Collecting Movie Reviews

Like its predecessors Speed Racer, Battle of the Planets and Starblazers, Robotech's contribution to generating a fan base for anime in America is inmeasurable. Even considered on its own merits, it is a great space opera that still stands the test of time. Without it, anime would not have evolved into what it is today.

This is why we can't fairly compare the superior series of today(such as Neon Genesis Evangelion) to Robotech on an equal basis; one preceded the other by over 10 years (even though NGE is better both in storyline and art). Robotech is classic Japanese animation and should be viewed as such.

I bought this box set and got rid of my individual dvd collection I bought before. Basically its the same DVDs with different packaging. The episodes and DVDs look exactly the same. I've been reading a lot of reviews for this series. Basically I'm convinced that ADV Films makes most of their money off this series. They did everything they can to change the look and feel for the boxset so it would be another purchase! Guess what? It worked. I bought this boxset even though I had the series already.

One thing worth considering is, you won't get a copies of the E DVDs. The extra footage DVDs aren't part of the collections. Oh, a lot of us want a copy of Robotech II the Sentinals. ...

But if you're a DVD collector. This is a no brainer. If you watched the series as a kid, you'll purchase this regardless.

damm this is some good [stuff]. i wasnt around when this first came out, and i dont think it was released here, but i read heaps of reviews and played the game and desided to buy it.
ive had it for a day now and have watch 4 of the dvds in this collection. but so far its great. ive heard some anime fans say its a waste of cash, but it truly isnt, its really great, no episode is bad and the only annoying part is the singing of one of the characters. but still its great.
its a must buy/get.

If you like campy movies with name stars you might like this silly flick. A Texas oil tycoon's life is ruined by his grown children. Robert Stack is the alcoholic son, Rock Hudson is the family friend who left but came back with a dishwater dull wife (an unusually bland Lauren Bacall), but Dorothy Malone is outrageous as the unabashed nymphomaniac daughter out to seduce old childhood pal Hudson. She's practically the whole show and the only real life in this movie. Incredibly, she won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this. She tools around town in her little sports car picking up guys. She also does two wild mambos meant to show what a tramp her character is...one in a tight evening gown with huge cha-cha flounces on the bottom and the other in a Jezebel red chiffon lingerie number that shows her kicking her legs in wild abandon. Look out for that one! It's pure cheese on toast. In my opinion, she doesn't get enough to do in this movie. Otherwise, it's just a tedious excercise in overwrought melodrama. Trashy and campy but, except for Malone, too dull to be really enjoyable.

Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall star and Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone support in this quintessential 1950s Technicolor melodrama by the Master, imported German director Douglas Sirk. The plot involves a wealthy oil heir (Stack), the secretary (Bacall) loved by both him and his best friend (Hudson) and a bad-girl sister (Malone, in an Oscar-winning role). But neither the story nor the acting are really very good. What makes this film interesting to watch is the cinematography under Sirk's inspired direction, complete with twisted angles, and the symbolic use of color, mise-en-scene, and mirrors. Edward Platt, "Chief" from TV's "Get Smart" also appears as a doctor. The DVD extras are slight for a Criterion Collection, no featurette or commentary track. There is only a lengthy text discussion that allows you to scroll through descriptions and sometimes stills from all of Sirk's films. This text discussion is well-written and well-researched but will take you a long time to scroll through, and the often redundant images of production stills and lobby cards will make you frustrated. All in all, this DVD is worth watching, though I doubt you would want to view it over and over.

Sirk, at his best. Melodrama, at its best. Acting, over the top. Music, awesome. Thanks for bringing Sirk type melodramas back, Hollywood. Liked "Far from Heaven" too. For those who liked watching Robert Stack each week in "Unsolved Mysteries" and remember "The Untouchables" its a must see. But good story, twisted, dyfunctional, and entertaining. Malone is magnificent as the nympho who lusts for Hudson. No luck there, but Dorothy does steal the show and the oscar that year for best supporting actress. Bacall is her polished best and Hudson's his stoic best. Good cinematography. > especially in DVD. More revivals of the genre most appreciated.

if you're intested in learning how to play golf, there are videos for that..or to learn how to build a swing set, I'm sure you can find one ..or in this case, if you want to know how to rob a jewelry store, rififi serves it's purpose..there is nothing more here than that...just a bunch of unattractive crooks doing their thing..stick to 'night and the city' with richard widmark or 'theives' highway' with richard conte if you want to see the energy in dassin's noir..and as far as the sound being off for 30 minutes, it's a relief not to hear these goons talk...(p.s.)there is a 30 minute interview with dassin on this dvd that's 10x more interesting than the film.

