Inzaghi, Simone Movie Reviews

The first time I saw QUAI DES ORFEVRES (Criterion), I was hooked within minutes. I saw it again with some friends, who said they didn't want to see a foreign film and have to read subtitles, but they too were riveted almost immediately. This noirish French crime story directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot captures the feel of 1940s Paris at night -- the back alleys and smokey cabarets -- better than any film I can think of. But more than that, it reveals the unexpected human behavior that revolves around a possessive husband, a sexy night club singer, a best girlfriend photographer, a murdered lecherous movie producer and the persistent investigation of a weary police inspector. This terrific film is full of surprises and my favorite of this week's picks. (The title "Quai des Orfevres" is the French equivalent to England's Scotland Yard.) Highest recommended.

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.

Originally planned as the third installment in the DEMONS series, this interesting concept became a completely different film altogether which is kind of TOO BAD. The DEMONS series is a lacklustre and tedious affair. It would have benefited greatly with this entry since it would have guaranteed at least ONE GOOD film in the series. THE CHURCH, although lacking on several aspects, is light years ahead of them.

The plot centres around a massacred village. It's cursed victims are accidently resurrected several centuries later. The main action takes place inside a very imposing church that was built over the massacre site. Several unlucky people are accidently locked inside where they become possessed and attacked one by one by the invisible demons. The film is very chatty so patience is definately neccessary but for those of you who stick it out, you will be awarded with several scenes of artistic merit and INTENSE GORE. Soavi, like Argento, Fulci & Bava, doesn't shy away from depicting loss of life in the most unsettling manner. The scene that comes to mind is a very disturbing, very graphic, very BLOODY suicide. There is also a neck impaling, a face ripping, and a very humorous demise involving a speeding subway. Also, the HORNED ONE HIMSELF makes a couple of unexpected cameos flaunting his goat-like appearance and elaborately curved horns - farm animals never looked this viscious.

THE CHURCH is your typical Italian/Euro horror movie with the typical BAD dubbing, stiff acting and several million plot holes. However, fans of the genre REALLY don't care about these films shortcomings because they more than make up for it with their visual style and awesome body count. THE CHURCH is a very attractive movie to look at. The main actor's are quite attractive as is the stunning Church location. Argento/Soavi fans should enjoy this surreal but confusing tale of Satanists, Satan and everything else that is UNHOLY. Don't expect DEMONS 3- this film is FAR superior to both of those BAVA attrocities. However, for those of you WANTING a DEMONS affair you might want to skip on this one because YOU WILL be disappointed.

Ok, heres the deal. The opening sequence was very well done, the gothic style and mood to the movie was also effectively achieved. But the character development was horrid and the final scenes of the movie seemed to be rushed. The final scenes, the whole summoning of Baphomet/sex scene and the rise of the damned set-piece could have used some more time I think. And who cares about those characters who were introduced later in the film. And why are the two seemingly main characters almost totally forgotten at the end of the film? Anyway, those are just some of my gripes and considering most italian horror films, those kind of gripes would be pretty standard. Overall it was a decent movie, good gore, good opening sequence and i'll leave it at that.

If you are just starting a collection, or want a greatest hits video, this is a good one, it could lead to other choices, but if you own other titles already, you are just buying the same segments re-packaged...

It was great to travel back to the 80's and see the playmates of my adolescence! Wow - the big hair (and I mean - everywhere - Devin Devasquez has the thickest, blackest, hair. Yum!). I guess shaving wasn't that big of a deal back then.

Excellant jiggles on Petra V.

Excellent -- especially with a DVD player which has A-B repeat function. Long-enough segments to really enjoy. Not like their shred-and-randomly-splice videos.

Everyone would admit its idea is brilliant. What if you create 100 % computer-generated actress? The perfect actress who doesn't complain about the huge trailer you took trouble to prepare; who doesn't require 10 packs of cigarettes (with 3 opened); and who doesn't command $20 million like you know who? What if a director whose works turned flops these ten years find that chance? "Simome" (more precisely "S1m0ne") gives a good idea, and stops there.

The film director in point is Viktor Taransky (mixture of Talkovkey and Tarantino) played by Al Pacino. Now his new project is dead because of the egoistic star Nicola (Winona Ryder), but he is given a computer program by an ailing programmer. 9 months later, Viktor is back in glory, with a new star everyone admires but nobody knew until then -- Simone.

