|
Directed by: Robert Rodriguez Starring: Quentin Tarantino, George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Salma Hayek, Cheech I just saw this, and I have to say, I'm impressed. Plot: Tarantino and Clooney are brothers, running from the law. Keitel is a priest on vacation with his two children. Then a bunch of crazy poo poo happens and the movie ends. Pros:
Rating: I give it a 4 out of 5, because although the acting is steller (not counting Tarantino and the Asian kid who plays Keitel's son) and the fight scenes are orgasmic, the plot is absolutely loving ridiculous. Lazy like a Fox fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 3, 2004 |
#
?
May 2, 2004 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
I've seen this movie a few times. I think it's just a good entertaining film. I agree that the plot isn't great. However the film doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not. It's just an entertaining film with vampires and violence and some good acting. I'd also give it 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 23:58
|
|
|
Rated a three because of the way this film works. Half of it is all crime thriller and the second half is all boom vampires so... what other movie does that? No movie, that's what. loving wild rear end ride, featuring a ton of throwbacks to old zombie films of the seventies and eighties. A horror fan's must, and one for everybody else to avoid.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 00:05
|
|
|
I gave it 4/5... more like a 3.5, but I"ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I think this movie is a great example of combining action, comedy, and horr into one film. Pros: vampires, boobs, Cheech Marin cons: Hayek isn't naked.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 00:29
|
|
|
I voted this a one out of total respect for it being a total joke of a movie. Then I realized that this is a great reason to give this movie a 5...oh well.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 00:31
|
|
|
I agree that it's two separate movies just kind of fused together with no real smooth transition. I really wanted to love this movie, but I just don't. Also, Quentin, if you're reading this, please continue with your writing and directing, but if you must cast yourself in a movie, please please please don't try to be the bad-rear end psychotic killer. It just doesn't work for you. No offense, but you're a dork, and that's what you're good at playing, like Pulp Fiction's Jimmy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 00:39
|
|
|
quote:notary sojac came out of the closet to say:
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:19
|
|
|
I really liked this one. I enojoyed the unexpected switch from one genre to the other, and it's really fun. Whenever it's on TV, I watch it. A good B-Movie.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:28
|
|
|
quote:Lazy like a Fox came out of the closet to say: agreed, Pulp fiction was his best performance to date and it's still loving awful. As for the movie, the fighting was cool enough, but the rest of the movie was pretty retarded and I just kept waiting for it to end, 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:38
|
|
|
Great action, and the change of gears actualy seems to serve a little bit of a purpose. I saw the movie as this: First part: Get to know and, on a small level, care about the characters. Having this little "two guys kidnap a vacationing family's RV, family included" opening lets us get to know the characters outside of the situation they're placed in. Second part: The characters who we've at least begun to identify with a little are placed in a fairly insane situation. The most shallow, annoying one is offed early, and the people we (should) care about fight for their lives. I'm not saying it's entirely effective, but I can see what they were trying to pull off, and kind-of like it. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 09:55
|
|
|
Watching it now, haven't seen it in a while. It's not a great movie but it serves it's purpose and is an enjoyable distraction. I think Clooney does an excellent job creating a character here. The genre shift is rather bizzare but the poster above me makes some sense of it. My only problem is that is not how people react when vampires start a massacre. Nobody seems to find it particularly odd there are loving VAMPIRES. My favorite part is the black dude who was in Nam.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 17:27
|
|
|
People always look at me funny when I tell them this, but this is one of my favorite films ever. The first time I watched it by myself and thought it was pretty good, the second time it was with a bunch of friends and I LOVED it. Right from the first scene you know this is going to be an exciting movie chock full of hilarious dark humor and it never fails to deliver on that promise. Tarantino clearly had a ton of fun writing and overseeing this film, and every frame feels like there are a couple of horror geeks off frame giggling at all the stuff they're getting away with. Some brilliant, under-rated dialogue ("Don't even think of running, because I've got 6 little friends right here and they can all run faster than you"), George Clooney playing a badass to end all badasses, Cheech Marin in three roles, two of which are hilarious (the exchange between Seth and Carlos at the end never fails to make me laugh), wonderfully creative gore effects (STAKE GUN!), Tom Savini's crotch gun, and Fred Williamson's hysterically out of place Nam speech. And that only scratches the surface of the things I love about this film. I haven't even talked about the awesome establishing shot of the Titty Twister, or the way they compress the vampire section so much that it's never even remotely uninteresting for a second; if the whole thing was a vampire movie, there would be a bunch of dull spots. 5.5/5, because it's a perfect example of what it tries to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2004 17:46
|
|
|
Voted 5 just for sheer imagination. Pneumatic drill becomes pneumatic staking machine, and a shotgun with a piece of wood becomes an ingenius easy reload cross.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2004 22:52
|
|
|
5.5 because the first time I saw it I went in with no idea what it was about and no preconceptions, so the vampires suprised the poo poo out of me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2004 02:19
|
|
|
After the "suprise twist" I wanted to loving die. The first half of the movie wasn't bad, but JESUS CHRIST SOMEONE KILL ME.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2004 23:38
|
|
|
I got to see this again for the first time since it was in theatres, and I actually enjoyed it a lot more the second time around. Yeah, it's pretty dopey, but it's a lot of fun. I really liked the character dynamic within the family, especially the father and daughter, though the film didn't really dwell on that for too long before going into overdrive. Did this movie start the whole "vampires have big heads" thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2004 00:55
