Christopher-Lee Movie Reviews

If you are into Martial Arts, you will enjoy this movie. It's not the greatest movie, but several of the Actor's brought out the best in their characters. Mainly, Christopher Khayman Lee and his sister Chyler Leigh. This movie is a little humorous and somewhat entertaining.

If you only live to get radical, this is the flick for you! Awesome doesn't even begin to describe the pure action/comedy this movie is. Watch out...

this movie is to me what old scjool is to john michael bonczie. its iIS a good GOOD film. now i met chyler leigh at the grocery store (big time celebrity hangout for celebrity). she was nice but she also said she had a brother in the good movie kickboxing academy. they are both good actors and this is a great film. there is humour, action, drama, tragedy, love, action, joking, and interestingh things - including characters. that are SO funny especially tarbeck the villain who once even got a toothbrush STUCK IN HIS MOUTH it was SO FUNNY and it was after he got a prank call in the morning from the kid who is a skateboarder as well as a interesting charactedr who gives the film a lighter heart and in the end saves the day from the bad guy/lawyer by winning a new skatebard which is why he wanted to enter the contest in the first place but he didn't - rather he saved the day instead. in conclusion this movie has EVERYTHING i would watch it as well as the neat soundtrack - but it does have a bit of rough language and violent images of danny after crashing. this may be my favourite movie as well it may someday be yours. watch it with the fammily to bring people together, or curl up with the girlfriend to win her with the movies romance themes, or watch it with guys who crave action! if you like extreme things such as vincent diesel then you'll totally love this movie. its like the mighty ducks except good and it has chyler leigh and IT IS DEFINATELY GOOD!

If you are into Martial Arts, you will enjoy this movie. It's not the greatest movie, but several of the Actor's brought out the best in their characters. Mainly, Christopher Khayman Lee and his sister Chyler Leigh. This movie is a little humorous and somewhat entertaining.

If you only live to get radical, this is the flick for you! Awesome doesn't even begin to describe the pure action/comedy this movie is. Watch out...

this movie is to me what old scjool is to john michael bonczie. its iIS a good GOOD film. now i met chyler leigh at the grocery store (big time celebrity hangout for celebrity). she was nice but she also said she had a brother in the good movie kickboxing academy. they are both good actors and this is a great film. there is humour, action, drama, tragedy, love, action, joking, and interestingh things - including characters. that are SO funny especially tarbeck the villain who once even got a toothbrush STUCK IN HIS MOUTH it was SO FUNNY and it was after he got a prank call in the morning from the kid who is a skateboarder as well as a interesting charactedr who gives the film a lighter heart and in the end saves the day from the bad guy/lawyer by winning a new skatebard which is why he wanted to enter the contest in the first place but he didn't - rather he saved the day instead. in conclusion this movie has EVERYTHING i would watch it as well as the neat soundtrack - but it does have a bit of rough language and violent images of danny after crashing. this may be my favourite movie as well it may someday be yours. watch it with the fammily to bring people together, or curl up with the girlfriend to win her with the movies romance themes, or watch it with guys who crave action! if you like extreme things such as vincent diesel then you'll totally love this movie. its like the mighty ducks except good and it has chyler leigh and IT IS DEFINATELY GOOD!

These movies suffer from: bad acting, bad dialogue, over the top CGI fxs, lack of emotions, and too much overall politics. I love the original trilogy but these prequels are the worst ever.

First, the movies themselves: Episode I retained the old school mystic feel of the originals, and takes the viewer back to when it all began. It suffers however, from idiotic droids and Jar Jar Binks (who posseses the most annoying voice since C3PO). It's a four star movie at least.
Episode II tells its story well, but the story is unfortunately unconvincing. Anakin is nothing but an obnoxious teenager for some reason...is the viewer expected to believe that the distinguished order of the Jedi would not educate one of its own disciples on the rudiments of life? Then there's the romance between Senator Amidala and Anakin; even given the circumstances, it's hardly believable due to Anakin's generally creepy nature. Great special effects though, a decent villian, and we finally get to see Yoda do some fighting which was simply awesome. Even though it's got some great points, it's at best a three star movie. It does require, however, a substantial amount of 'suspension of disbelief' to view and enjoy.
Now a word about formats: Put simply, if it's not widescreen, it's not worth the money.