As Viktor tries to hide her secret, her popularity ironically rises to worldwide fame. Trying to fend off the inquisitive press and his ex-wife and producer Elaine (Catherine Keener), Viktor keeps the show going on ... but where he is going to?

And where? The satire is there, but that doesn't bite, lacking new and original angle to tackle the issue of celebrity and movie industry. Director Andrew Niccol's detached approach to the Hollywood system leaves the audience wondering why this movie is made. Actually, what the film shows is very conventional, including the conclusion that is too good to be true.

But more damaging thing about the film is, I think, that for all its quirky charm of Carter Burwell's music, the film doesn't look real and compelling at all. I don't know whether choice of model-turned-actress Rachel Roberts as Simone can be justified. The film shows that people in India and Japan love her, disregarding cultural differences, but that is ok. But if you see Al Pacino, who didn't look like a guy who was sitting before computer, suddenly starts to handle the keyboard and manipulate the various images of Simone, we begin to disbelieve. When he announces Simone is agoraphobia before the people, and then she suddenly appears in a concert (in a big place, of course), we won't believe that at all (hey, someone must sense something is wrong!).

The "story" of "Simone" in short needs more details. If you want to tell a story, tell it better.

And finally about special effects. Those who bought recent DVDs (of "Matrix" or whatever) must know that any good CGIs require skilled people's efforts and time. Many fans now know that, and that kind of knowledge on our side will perhaps reduce the film's credibility. My low rating comes on this score. But of course, if the satire had been given more cutting-edge ... well, I said about that already.

It would be easy to dismiss "S1m0ne" as an attempt by writer Andrew Niccol to have another success similar to "The Truman Show" dealing with the way the mass media distorts reality for entertainment purposes. This time, instead of dealing with a human being living an artificial life for the ultimate reality show, we have an artificial life created for the silver screen. Director Viktor Taransky (Al Pacino) finds his career is in a death spiral when he inherits a computer program from a mad scientist (Elias Koteas), which allows him to create a computer-generated star named Simone. The Catch-22 is that the more famous she becomes the more he is forced to maintain the illusion that she is real.

Certainly Niccol has a compelling idea here. As we move beyond Jar-Jar Binks to computer generated characters like Gollum and other wonders down the road I have no doubt that the day will come when neither death nor age will stop our favorite movie stars from making movies. So what if your favorite actor and actress never made a film together: it can happen in the future. Think of some of the remakes that could be made: Katharine Hepburn originally wanted Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy to co-star with her in "The Philadelphia Story." One day somebody (or a legion of somebodies) could make it happen. However, Niccol is not really sure what his point is with this movie. Obviously there is some sort of satire going on here, but the target gets obscured.

Part of it is the gullibility of the audience, that embraces Simone no mater what she says or does as programmed by Viktor. He can make her, but apparently he cannot break her. Then there is the ability of the Hollywood starmaking machine to fill in the gaps and provide a history for a fictional creation of its own volition. But for me the problem is illuminated when Viktor hits bottom and is informed by his ex-wife (Catherine Keener), "You did not make Simone, she made you." At this point I am thinking that since Viktor not only created Simone but wrote and directed her films he obviously has some talent. I have seen plenty of great actors do good jobs in lousy movies, but there are few times you can find a great acting performance in a movie with a bad script. Ironically, the writer of this script seems to have forgotten that fact.

This movie is also saddled with a romantic sub-plot as Viktor's ex-wife is jealous of the closeness between her ex-husband and his secretive mega-star that really takes the bite out of any stinging satire. Besides, with Evan Rachel Wood playing the pair's daughter you know that she is smarter than the two of them put together and are not surprised when she plays a pivotal role in the film's climax. Rachel Roberts plays Simone (and models for her computer generated counterpart) and does an adequate job, since nobody could be as dazzling as the "real" Simone would be.

The best part of this film is early on when Viktor is designing Simone (picking bits and pieces of great actresses from various computer files) and as we find out she is the "perfect" actress. After all, Simone does not need a trailer, studio car and driver, anyone to do her hair and makeup, a stand-in or stuntwoman, never complains (even about doing nudity) and never changes the dialogue that appears in a script. But then the satire gives way to romance and assorted plot complications designed to drive Viktor crazy, at which point it ends up being rather uninspired. Maybe if the writer had not doubled as the director on this one there would have been somebody who could have made Niccol turn this script into something better.