|
|
|
A ready-made cult film with a built-in following. The characters are fickle and not memorable unless you happen to be one of the few obsessed with it because of the particularly campy combination of genres. They do pack style, however, and the predictable attitudes that come with a Tarantino script. Knowing the basic makings of the film and plot, it comes down to this; if you're going to like it you already know it. None of the things involved here will be "classics" and certainly not deserving of it, but you will at least pass a couple of hours. I'd write more but there is simply nothing else to comment on. 2.0/5.5 Judakel fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Aug 28, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2004 17:53
|
|
|
This movie is half QT gritty drama, half survival horror. It's easy to tell it was writen by QT with all of the little one liners and imagry jokes that Horseface mentioned above. I would have liked to see the gritty drama part of the movie to continue, but this is a survival horror movie at its core. The first half of the movie just gives the characters more of a background so you can understand why each character makes their decisions. Just like in most horror movies, there's about 30 minutes before anyone dies so you can feel for whomever just died. I really didn't think QT's acting was that bad, it certainly wasn't awful and could have been a lot worse. If you like QT movies and dialogue, then you would probably be safe just renting this movie for the first scene and if you like what you see, just keep watching until half-way. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2004 17:07
|
|
|
It's a goodtime film, like Dawn of the Dead, or Return of the living dead. You can have a laugh watching it, it's well put-together entertainment. The characters are fun, and I really liked the sets, especially in the 'Titty Twister' scenes. Some films give the impression that they were fun to be involved with (whether this was the case or not) and I think this is one of them. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2004 17:47
|
|
|
It's turn-your-brain-off entertainment, and it's very good for that. Lots of fun action, the lovely Salma Hayek with sexy company, and some okay acting by a few of the characters. 4/5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2004 20:32
|
|
|
This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen. A friend and I watched it because it was on OnDemand and Tarantino was in it. The first 45 minutes were awesome. Typical Tarantino directing, pretty good acting, etc. Right as my friend said "Isn't this supposed to be about Vampires?", Salma Hayek emerged. The movie turned into the worst thing I have ever watched. 0.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2004 22:45
|
|
|
2.5 out of 5. There are some cool moments and some funny moments, but frankly this movie gives me the creeps. I don't know if it was QT and his obsession with the "teenage" girl, the brutalization of scantily clad stripper-vampires,the general sleaziness, or just the fact that I didn't like or give a poo poo about a single character in the movie. Without the stylishness of Rodriguez to make this something relatively entertaining to look at, this movie would have been a big poo poo pile.
Hoka hey!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2004 09:20
|
|
|
5/5 Salma Hayek half naked + Blood, guts, gore + Vampire getups + Quentin's character + (for the bit in the motorhome where he's telling the girl that he would do that for her if she wanted.) Harvey Keitel + Cheech +++ (I love Cheech.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2004 12:16
|
|
|
I hate this movie because the first half is a pretty good thriller, but the second half really, really jars and lets the whole thing down. If it was all crime thriller, or all vampire movie it would be fine but it just doesn't work being spliced toghether. It's annoying because it's like watching one half of two good movies. The direction, acting, script is fine but damnit it's annoying when the vampires turn up and the first half goes down the shitter. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2004 14:24
|
|
|
I just saw this movie for the first time this weekend and was amazed at just how bad it was. I am confident that I would not have stayed for the whole film if I had seen it in the theater. The first 40 minutes or so, leading up to the bar was pretty good. It had the cool Tarrintino dialoge and style. I was looking forward to seeing how the story would be resolved after they took the family hostage in their RV. As for the acting... Tarrintino was his usual self, which is to say not very good, but didn't really distract me. Harvey Keitel was boring and uninteresting. Clooney was surprisingly good. How the hell did they convince him to star in this movie? My brother and I agreed that Tarantino and Rodriguez must have showed him the first half of the script and got him to sign his contract right then and there. Needless to say, in the bar scene everything goes wrong. Anything that this movie had going for it before this scene was completely wiped from my memory as the movie's quality dropped to an unbelievable low. By the end I was so incredibly bored and uninterested, I could care less who lived or died as long as the movie ended. I am confident in saying this is the worst film I have ever seen, and might be the worst film I will ever see. The idea of changing the genre of movie midway through is awesome. I would love to see it done correctly at some point in time. This was NOT done correctly. .5/5 (it would be a 0/5 if it was a possible score)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2005 00:33
|
|
|
Haha not the greatest of movies but I enjoyed it. Sex Machine: So what's your name, darlin'? Kate: Kate. What's yours? Sex Machine: Sex Machine, pleased to meet you. edit: 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2005 08:28
|
|
|
Everyone who didn't like this movie complains about how this was like mixing two good movies to make a lovely one. Dare I say...it's two lovely movies combined to make an awesome one? I liked the gritty thriller, I liked the horror movie, but I wouldn't want to sit through a full-length of either. Why? If I wanted a story about tough criminals that was kind of funny, I would watch pretty much any other Quentin Tarantino movie (except Kill Bill, obviously). If I wanted to watch a bad horror movie with cheesy effects, anything from 1970 down would be a safe bet. Why would I want to watch a rehash of a bunch of stuff I've seen before, instead of a bizarre mixture of the two that doesn't at all take itself seriously? I mean, the cockgun alone. 4/5 because it's too stupid not to like
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2005 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I mean, the cockgun alone. Yes, I wanted to post about that, lest we forget. The movie had a COCKGUN, people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2005 05:25
|
|
