Rating: 
Summary: Well . . .
Review: This film is non-stop gory--sometimes TOO gory, and leaves you feeling sick to the stomach. Definitely NOT for the faint at heart.But it has some merits. The acting is overall good; the setting somewhat creative; and the plot is actually not too bad. It's entertaining and even frightening if you can handle all the gore.
Rating: 
Summary: refer to "painfully boring" review
Review: The reviewer of this film, who calls it "painfully boring" simply typifies many american viewers. his review in its simplicity should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. ...if you're the type who has a short attention span; the reviewer is correct. all others will enjoy this rather off-beat horror/action and dark comedy.
Rating: 
Summary: Weird, but interesting in a different way
Review: I enjoyed this movie. I think you should watch it. However, don't expect to be moved by it or gain anything from it. One thing for sure, it is not a movie like any other one you've watched.
Ravenous is based on a Native American folklore called weendigo. That is if a man consumes another man's flesh, the man also consumes his strength. Hence, the consumer's hunger becomes insatiable. He keeps on wanting more (more human flesh) and the only way to stop this is death.
The main character Boyd, played convincingly by Guy Pearce, experiences weendigo on the battlefield during the war against Mexico. He hides under a pile of dead men out of cowardice, unintentionally swallows blood dripping from a dead soldier on top, and hence gains strength and single-handedly conquers the Mexican command, thereby becoming a hero by being a coward.
He tells his commanding officer about this and the disappointed officer stations him in Fort Spencer, a post in the isolated snow-covered area in or near California. The post consists of several very odd characters, including a funny commanding officer played by Jeffrey Jones, a very religious soldier, a hard-core maniac soldier, two Native Americans, a drunk, and some total weirdo played by David Arquette (couldn't figure out that character, perhaps he was on drugs).
Soon the group is joined by Calhoun, a cannibalistic officer also possessed by Weendigo. Now, can Boyd become a true hero and save the group from Calhoun?
The movie has some pretty cool scenes. One that stands out is when Calhoun reveals his identity as a cannibal and chases Boyd and other members of the company along the mountain with some fun harmonica music. The fight scene between Boyd and Calhoun at the end was also convincing.
Anyway, it is a fun entertainment. Just check it out.
Rating:
Summary: Bon Appetit!
Review: Ravenous is a very clever movie and a good one at that.. It is a classic generally in the sense of other genres with sick twisted humor. It is certainly not for the faint of heart and one can make the assertion that everyone is not going to like the movie. I presume those not accustomed to gratuitous gore and the subject matter..Ahem "stew" will be offended.
Still, there is something to be said of Robert Carlyle's (trainspotting's begbie) chilling performance as the maniacal Colqhoun. The transformation from the frostbitten stranger to the cold and calculating Colqhoun (Wendigo) is very disturbing.
Robert Carlyle's Colqhoun is the epitome of pure unadulterated evil. ******* Brilliant! (The character is that good and cool so much so you actually root for the next kill.. ahem meal) A five star alone just for the cave scene and the startling music as Colqhoun closes down on the prey or preys as in plural. I think the chase scene has a mixture of strange banjo and some other instruments in the score. Nonetheless, it is very startling!
The scene with Jeffrey Jones C.O. (Quite some shock from the inept headmaster in Ferris.B to a cannibal) in the short utter "He was licking me!" is most appalling in a very funny and I might add twisted way. This movie is dark and there are other movies not exactly in the same genre but european and with just enough gore (See.. lock, stock and 2 smoking B..)
The movie is an acquired taste and no doubt, many will find the voracious appetite of Colqhoun for human flesh horrifying!
but for all others, Bon Appetit!
The films taglines like "You are who you eat" and "Eat up" says it all. It is a masterful suspense of carnivorous proportions (No Pun intended)..
Rating:
Summary: What a cool movie!
Review: This movie is spooky, thrilling, quirky, intelligent and just straight out entertaining! This movie is great. Sure, there's this strange assumption that eating other people gives you super powers, but that's ok. Think about all those old zombie or vampire movies. Does it really matter where they come from? No!It's just a supernatural thing. Cannibals can be monsters too. This movie is a lot of fun and has a lot of great characters with real conflicts. The story was well told and has an ending that will leave you with a bit to think about afterwards. Check it out.
Rating:
Summary: Damn, this movie is good! This movie is good!
Review: I rarely come across a movie like this. Not merely because it's abnormal, but because it isn't a satire or a comedy. When I come across strange movies, it is usually a comedy or satire. However, this movie is completely serious. How many cannibal movies do you come across that is a combination of unique/serious/good? Not many, I bet.
I first saw this movie in 1999 and I was shocked speechless. It was truly a sight to behold. The characters were great, the music was excellent, and the story kept me interested from beginning to end. It wasn't just these qualities that made it great, but the atmosphere and the setting really came through.
The setting is Fort Spencer, 1840's. The man we focus on? Boyd. He was a celebrated officer, but only because he played dead to capture the enemy commander. His superior was disgusted and sent him to Fort Spencer. There, he thought he might have found some peace among the band of mismatched people. However, a man in ragged clothing soon comes into the fort with a desperate tale of cannibalism. Things may not be as they seem, though.