Maybe some day down the road someone will come back and fix this film on their computer with Al Pacino and the rest of the cast as true synthespians. Wouldn't that be ironic?

Not only is the star in the movie, Simone, amazing, but the movie itself is! It's a very fun movie to watch and I never get tired of watching it. It's also quite funny as well.

Victor Taransky is an unsuccessful movie producer. That is until he meets a "crazy" man that dies only about a week after. With his death, Victor inherits Simone, a fake computer image or figure of a person that seems so real he uses her in his movies. She is beautiful and absolutely flawless. People are astounded by her and he immediately becomes famous. At first, the fame, like always, is wonderful, but later he realizes how everyone is simply in love with Simone and she is beginning to take over his life. At first, he tries to ruin her as a star, but when everyone is still in love with Simone after everything he's done, he decides to finally get rid of her and come up with an excuse for her absence. But with that, he is accused of murder along with several other things such as keeping her prisoner in the studio. Find out what happens by watching Simone! It will keep you entertained over and over again no matter how many times you watch it!

Certainly not the classic production. I find that the clowns and use of large cloth ribbons is too much of a distraction. Also there is too much stage noise to enjoy the music. This one is not for me.

The first video Barber of Seville I saw was a VHS with Cecilia Bartoli. So I was scared off by some of the reviews below. Having watched it, I agree with another review: the negative reviews are unfair.

True, early on the movements are distracting and there are moments where the crowd noise is a problem. But like any good drama, this staging draws you in. After the first scene or so, the extra action really adds to the production. If you like a static production where the singers just stand around and sing, then, no, you won't like this one. But if you like action that creates a grand spectacle, than you will experience this production more positively. On the whole, it works. I'm no expert in operatic historiography, but this production FEELS right for the genre.

I'm also no expert in singing, but the music in this production sounds fine to me.

As with "sinyung" I'm giving this 5 stars since it is "so much fun." I burst out laughing numerous times. Isn't that what a great comedy is to do? Yes, there are occasional flaws, but they are more than outweighed by the positive aspects.

Video of a bunch of people on a stage singing can get boring--
NOT HERE ! DARIO FO EXCITES THE STAGE with live acting; AND
actually brings it closer to THE TRUE VERSION of the comic opera
Rossini intended. The Italian clowns interact with the performance and truely enhance it. The singing of Figaro's
"Largo al factotum" is the best ever recorded ! The singing
of the whole opera has an unusual LIFE to it, AND actually
sounds amazingly like the spirit of Rossini himself was inspiring

everyone ! Alberto Zedda conducts the orchestra in such a manner that it seems to have an amazing insight into the music.
Even the Overture is performed in a way I noticed certain tonalities I never noticed before. The balance between orchestra
and singer is so amazing you wonder if they aren't actually
communicating telepathically. Even the added actors must have memorized every note, and carefully planned each movement.
The recording is loud and clear --excellent !
IT IS MORE FUNNY THAN THE BUGS BUNNY VERSION-- AND
MORE TRUE TO ROSSINI THAN ANY OTHER VERSION.
I almost wonder if Salvador Dali inspired some scenes ?
SURREAL !

The term 'campy' was probably intended to describe cheesy monster movies of the 50s like THE GIANT GILA MONSTER. Horror films preceding this decade and following it have tried to scare audiences in a serious way, usually with middling success. In the 50s however, the possibility of a nuclear holocaust convinced more than a few directors that a new and untrod direction in cinematic fear was needed. This direction was to dump some truly ridiculous monsters on the screen, usually with dancing rock and rollers, and go for the cheap laughs. Such a direction was undoubtedly facilitated by an equally cheap budget that did not allow for convincing special effects or a talented cast or gifted script writers. Director Ray Kellog is typical of his contemporaries in that he presents a menace to mankind in which the monster's lethality is confined to a limited target population, either country bumpkin types or jitterbugging teens. The 'monster' was either a giant reptile, as the Gila monster in this movie, or smaller and recognizable variants of known animals like the predatory shrews of THE KILLER SHREWS (also directed by Kellogg). It is difficult to assume that Kellogg really believed that a sequence of shots with a lizard slithering around and through some toy mockups would scare anyone over the age of ten. Far more likely is the belief that he wanted to use the non-existent fear factor as a blanket by which he could raise some threads and peek at an assortment of 50s style themes and fads. It cannot be a coincidence that the scourge of rock and roll, which was thought by the stiff collar crowd to be the undermining of our youth, was loudly trumpted in nearly every third scene. Don Sullivan, who plays the ukelele plunking hero, sings some truly awful songs that are meant to be a jibe at rock and roll but emerge more as an abortive aspirant to star in Hee Haw. TGGM contains the usual range of cinematic cliches from the hayseed but earnest sheriff to the goofy teens (played by actors at least ten years olders than their parts) to a monster that leaves the audience truly gasping at its inept level of non-lethality. As often was the case in this genre only the youthful protagonist could figure how to to slay the dragon. The ending reminded me of that which often closed television juvenile shows of the era--the remaining cast gathered in a circle to hold hands and laugh, possibly to reassure us that the dragon has been banished, but more likely to indicate that they could hardly believe that anyone would pay the price of a ticket to see this one.