French interpretation of classic 40's American film noirs. (The gang of criminals plan a heist while drinking cafe au lait instead of bourbon.) Particularly reminiscent of *The Asphalt Jungle*, though any number of the Humphrey Bogart movies of the 40's also come to mind. Unfortunately, *Rififi* also borrows some of the moralizing from the American versions: the wife of one of the gang -- Jo the Swede -- tells him basically that the REAL tough guys are the guys who live cleanly. Et cetera. Also present is the hard-bitten "toughness", usually involving a woman getting slapped around a bit (though *Rififi* takes this to a startling extreme in one scene in which the putatuve HERO of the piece strips his ex-moll naked and scars her!). Oh, and the cynicism's remained intact, too: the aforesaid moll tells the hero, Tony le Stephanois, that as far as her new boyfriend Grutter is concerned, "If it hadn't been him, it would've been someone else." So much for amour! But what *Rififi* has in wonderful excess that many American noirs frankly don't have is nail-biting suspense. Which leads us to the virtuoso centerpiece of the movie: the 30-minute heist sequence, filmed without dialogue or music. This scene is truly an achievement for the ages. It has been imitated thousands of times, but only a handful of those imitations have remotely approached it, and none have dared to do it in utter silence. The best bit of business involves an umbrella: it's poked through a hole in the floor and then opened in order to catch the falling debris while someone else carefully enlargens the hole with a pick and hammer. Ingenious! I give *Rififi* 4 stars instead of 5 because of the derivative quality of the film that I indicated earlier: there's a "been there, done that" feel to the thing. Even the wardrobe is 10 years out of date (lots of 40's-style pinstripes). When this was made in the mid-50's, other directors -- most notably Robert Aldrich with his 1955 masterpiece *Kiss Me Deadly* -- were finding new ways to do noir. *Rififi*, despite its upgraded dirty language and brutality, seems rather like a throwback. As does the torch-song in the nightclub near the movie's mid-point, featuring a silhouetted figure miming the action in the song's lyrics (but what did I expect? we're in FRANCE, after all. At any rate, the "skip" button on the remote will come in handy for future re-viewings). But these minor issues don't really detract from the movie's overall excellence.

"Rififi", made in France in 1954, was a groundbreaking film at the time of its release and still holds up well today. It is a film about a caper heist and the 28 minute jewelry store robbery, filmed with no dialog or music, is the highlight of the film. However, the film offers much more. The actors are all superb and memorable. Director Jules Dassin had a very small budget and had to use lesser known actors. Jean Servais, gaunt and haggard after years of alcoholism is perfect as Tony, the leader of the gang. Dassin himself plays Cesare, the safe cracker whose careless indiscretions following the robbery spoils their "perfect crime". The film also features superb cinematographer, gritty and stark, and the city of Paris becomes a character in itself. Dassin would only film outdoor scenes on cloudy and rainy days which gives the film a documentary-type feel.

Criterion's DVD release is superb. The print is flawless, as far as I could tell on my 35" screen, and I could not see any flaws or distractions. This is the original un-cut version of the film. The film was initially condemned by the Catholic Church in the U.S. and slapped with a "C" rating. It was then released with 3 scenes edited and a Bible verse flashed onto the screen before the opening credits! This is the version Dassin intented without the cuts or the Bible verse. A dubbed version is included for those who dislike reading sub-titles.

Other extras include an essay, trailer, and a 30 minute interview with Jules Dassin which was filmed in the summer of 2000. Dassin talks about the blacklist, which ended his career in Hollywood in the early 50s, and about the making of "Rififi" in France and how it ressurected his career.

