from the Kurosawa movies. The title is purely a cash-in, though I'm not sure if it is for the modern Western market or the original title translates as such and was designed to con the Japanese market. The only other film I know of where Mifune genuinely plays the Yojimbo character is "Ambush at Blood Pass" which was the film the both actors completed after this one.

In all respects, this is a bad film sadly. It has a few nice moments but its clear this was a commercial venture utilising the two most famous male Japanese actors and characters at the time. In all honesty, I know little about the Zatoichi character, but imagine that the original film must be far superior to this. I couldn't really recommend this film to anyone unless you're a hardcore fan of Japanese Cinema or of the two actors. There are many, many better films of the genre to choose from. Even "Ambush at Blood Pass" which is not a great film is still significantly superior to this one. "Zatoichi versus Yojimbo", like many Japanese films of the time seems confused over what audience its aiming at. The result is an unsatisfactory soup of part comedy, part slasher, part period drama, part morality tale which limps from moment to moment.

As said previously, some of these scenes are nice in themselves, but the overall effect is somewhat bland with some scenes almost cringe-worthy. For the uninitiated, always try a Kurosawa film first, if not (and you are interested in Samurai films from an historical perspective) then you may prefer to look at the films of Mizoguchi or Kobyashi. If you just want to see a good samurai flick with Mifune in it, then you may want to look at films such as "Red Lion", "Samurai Assassin" or "Samurai Banners" which are more rounded films and are currently available. As said, I don't know much about Zatoichi, but I would imagine the original and early films are better than this one and worth the effort. Still, I hope this proves useful, it would have saved me money!

Now after seeing it again I'm surprised with myself. I've seen so many more Japanese films since and I realise how wrong I was. It must be stressed that it is NOT "Yojimbo" from the Kurosawa films but taking the point that this film is purely "entertainment" then it really is a good film, I watched it with harsh critical eyes when I wrote this and I was wrong! The Zatoichi films vary a great deal in quality, and the character has grown on me a great deal since seeing the recent Takishi film. This is by far one of the best from the original set.

So I guess I should now say, if you want a high-art samurai flick, then you'll still be disappointed as with my previous comments; but if you want to see a good, well structured, entertaining film with a very good insight into human nature than I would certainly say give it a whirl.