My fellow Motorheads will get a kick out of this movie simply for the period hot rods; a half-dozen T-buckets powered by the long gone Flathead Ford V-8! I often wonder what happened to those old rides, hopefully some were perserved.

As for the movie itself, well it's bad but doesn't take itself too seriously. Too much 1950's stuff is crammed into the movie for a two hour horror flick. Hot rods, rock and roll, teen angst, rich vrs poor, and of course the rich girl dating the poor boy. All this and a giant Gila monster! They could have had about three decent movies (budget allowing of course) out of this low budget gem that tries to do too much with way too little.

Viewed as a fun piece of nostaglia it is certainly worth watching.

I first discovered the film, "The Giant Gila Monster" while watching Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the commentary given by the characters on the show really made this film funny, watching the film by itself also lent some humor.

The story centers around a small town that is ravaged by a giant gila monster that emerged from the desert. While the gila monster wreaks havoc on the town and the town's people, the audience is also treated to the singing of Don Sullivan, who plays the lead. While it was funny at first, by the end of the movie you'll want to scream if you have to hear the song, "Laugh Children Laugh" one more time!

All in all, I did like this movie. It's interesting to see the archaic special effects that were probably cutting edge back in 1959 and compare them to the out-of-this-world effects used now. For those of you who love those old, drive-in movies that are purely for entertainment this is the one for you!

The term 'campy' was probably intended to describe cheesy monster movies of the 50s like THE GIANT GILA MONSTER. Horror films preceding this decade and following it have tried to scare audiences in a serious way, usually with middling success. In the 50s however, the possibility of a nuclear holocaust convinced more than a few directors that a new and untrod direction in cinematic fear was needed. This direction was to dump some truly ridiculous monsters on the screen, usually with dancing rock and rollers, and go for the cheap laughs. Such a direction was undoubtedly facilitated by an equally cheap budget that did not allow for convincing special effects or a talented cast or gifted script writers. Director Ray Kellog is typical of his contemporaries in that he presents a menace to mankind in which the monster's lethality is confined to a limited target population, either country bumpkin types or jitterbugging teens. The 'monster' was either a giant reptile, as the Gila monster in this movie, or smaller and recognizable variants of known animals like the predatory shrews of THE KILLER SHREWS (also directed by Kellogg). It is difficult to assume that Kellogg really believed that a sequence of shots with a lizard slithering around and through some toy mockups would scare anyone over the age of ten. Far more likely is the belief that he wanted to use the non-existent fear factor as a blanket by which he could raise some threads and peek at an assortment of 50s style themes and fads. It cannot be a coincidence that the scourge of rock and roll, which was thought by the stiff collar crowd to be the undermining of our youth, was loudly trumpted in nearly every third scene. Don Sullivan, who plays the ukelele plunking hero, sings some truly awful songs that are meant to be a jibe at rock and roll but emerge more as an abortive aspirant to star in Hee Haw. TGGM contains the usual range of cinematic cliches from the hayseed but earnest sheriff to the goofy teens (played by actors at least ten years olders than their parts) to a monster that leaves the audience truly gasping at its inept level of non-lethality. As often was the case in this genre only the youthful protagonist could figure how to to slay the dragon. The ending reminded me of that which often closed television juvenile shows of the era--the remaining cast gathered in a circle to hold hands and laugh, possibly to reassure us that the dragon has been banished, but more likely to indicate that they could hardly believe that anyone would pay the price of a ticket to see this one.

My fellow Motorheads will get a kick out of this movie simply for the period hot rods; a half-dozen T-buckets powered by the long gone Flathead Ford V-8! I often wonder what happened to those old rides, hopefully some were perserved.