I LOVE the Mummy movies, but buy the movies separately and buy "The Mummy Ultimate Edition" instead. This set only comes with the Collector's Series of the first one, so you miss out on all the great special features of the Ultimate Edition. The Mummy Returns does not have an Ultimate Edition, so that doesn't matter. But I would definitely pass this up in order to have the Ultimate Edition of the first Mummy.

The Mummy Returns is pretty much a disaster on every front.

Unlike the first picture, which made generous but sensible use of computer-generated animations, this one seems dominated and finally over-powered by its effects. As a result, while the first movie was always anchored in the real world, this one feels strangely adrift.

It also has too many expendable characters--none of them with the goofy appeal of cowardly bad guy Benny from the first movie--and, critically, it lacks any clear exposition to explain the whys and wherefores. I often had trouble keeping track of who was doing what and why. We have no sense of why the O'Connells are exploring the ruins at the outset. (They should have started the story at home with one of the wife's dreams). The movie backs into its story.

The principals have acquired a roughly 10-year-old son, but O'Connell looks exactly as he did in the first movie and Evie actually looks more movie-star-ish and glamorous. There's also NO sense of attachment to the little boy, except when the script forces it down our throats. I never got the sense that they were part of the same family.

And, very often, there is no sense of moment in this movie. As often hapens in movies these days, the fillmmakers seem to know what they want to do in individual scenes but not how to fit it all together. For instance, Evie has this huge past-life fight in her head while aboard the balloon in the movie's later stages, and then matter of factly lets the rest of the party in on it. Their blithe acceptance works to negate the entire prior scene. The Mummy's lover's spirit enters its reincarnated body--an oherwordly scene in the first movie--and the Mummy here reacts as though she'd just turned up late for a date. Just sad.

And that is the biggest reason to buy this movie! :)
The main reason this is one of my favorite movies is that my fiance and I ARE Rick and Evelyn. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is that I'm stingy with stars-- it's not like this is the greatest movie ever made or anything. It's just a WHOLE LOT OF FUN, and the only chance most moviegoers get to see how tough librarians can be!

I LOVE the Mummy movies, but buy the movies separately and buy "The Mummy Ultimate Edition" instead. This set only comes with the Collector's Series of the first one, so you miss out on all the great special features of the Ultimate Edition. The Mummy Returns does not have an Ultimate Edition, so that doesn't matter. But I would definitely pass this up in order to have the Ultimate Edition of the first Mummy.

The Mummy Returns is pretty much a disaster on every front.

Unlike the first picture, which made generous but sensible use of computer-generated animations, this one seems dominated and finally over-powered by its effects. As a result, while the first movie was always anchored in the real world, this one feels strangely adrift.

It also has too many expendable characters--none of them with the goofy appeal of cowardly bad guy Benny from the first movie--and, critically, it lacks any clear exposition to explain the whys and wherefores. I often had trouble keeping track of who was doing what and why. We have no sense of why the O'Connells are exploring the ruins at the outset. (They should have started the story at home with one of the wife's dreams). The movie backs into its story.

The principals have acquired a roughly 10-year-old son, but O'Connell looks exactly as he did in the first movie and Evie actually looks more movie-star-ish and glamorous. There's also NO sense of attachment to the little boy, except when the script forces it down our throats. I never got the sense that they were part of the same family.

And, very often, there is no sense of moment in this movie. As often hapens in movies these days, the fillmmakers seem to know what they want to do in individual scenes but not how to fit it all together. For instance, Evie has this huge past-life fight in her head while aboard the balloon in the movie's later stages, and then matter of factly lets the rest of the party in on it. Their blithe acceptance works to negate the entire prior scene. The Mummy's lover's spirit enters its reincarnated body--an oherwordly scene in the first movie--and the Mummy here reacts as though she'd just turned up late for a date. Just sad.

And that is the biggest reason to buy this movie! :)
The main reason this is one of my favorite movies is that my fiance and I ARE Rick and Evelyn. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is that I'm stingy with stars-- it's not like this is the greatest movie ever made or anything. It's just a WHOLE LOT OF FUN, and the only chance most moviegoers get to see how tough librarians can be!