What 20th Century Fox has had in commen with Paramount is that they are the two studios who have had very enduring space sagas that have caught the attention of the mass audience. Paramount having STAR TREK and 20th Century Fox has STAR WARS. They have earned the loyality and praise of their fans and have earned the envy of every other studio in Hollywood. Since then, many others have tried to copy the success of STAR TREK and STAR WARS, but all have been patheic failures. The stories given to us by George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry will still be with us, long after the other movie series have been forgotten.

There is only one reason to rent or buy this highly derivative, would-be noir, low-budget indie flick ' Michael Wincott's skillful, moving performance in what is apparently his only full-length, feature role after years of doing small supporting parts mostly as psychotic serial killers. Here he is very moving in a complex role as a soft-hearted Mafia wiseguy with a penchant for saving people. It is a neat idea that takes your initial stereotyped reaction to his harsh appearance and deep, gravely voice -- that he is going to be yet another crazy killer -- and spins it in the other direction. By the end of the movie, it's his character (Frankie) you are concerned about....not the "hero". While the film is otherwise pretty forgettable, I couldn't get his performance out of my mind after seeing it this summer. Prior to this, I had never heard of this very talented actor before.

Unfortunately, GUNSHY is otherwise badly flawed, suffering from a genuinely awful script by Larry Gross loaded fillled absolute howlers, corny situations and references to better films (especially GROSSE POINT BLANK, DONNIE BRASCO, GET SHORTY, LEAVING LAS VEGAS, MONA LISA, just to mention a few) that just make this look very lame in comparison...plus the absurdness of a crime gang that has exactly four members, one of whom is in a wheelchair, and who hail from that crime mecca of IRELAND. The terrible problem of IRISH gangland crime in Atlantic City?

The other leads are just unbelievably bad in this. They are otherwise respected performers, so I am not sure if the bad script or bad direction threw them off or what. William L. Petersen in particular is actually embarrassing. He is very badly miscast as Jake Bridges, a down-and-out journalist, who just like the character in 'Leaving Las Vegas' has gone to a gambling mecca to 'drink himself to death.' Petersen's performance is full of annoying mannerisms -- it is really agonizing to watch the hammy expression on his face as he chokes down drinks (demon alchohol, I guess). Combined with his heartless betrayal of his only friend Frankie, this makes Jake unsympathetic, and as he is the protagonist AND narrator that throws the whole dramatic structure of the film off-kilter. Beautiful Diane Lane (Melissa) is so affectless and flat that she is barely engaged with the story at all and is handicapped by a dreadfully fake "dees-dem-does Jersey" accent. (Needless to say, when either of them has a scene with Wincott, they are simply blown off the screen by his intensity and professionalism.) She has zero sexual chemistry with either actor, and she is particularly unbelievable as a nurse -- who wears spike heels to work with her nurse's whites! -- and who doesn't seem to know better than to leave a man (severely beaten and in shock) passed out unconscious on her living room sofa. The script suffers from Mr. Gross's concept that nursing is a 'loser' profession for uneducated gun molls, a very odd idea indeed, as an R.N. would normally have a college degree and earn a very good income.

Additionally, I have a hard time believing that Mr. Gross ever did more than visit Atlantic City -- this film doesn't have the gritty realism of a story set in a very particular time and place. It could have been set most anywhere and indeed was filmed mostly on soundstages in L.A. (so why not set it there? Or right...the whole 'Leaving Las Vegas' drunk thing). Except for a nice aerial shot of the Jersey shoreline in the titles, we see nothing of the casinos, or beaches or anything that would particularly center this story in its location.

Some other reviewers have commented on a homoerotic thread running through the story. This isn't really supported by the performances, but it certainly leads to some very odd lines in the movie. Jake mentions to Melissa that 'both men and women find him very attractive' -- not the sort of thing one usually says to a girl you are trying to pick up. But the most egregious example is in a shooting range, where gangster Frankie is teaching writer Jake how to use a handgun for the first time, and as they take turns firing their weapons, Jake tells Frankie, 'Now I know what I was afraid of...it feels so good.' Uh...OK. Phallic reference. I get it. But nothing is developed along this plotline, there is no erotic chemistry between the actors, and it's just a pointless and embarrassing red herring.

The two worst moments in this movie are when Petersen abruptly and pointlessly bursts into the sea chanty "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" and sings THE WHOLE THING while waiting for the other gangsters to complete a bank robbery. This is crawl-under-your-seat embarassing.