I was really captivated by this movie, but two things really bothered me.
WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!
During a part of the movie, Boyd finds out the truth about Ives, and tries to kill him. However, this stupid Indian woman believes that Boyd must die if Ives die, and she stops every attempt he makes to kill Ives. Now, killing Ives would be a good thing, so why the hell is she stopping him? Does she want to be killed? Or is she just an idiot? This is a rather poor plot point.
Another thing that bothered me was Ives' desire for companionship. Now, he knew fully well that Boyd is dangerous, and should not be kept around, yet he keeps him alive. Colonel Hart would have been enough, but by keeping Boyd around, Ives put himself in trouble. Perhaps this was a part of his psychology and he really wanted to die, but was too afraid to commit suicide. However, the movie didn't give any clear indication of this or anything else, in my opinion.
END SPOILERS
Besides those two things, everything else about this movie was damn good. I highly recommend this movie for anyone, except for young children, and by young children, I mean kids 7 and younger. Lets face it, people, most kids older than that have seen worse. Hell, I've seen Evil Dead II when I was 7.
Rating:
Summary: Potential ultimately wasted
Review: Early in the commentary track by the director, Antonia Bird, and the composer, Damon Albarn, Bird refers to this movie as "a satire". This movie is a period piece about murder and worse, set in a remote part of the American frontier - what exactly is it supposed to be satirising? Cannibalism? The mind boggles. This error of intent is a clue to the problem with this film.
There are many wonderful things about this movie. The cinematography is expert, the set design and costuming are convincingly detailed, and the major performances are all top-notch. The script has been modified and reduced to what I think is its most effective possible form. These factors combine in a manner that should be a terrific (and terrifying) movie experience. However, it doesn't quite work. The fault lies in the post-production, which presents the movie to the audience in an inappropriate way.
In the same commentary as above, Albarn continually describes this movie as looking very "European", as opposed to American (i.e. the United States and Hollywood in particular). His disdain is obvious: "European" film is synonymous with quality, perception, and depth, as opposed to "American" crudity, ignorance, and shallowness. The validity of his prejudice could be debated at length. The problem, however, is that this opinion has led to the creation of a musical soundtrack which is inappropriately ironic in tone.
During moments that should evoke great horror, revulsion and fear in the audience, the music remains above it all, with a dismissive "what fools these mortals be" attitude. Additionally, Albarn's pop music roots betray him: his music certainly is interesting, catchy and memorable (I found myself recalling several parts of it the next day), but it continually calls attention to itself, not only with its inappropriate attitude, but also with bizarre instrument choices, and vocals that confuse the viewer, who is unsure whether the voices originate from the characters or the music.
These problems continually pull the viewer "out" of the movie, telling them that they must watch with ironic detachment rather than emotional involvement, but the movie itself doesn't justify this attitude. It is _not_ a satire, but rather a period horror movie, which admittedly has a strong streak of black humour. This misunderstanding led to a problem discovered during test screenings - the previewers said that they were didn't know whether they were supposed to laugh at the movie or not. As noted above, this was the result of an inappropriate soundtrack. This fact was not recognised by the producers, who went in the opposite direction, trying to match the movie to its soundtrack. They inserted the comic "Eat me" quote at the beginning, married the title caption to a shot of the hero vomiting, and presented the rest of the credits in a similarly "zany" way - they whoosh on and off the screen like exhibitionist skiers.
This movie did not need sign-posts indicating "wacky ironic subtext!" What it needed was a dense orchestral score, a-la Jerry Goldsmith, to complement the eerie visuals and horrifying set pieces - amplifying this film's disturbing themes, not undermining them, and trusting the dark humour to look after itself. I don't anticipate anyone bothering to produce a suitable soundtrack, and reissue the film in a new, improved edition. All we can do is watch this ultimately disappointing end-product, and daydream about what might have been.
Rating:
Summary: CURIOUS LITTLE MOVIE
Review: Cannibalism is a movie theme rarely treated in the American cinema. Maybe in some cheap horror movies or, sorry for the omission, in L.Q. Jones's A BOY AND HIS DOG but that's all. Curious when one knows that the gastronomic symbol of this nation is the beef steak. Rare.
So we have here eight soldiers confined in an isolated fort of the Sierra Nevada and a cannibal on the loose. It sounds like a vampire flick but it isn't. Robert Carlyle can walk at night AND at day and he doesn't have to wait for sunset to enjoy his special stew. And if there is one scene of RAVENOUS that will stay in your memory, it's the first violent scene featuring the transformation of Carlyle into a playing but ravenous monster. Startling.
In short, RAVENOUS should please all those who still believe that a good and smart movie doesn't need to be boring and to star Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise in the main characters.
A DVD zone curiosities.
Rating:
Summary: refer to "painfully boring" review
Review: The reviewer of this film, who calls it "painfully boring" simply typifies many american viewers. his review in its simplicity should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. ...if you're the type who has a short attention span; the reviewer is correct. all others will enjoy this rather off-beat horror/action and dark comedy.
|