Having perused the reviews thus far, it's obvious that the 3-D adventure works for some, not for others. I bought mine a couple of years ago when I came upon it at another site. First of all, one must be prepared for a lot of equipment. The box attached to the DVD player, the glasses attached to the box with cables, etc. The old-fashioned red-and-blue glasses are welcome after all this. The 3-D effect is definitely there for the come-off-the-screen effect. Overall, the picture is not clear and very eye-fatiguing. When I e-mailed the manufacturer, they sent me their cordless glasses. No improvement in picture, but at least one is not confined to a certain area. For the record, I used this system with a Mitsubishi 70" rear projection set. The audio on these disks is truly awesome, but the picture and the overall 3-D experience is only interesting one-time (for me). I did contact the manufacturer again who told me their product did NOT work with projection sets. Go figure! I gave the product to a friend to try with a direct view Sony 32" set. He had seen the titles on my big projection set, liked what he saw, but not on his TV. So the bottom line seems to be that if you want to try this, you would be wise to make sure it's returnable should you not be satisfed.

These DVD's are great and are great value, however I could net get the 3D effect on my flat screen TV, and they will not work on flat screen TV's.
great product, great value weel worth buying if your television is suitable.

If you are a fan of 3-D, then get this package!! First off this is not the ORDINARY 3-D you know! There are no flimsy cardboard glasses with the RED and BLUE lenses here. They are shutter-glasses. These glasses are STATE-OF-THE-ART technology! The hook up is very easy. Even if you own a Playstation 2! Make sure you are in a well-darkened room. The reason is you will notice a flicker from the glasses in a lit room. So remember the darker the better...LOL! The 3-D is SPECTACULAR!! And it WORKS!! Now don't let the price fool you.....THIS IS A SERIOUS PIECE OF 3-D HARDWARE! The SOUND is like .....WHOA!!! You have to have Dolby Digital Surround Sound system in order to get the FULL effect of being immersed in the synthesis of the 3-D! Also another suggestion is get a projector! It heightens the effect GREATLY!!!

To begin your 3-D journey I suggest you watch the DVD's in this order:

1)Encounter In The Third Dimension
2)Alien Adventure
3)Haunted Castle

Why? Well, because it will keep you, the viewer, wanting more! And you will want more even when its over...lol The effects in each of the DVD's are AWE INSPIRING!

The first DVD, Encounter In The Third Dimension with Elvira, is a sort of HISTORY of 3-D. This gives you an orientation as to what 3-D is and how it came about. Although the storyline and the acting is terrible, the 3-D massively makes up for it. The opening sequence is astounding! Check out that part where the title comes on.....you'll LOVE IT!! There is also a snippets form amusement park rides. Look at the Terminator-2 3-D ride snippet where the liquid metal mechanized droid blows up and the fragments of it seem to be suspended in mid air! VERY COOOOOL EFFECT!!

The second one, Alien Adventure, goes a step further. The effects in this one are much better! And it shows off more of what this type of 3-D can do! You the viewer are put on various types of simulated rides with your green little partners. There is a rollercoaster, which is very gut-wrenching, a magic carpet ride, and a few more! Hey, I don't want to spoil for ya!! there are some funny moments in it too. The aliens almost look like the ones from the movie Mars Attacks!

Now, the last one, Haunted Castle, is by far THE BEAST out of all 3!! Visually its BEAUTIFUL!! I actually jumped on some sequences!! Absolutely mind blowing! One thing for you to pay close attention to is....once again, the opening title sequence with the bird on the tree! Look at the DETAIL!! You'll know what I mean when you see it!!

Be the envy of all your friends and own this sophisticated 3-D hardware! You can get more DVD's on the web-site printed on your instructions. Your skepticism will be a thing of the past!! BUY THIS.....NOW!!!