As for the movie itself, well it's bad but doesn't take itself too seriously. Too much 1950's stuff is crammed into the movie for a two hour horror flick. Hot rods, rock and roll, teen angst, rich vrs poor, and of course the rich girl dating the poor boy. All this and a giant Gila monster! They could have had about three decent movies (budget allowing of course) out of this low budget gem that tries to do too much with way too little.

Viewed as a fun piece of nostaglia it is certainly worth watching.

I first discovered the film, "The Giant Gila Monster" while watching Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the commentary given by the characters on the show really made this film funny, watching the film by itself also lent some humor.

The story centers around a small town that is ravaged by a giant gila monster that emerged from the desert. While the gila monster wreaks havoc on the town and the town's people, the audience is also treated to the singing of Don Sullivan, who plays the lead. While it was funny at first, by the end of the movie you'll want to scream if you have to hear the song, "Laugh Children Laugh" one more time!

All in all, I did like this movie. It's interesting to see the archaic special effects that were probably cutting edge back in 1959 and compare them to the out-of-this-world effects used now. For those of you who love those old, drive-in movies that are purely for entertainment this is the one for you!

The term 'campy' was probably intended to describe cheesy monster movies of the 50s like THE GIANT GILA MONSTER. Horror films preceding this decade and following it have tried to scare audiences in a serious way, usually with middling success. In the 50s however, the possibility of a nuclear holocaust convinced more than a few directors that a new and untrod direction in cinematic fear was needed. This direction was to dump some truly ridiculous monsters on the screen, usually with dancing rock and rollers, and go for the cheap laughs. Such a direction was undoubtedly facilitated by an equally cheap budget that did not allow for convincing special effects or a talented cast or gifted script writers. Director Ray Kellog is typical of his contemporaries in that he presents a menace to mankind in which the monster's lethality is confined to a limited target population, either country bumpkin types or jitterbugging teens. The 'monster' was either a giant reptile, as the Gila monster in this movie, or smaller and recognizable variants of known animals like the predatory shrews of THE KILLER SHREWS (also directed by Kellogg). It is difficult to assume that Kellogg really believed that a sequence of shots with a lizard slithering around and through some toy mockups would scare anyone over the age of ten. Far more likely is the belief that he wanted to use the non-existent fear factor as a blanket by which he could raise some threads and peek at an assortment of 50s style themes and fads. It cannot be a coincidence that the scourge of rock and roll, which was thought by the stiff collar crowd to be the undermining of our youth, was loudly trumpted in nearly every third scene. Don Sullivan, who plays the ukelele plunking hero, sings some truly awful songs that are meant to be a jibe at rock and roll but emerge more as an abortive aspirant to star in Hee Haw. TGGM contains the usual range of cinematic cliches from the hayseed but earnest sheriff to the goofy teens (played by actors at least ten years olders than their parts) to a monster that leaves the audience truly gasping at its inept level of non-lethality. As often was the case in this genre only the youthful protagonist could figure how to to slay the dragon. The ending reminded me of that which often closed television juvenile shows of the era--the remaining cast gathered in a circle to hold hands and laugh, possibly to reassure us that the dragon has been banished, but more likely to indicate that they could hardly believe that anyone would pay the price of a ticket to see this one.

My fellow Motorheads will get a kick out of this movie simply for the period hot rods; a half-dozen T-buckets powered by the long gone Flathead Ford V-8! I often wonder what happened to those old rides, hopefully some were perserved.

As for the movie itself, well it's bad but doesn't take itself too seriously. Too much 1950's stuff is crammed into the movie for a two hour horror flick. Hot rods, rock and roll, teen angst, rich vrs poor, and of course the rich girl dating the poor boy. All this and a giant Gila monster! They could have had about three decent movies (budget allowing of course) out of this low budget gem that tries to do too much with way too little.

Viewed as a fun piece of nostaglia it is certainly worth watching.

I first discovered the film, "The Giant Gila Monster" while watching Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the commentary given by the characters on the show really made this film funny, watching the film by itself also lent some humor.

The story centers around a small town that is ravaged by a giant gila monster that emerged from the desert. While the gila monster wreaks havoc on the town and the town's people, the audience is also treated to the singing of Don Sullivan, who plays the lead. While it was funny at first, by the end of the movie you'll want to scream if you have to hear the song, "Laugh Children Laugh" one more time!