The other one is near the end, when we see Petersen in jail -- a country club prison for white collar criminals, no doubt, as he has a private cell with his own desk and typewriter. In a cutaway, we see a bookstore piled with copies of his book, "Deception in Atlantic City: A true crime story", which has won the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism (according to the window sign). The mockup of the book is unbelievably lame -- it looks like a kid created it on a home computer -- but the worst part is that the PULITIZER PRIZE-WINNING BOOK obviously must be the story of GUNSHY (i.e., how Jake got in with a "gang" as a mole, but then double crossed the police and went to jail to save his gangster buddy). So scriptwriter Larry Gross is basically saying that the plot of GUNSHY is so wonderful, so original, and such an expose of organized crime & police corruption, that it deserves the most prestigious prize in the world for journalism!!!! hahahaha....NOT.

At the time this film was made (1998), all three actors were pretty much minor leaguers despite long resumes. Today (2003) Petersen has the lead in the No.1 TV series CSI, and Diane Lane is a major film star with an Academy Award nomination for Unfaithful and new film Under the Tuscan Sun...while Michael Wincott is still basically doing cameos as psycho killers. If this isn't total injustice, than I don't know what is. Anyways, rent this video for his performance and fast forward through the bad parts.

This is a movie about being shy of guns and is comical in a way so if you want a good laugh and enjoy watching sandra bulluck or diane lane, then rent it. You probably will enjoy the dark nature of this movie with enough laughter to keep it enjoyable.

I rented this film (and then later bought the DVD) with fairly low expectations. I knew it was straight to video and low budget. I rented it because I am a huge Michael Wincott fan and he actually has a starring role in the film. Basically, there is a whole lot more to this film than you would think. It's about redemption, honor, deception, love, friendship, and the ability to make the right decisions and gambles to change your life, all tied together.... I thought Michael Wincott was brilliant in it (Diane Lane and William Peterson were also solid). I can't talk about my favorite scenes without giving away the end, but when his character, Frankie, sees what is happening, you see the realization on his face and it is heartbreaking. He rocks thru the end of the film. I felt his performance was extremely underrated - I'd never even heard of this film. Check it out.

This BBC miniseries is far truer to the book than the recent film from Miramax staring Embeth Davidtz. I suppose, unhappy with Fanny, the screenplay writer, Patricial Rozema, rewrote the main character to reflect Jane Austen, which simply is hard to swallow. However in this version (BBC) the script is close to the character and point of the book, the only thing lacking is the acting, the cast simply seems to have missed the characters at points. The actress who plays Fanny, Sylvestra De Touzel, looks like a china doll through out much of the film and seems insipid (but many readers find Fanny insipid as it is); however, the finial scene does her credit. If you are a sympathizer with the Crawfords from the book, this is a very good adaptation since Robert Burbage and Jackie Smith-Wood do the best acting in the film, if you can over look their terrible wigs. I also find Mrs. Norris to be particularly well acted and interpreted. I agree that this novel could do with a similar adaptation as Pride and Prejudice wonderfully received in 1995 by A&E/BBC in 1995 - but in comparison to the major motion picture this miniseries is far preferable to Austen enthusiasts.

This version of Mansfield Park is worth 5 stars to me, but it will not appeal to everyone. For it is not a glossy big-screen-adaption which trades Jane Austen's genius for something else. I saw it on television during a Jane Austen marathon about 5 years ago, and have been hoping to find this video ever since. At first I was not impressed, but I kept watching it because I am such a Jane Austen fan. Gradually I became hooked. All the actors looked so real. The actress who plays Fanny Price is especially interesting. She is not movie star beautiful, but she has the eyes and complexion of a nineteeth century doll. She uses her looks to portray the Fanny I imagined; the Fanny who is the antithesis of Elizabeth Bennet. On the other hand, the actress who plays Mary Crawford is beautiful but her looks are almost spoiled by the awful (yet historically accurate) wig she is made to wear. More importantly, her Mary Crawford is true to Austen, and with my modern sensibilities, I liked her very much. The other actors are also adept. I am very much looking forward to owning this video. I know I will watch it again and again, just as I read the book again and again.

I think that someone who hasn't read Mansfield Park is going to be bored by this production. And some that have read it, too. But if you have the time to invest, I think that this is about as faithful a rendition as we are likely to get.

Mansfield Park is my least favorite of Jane Austen's novels, partly because Fanny Price isn't the same kind of heroine that you find in P&P, S&S, or Emma. So - a producer could make a video with an exciting Fanny Price, but then you wouldn't have Mansfield Park.

I give it 5 stars because I believe this video does the best possible job with a complex plot, and because I believe that the actors were apt for the roles they were given.