I think Autumn Sonata distinguishes itself by being one of the few mediocre Bergman films, in a career of otherwise exhilarating triumphs and tedious failures. (In the latter category, films such as Devil's Eye and The Rite come to mind, among a handful of others.) Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullmann clearly do their best with the material, but unfortunately the material is a little heavy-handed and, at the same time, mundane. The mother-daughter conflict dramatized in Autumn Sonata is merely a talky regurgitation of standard Psych 101 fare; it is the somewhat tired scenario of the controlling, aloof, and egocentric mother versus the insecure, repressed, and resentful daughter. One of the main problems with this dynamic is that Bergman (surprisingly) fails to elaborate on these characters in an interesting or unique way. Instead, Liv Ulmman and Ingrid Bergman are reduced to reciting the pat psychological positions of these two woman without ever making them human, real, or anything beyond case studies. Ingrid Bergman is nevertheless effective, given the limitations of the material, in her harsh, muscular performance, and Liv Ullmann works admirably but unsuccessfully to make her character sympathetic and nuanced, but neither is allowed to break free from the often bland, one-note script.

Ingmar Bergman, meanwhile, employs the variously clumsy and preposterous technique of having his characters address the "audience" (i.e., the camera) directly in a few scenes. This isn't to say that this doesn't work well in other films, but within the sober and somewhat naturalistic tone of the film, the "soliloquys" come off as nothing so much as... well, goofy. The entire project of Autumn Sonata seems to allude to a director who has become more comfortable telling us rather than showing us. The exposition and the interminable arguments seem to preclude the audience from ever appreciating the characters as anything but an collection of neuroses and hang-ups.

Meanwhile, as if the verbal sparring and exposition were not sufficiently burdened with clunky symbolism, Bergman decides to give Liv Ullmann's character a sister with (seemingly?) some sort of degenerative muscle disease--whom, of course, the mother despises, as an all too obvious symbol of her maternal failures. (The film goes even further, with Ullmann accusing her mother of precipitating her sister's ailment with, of all things, her poor mothering. The delivery and context do nothing to mitigate the absurdity of this accusation.) The movie-of-the-week melodrama reaches a fever pitch when the sister crawls out of her room, barely able to lift her head off the floor, calling out for her mother. (Get out the hankies, right? Wrong. As previously mentioned, none of these characters rises above the status either of case study or of plot device, so you're more likely to feel manipulated than moved.) Then, in addition to all of this, Bergman also throws in a dead child (of Liv Ullmann's character).

Before you look for the Lifetime Movie Channel logo in the bottom right corner of your set, however, remember that this is a Bergman film, and as such it is not a total loss. The camerawork, as always, is meticulous; a few exchanges between the mother and daughter are effective (such as when they play dueling Chopin and when the mother first arrives); and--I don't know if this makes sense--even though the acting is not successful in rising above the material, it's somehow interesting to watch. Nowhere does the work of acting become more foregrounded than in a film that is underwritten, and Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullmann are certainly no slouches in that department...

I remember watching this wrenching drama in a movie theater so quiet one could literally hear a pin drop. The film itself is standard Bergman - Lutheran pastor, family problems within the scope of strained family relationships, a quiet denouement.

The acting is magnificent and the slow, barely perceptible comprehension of the source of the anger between daughter and mother (Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullman) is breathtaking in its intensity. The tension-filled. The scene where, in the brief interlude from the fight, the afflicted younger sister crawls onto the stairs and pierces the silence with incomprehensible speech is riveted into my brain. Great film and great acting.

I had to learn the hard way, that there are less than "perfect" renditions of this DVD out there to be sold. The first I bought was one of these. I won't go on to "name call", but paying extra for the Criterion Collection is a must for any Bergman fan. The poor film quality and subtitles (to the point they are distracting from the film and at times so bad they are humerous) make paying anything at all a sheer waste of money for a Criterion Collection substitute.