All in all, I did like this movie. It's interesting to see the archaic special effects that were probably cutting edge back in 1959 and compare them to the out-of-this-world effects used now. For those of you who love those old, drive-in movies that are purely for entertainment this is the one for you!

pretty cheesy movie even though it is very old. not to bad if you like old classics.

Missile to the Moon is basically a remake of Cat Women of the Moon (even reusing that giant spider) and just as much el cheapo fun as that film. I love the school-play-quality sets and props, amateurish acting, laughable dialogue, etc., (in short, everything you want in a Bad Film). For some reason the Moon Queen has ancient Mayan art hanging on her wall! (Attention Graham Hancock.) And those clumsy rock creatures are some of the most underrated 50s "monsters" (for originality if nothing else). Let's be honest here though: this is not a lunatic mess like Plan 9 or The Creeping Terror. It suffers from a bit too much technical competence to really achieve "warp" factor, yet remains a solid 70 minutes for crummy movie enthusiasts.
The DVD presentation is quite a bit above average for this type of movie. First, despite some minor speckling and a few damaged frames here and there, the print used is spectacular: good tonal scale, nice and sharp, clear sound. Overall, much better than one would expect. (In some scenes you can even see the creases on the backdrops.) There is no trailer included (unusual for Image), although you do get chapter stops and a special bonus "photo gallery" of dozens of someone's behind-the-scenes shots taken on and around the set, including many stills (some in color) of the "Moon Maidens" posing alluringly. Not exactly "the special edition," but a nice, atypical bonus for a set like this. C-movie nerds, grab this, you won't be disappointed. One star less than perfect 'cause no trailer and the (very minor) speckling and print damage.

This is a classic in the "so bad it's good" canon. Almost every aspect of this film is poorly realized, and it thereby has a kind of sub-genre "purity" about it. The special effects are far from acceptable under any other circumstances. Costumes are a camp spectacular, especially those of the Moon Women and their "Lido" with her ludicrous head gear. Monsters consist of the (very slowly) walking rocks and that giant spider with visible wires who got a lot of work in the late 50s as the inhabitant of many caves and planets.

Best of all, though, is the acting. Every cast member, without exception, is inept. Even handsome Gary Clarke, who later showed he had talent, is awful here. But the Anti-Oscar surely must go to Cathy Downs for her brilliant portrayal of an Earth woman among Lunar rivals. As they lead her to her doom in the jaws of the giant spider, she cries out: "No! Don't!"

See this movie for a truckload-o-laughs.

I really, really wanted to like this movie, but it was pure crap. The story was overly complicated without making any sense. They introduced each part of the movie with text and there was excessive use of voice-overs, which added to the cornyness. The only redeemable quality the movie had was its positive message, but the pure stupidity of most of it made the message seem like it was coming from a source which didn't quiet understand the message it was projecting. My advice, see The Matrix and Equilibrium first and you will realize how empty (besides the message) this movie actually is. There is nothing unique about this movie what-so-ever, and whoever says the fight sequences are well-done has never seen THe Matrix, Equilibrium, Crouching Tiger..., and Drunken Master. Go rent a quality movie, instead of this poorly done dribble. And note the cool original gunplay idea in Equilibrium, truly fantastic.

*A note: Another reviewer said that the guy from "John Doe" isn't convincable as an Austrailian, when in fact he was born in Austrailia. He is acutally a well-known Shakespearian stage actor there. So HA!

This movie was funny. The special effects are really good and the martial arts is simular to Crouching Tiger and Matrix. GREAT ACTION. But..... the acting was so corny, I thought I was watching a b-movie. The diolouge is so dumb and the story was hard to follow and fruity. It's about some tablet that falls upon earth. Some guy Slate finds it but some dude named Os battles Slate's Shadowmen and gets one half of the tablet. So now Os must gather a group of defenders and he trains them to become loveable warriors to defeat the Shadowman! While Slate tries to recover Os half of the tablet to bring upon the end of humanity! A hard to follow movie! I would of liked this film better if it were a Japanese movie. But the movie ain't a trainwreck, it just needs better direction!

Invincible is definitely not the best martial arts action film I've ever seen, but it's also far from being a bad movie. The only person in the cast I'm familiar with is Billy Zane who does an excellent job with his character. As for the rest of the cast I can't say they did a bad job, but the only reason is because I've nothing to compare their performances to. As for the plot for the movie, it wasn't half bad. As a matter of fact, I really couldn't have thought of a better setting for the movie myself.