I don't agree that Autumn Sonata is a mediocre film. I think Bergman did understand women well, and portrayed this mother/daughter relationship nicely. He was able to show in his dialectically opposite approach, the vulnerabilities of the narcisstic artist and the self depreciating/ martyr. They exposed themselves, faced off and retreated to their comfortable life positions by the end of the movie. The use of the unnamed ailment of the younger daughter represents the other side of mother who often cries as a baby of her back pain, but at least is left whole enough to express herself also in her music. The death of the son at age four I think represents the symbolic death of the innocence in all of the "chamber music" of characters in this film (mother, daughters and husband) which Bergman uses in many of his movies. The sparing use of scenery and number of protagonists adds to the reality of the despair here. Anyway, I could go on too long....enough said. I think this movie is worth a watch and a long ponder.

when i first heard of this anime, i thoiught it sounded really cool. i saw the first 2 eps a few summers ago. i rented it from a blockbuster store. the art and story line wasnt too bad, but i was a little dissapointed. there was no romantic plot taht was overly noticable. then a friend of mine bought this dvd collection, and brought it to a sleepover party. there was a noticable difference from the ealier eps and the newer ones. i greatly enjoyed the newer ones. the art was much better. my fave eps was the last one. the sex scene between the two male angels was short and very angsty, leaving me wanting more. but overall, it was a good anime.

The reason I first got this box set was because I heard from a friend that it had shonnen-ai (boy's love) in it. I was a bit dissapointed, for the romance didn't really come until the third episode, but it was still good. Earthian is only four episodes. It's about two angels; one has to record the bad side of humans, and the other the good. Then there's a main plot going through the four episodes, with side plots to make everything more spaced out (in my oppinion).

I would recommend this if you wanted it for the story, but if you were like me and only got it for the boy's love, then I'd say get something else.

Well this movie is in fact a shounen ai. But it hardly shows it. The main character tells his fellings to the other main character, and all he gets is a hug. There is a 2 sec kissing scene and well, thats about it for the shounen ai part. But the story line is really good, but it went too fast even thought each epasode seemes to go on forever b/c so much stuff happens.

Well the main character wants to know why his hair is black, and why he has black wings. So whenever he sees others black haired and winged angels, theyre not like him. They either have cancer that turned their hair and wings black, or they were creations. So people start to wonder if hes a Lucifer. He meets enimies that become friends that become enimies that become friends again. And then the friends die. There are 4 eps. each containing a diff story with the same characters. And of caorse the ending is all happy, but short. But over all, its a pretty good anime for being so old. ^.^;

Has it been that long since I sat stoned watching this on it's release in 3-D? I was 17 years old and just learning about Warhol as an artist and filmmaker. This was the first film he was associated with that I saw in a theater. I was blown away. Watching it now through adult eyes after all these years doesn't blow me away but I appreciate it still on a different level. The snots who put this film down don't have a clue. It's not for everyone but what is? The over-the-top gore, the characters and the acting are pure camp. Even the non-acting of Joe Dallesandro is part of the whole effect. The campy over-acting of Monique Von Vooren and Udo Keir are part of the skewed approach to the material as well. (Speaking of Von Vooren, the only other film I know of she was in was as the She-Devil in 1953's "Tarzan and the She-Devil" with Lex Barker.) "Flesh" is tongue-in-cheek and meant I think as a satire on art films as a genre using the Frankenstein motif as a springboard. Warhol made his career satirizing art and Paul Morrissey was the perfect director for this film endeavor. Nothing is taken seriously except the superb photography (which is quite beautiful) and perhaps the music score which works very well. But if I'm wrong in my theory and it's horror films being satirized as "art" then for me it still works because I still find it very off-beat and a fun film to watch anyway---even after 29 years. I look at it as a very, very black comedy as well as a satire on "art" films. Utterly tasteless yet enjoyable because it's all a spoof. And a good one at that. But as I said, it's not for every taste---but then, what is? As for Criterion's DVD presentation, it's OK but they could've done better with the print.

This masterpiece will have your sides splitting (no pun)--

Basic premise-- Frankenstein lives in a nondescript east european castle with his wife/sister/baroness (who enjoys taking extensive rides in a shetland pony driven carriage), 2 damien-esque children, & a manservant Igor... in his lab he is constructing the ultimate male & female super humans from the best body parts of several subjects... frankenstein is in need of a head for his male monster, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how your mind works) the head he picks is that of a would-be monk with a propensity to admiring joe dellesandro's buns.. and so the fun begins...

best lines --

Frankenstein: "two women--he must be very powerful", "there he comes", "KISS HIM!", "my wife... my seestah" --

The baroness : "what's goin on here"(spoken as a line straight out of a 70s porn flick), "how DARE you... you TRASH" --

Monique van Vooren, i am now convinced, was born to play the baroness-- and it must be, because i haven't seen her in anything else -- she is arguably the campiest female lead in film history, though elizabeth berkeley in "showgirls" runs a close second (and i would gladly argue such matters with anyone who's brain is warped enough to be concerned with such issues)

And the two demon children are perfectly twisted, and I especially like the scene with the bats (I can almost see the nylon strings)--

No particular explanation as to why igor freaks out at the end

I recommend watching this in an altered state of mind, though be forewarned- if you are not in the right frame of mind, you might have a bad trip... otherwise you will be laughing till it hurts

just the scene with the stitches still freaks me out (snip, snip, snip)ugh-- i think they may have edited that out of some versions -- it's still pretty sickening, even by today's standards (or maybe i was just too toasted):)

FIVE FAB STARS

Brilliant film from director Paul Morrisey.Udo Keir is outstanding as the misunderstood Baron.He's hilarious in fact,especially when chiding his assisstant Otto.Everything about this comes together really well-music,art direction,cinematography are all first-rate.The score especially is one of the most beautiful I've ever heard.Be warned though:very,very strong stomachs are required but once seen this film is not easily forgotten.

To clear something up that bothers me after reading the other reviewers comments. This film is about a married duo of SPREE KILLERS. Many have made comments about how Mickey and Mallory (central characters) are serial killers or mass murderers. A complete misconception. Serial murderers choose their victims sometimes randomly, sometimes selectively but their is nearly always a purpose. However, mass murderers are different they kill large amounts of people. An entire family for example. A spree killer travels, usually cross country killing anyone & everyone they come into contact with. Of course, I'm not here
to compare and contrast each of these types of killers, I am here to write a review.

Natural Born Killers is yet another fun filled, violent ride through the artistic mind of one of the industry's top film makers, Quentin Tarantino (screenplay), and the artistically driven directorial effort of Qliver Stone. Unfortunately, a great film such as this can even have its share of problems.
One such problem is the creative struggle between these two filmmakers which can be seen if you read the original script
a very different movie. Tarantino removed his name from the credits due to this. They really must have butted heads for something like this to have happened. This can also be seen while watching Stone's version (movie today) it doesn't feel like a Tarantino piece. The direction is too artsy for the
old fashioned dialogue and action Tarantino weaves together.

To be blunt it is too weird even compared to what Tarantino normally does. This is no Pulp Fiction or even True Romance.

As far as the actual intent of the film's meaning, the best
way to sum it up is how it depicts how the media controls
its viewers. How the media always manages to involve itself
into everything. How the media uses its coverage to twist
the emotions of its viewers. How something so violent and so disturbing can suddenly become such a mockery when the media gets ahold of it. The film makes the media out to be what it
is... a carnival attraction! And does a damn good job at it.

As far as the performances, they are some of the best I have seen from these smaller, often media bashed actors. They all give solid performances, yes even Rodney Dangerfield who has only had one decent performance in his career (Caddyshack).

As far as the cinema work, although sometimes too artsy for
me it is some of Stone's best. The (original) screenplay is excellent and the revised one is pretty good too, not much changed. The biggest change is the ending of the film Stone completely changed it I won't spoil it. See it then read it!

So, in closing NBK is one of the best films of its genre. I would have loved to be able to seen Tarantino's version and compare how drastically different each would be on film. Oh
well, at least, I can kick back and read the script & watch
the movie to get the whole picture.

Reviewer advice: Get the film, then buy the original script
released through Grove Press Books. Check Amazon for a copy
of yours today!

Other films I recommend: Killing Zoe, Thursday, Love & A .45

How ever the person listed above considered the direction of this movie ruining it blows my mind. Oliver Stone read this fine script and understood every fine point the script had and did his finest part to bring his understandings to the viewers. This movie is put together great and you will find a differant plot to the movie every time you enjoy it. It is truely one of the finest films made right behind Pulp Fiction.

like most Oliver Stone flicks, you either get this movie, or you don't. i happen to think its great, but those that take too literally really miss the boat.