This BBC miniseries is far truer to the book than the recent film from Miramax staring Embeth Davidtz. I suppose, unhappy with Fanny, the screenplay writer, Patricial Rozema, rewrote the main character to reflect Jane Austen, which simply is hard to swallow. However in this version (BBC) the script is close to the character and point of the book, the only thing lacking is the acting, the cast simply seems to have missed the characters at points. The actress who plays Fanny, Sylvestra De Touzel, looks like a china doll through out much of the film and seems insipid (but many readers find Fanny insipid as it is); however, the finial scene does her credit. If you are a sympathizer with the Crawfords from the book, this is a very good adaptation since Robert Burbage and Jackie Smith-Wood do the best acting in the film, if you can over look their terrible wigs. I also find Mrs. Norris to be particularly well acted and interpreted. I agree that this novel could do with a similar adaptation as Pride and Prejudice wonderfully received in 1995 by A&E/BBC in 1995 - but in comparison to the major motion picture this miniseries is far preferable to Austen enthusiasts.

This version of Mansfield Park is worth 5 stars to me, but it will not appeal to everyone. For it is not a glossy big-screen-adaption which trades Jane Austen's genius for something else. I saw it on television during a Jane Austen marathon about 5 years ago, and have been hoping to find this video ever since. At first I was not impressed, but I kept watching it because I am such a Jane Austen fan. Gradually I became hooked. All the actors looked so real. The actress who plays Fanny Price is especially interesting. She is not movie star beautiful, but she has the eyes and complexion of a nineteeth century doll. She uses her looks to portray the Fanny I imagined; the Fanny who is the antithesis of Elizabeth Bennet. On the other hand, the actress who plays Mary Crawford is beautiful but her looks are almost spoiled by the awful (yet historically accurate) wig she is made to wear. More importantly, her Mary Crawford is true to Austen, and with my modern sensibilities, I liked her very much. The other actors are also adept. I am very much looking forward to owning this video. I know I will watch it again and again, just as I read the book again and again.

I think that someone who hasn't read Mansfield Park is going to be bored by this production. And some that have read it, too. But if you have the time to invest, I think that this is about as faithful a rendition as we are likely to get.

Mansfield Park is my least favorite of Jane Austen's novels, partly because Fanny Price isn't the same kind of heroine that you find in P&P, S&S, or Emma. So - a producer could make a video with an exciting Fanny Price, but then you wouldn't have Mansfield Park.

I give it 5 stars because I believe this video does the best possible job with a complex plot, and because I believe that the actors were apt for the roles they were given.

Unless you've seen the 1947 original, you can't appreciate this imitative parody. In the original film an ordinary man doing his ordinary job gets into a deadly situation. The original film is more credible in its events and characters. It may have been more believable to its audience.

This colorful version, whose everyday background contrasts with the original film, lacks the same credibility. While university professors may kill (Eichorn, Kaczynski), it is too much of a fantasy in this fictional example. Dennis Quaid has a little too much energy in him for a dying man.

One of the startling events in the original was to have the main character, the hero, die on screen. This was very unusual then, or now. This version could have been taken from MAD magazine.

This is a remake of an old black and white film about a poisoned man who learns he has so many hours to live. Like a weird kaleidoscope of action and suspense finally dragged down by it's tiresome lack of identity. I didn't enjoy the original much either.

Although I liked this film, it's probably because I was an early teen when I saw Quaid and Ryan together in Inner Space. This remake is NOT directed well; it's perhaps the sloppiest directing job I've ever seen. Chemistry is nice between Quaid and Ryan again, but it kind of creeps you out that there's supposed to be an age difference here (I really don't agree that Meg is convincing as a 19-22 year old), and Stern is as menacing here as he is in Home Alone. The script is fairly predictable even if you haven't seen the original, and in general the point of this movie was to showcase the two main stars, not to make a good remake of a good but weird old movie.

What can I say that I bet hasn't been said about Satanic Rites of Dracula that hasn't been said before. By now Hammer had run way out of steam with there Dracula films, and Christopher Lee wanted badly to get away from the role. While the film isn't the worst Dracula/Vampire film ever made, it in no way adds up to the other Dracula films that Hammer made. As a matter of fact it's sad that in the same year Hammer's Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter came out, which in my mind could have saved Hammer and there vampire films for good, giving them a new hero and line of vampire films to play with, this film and the VERY VERY BAD Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires had to come along and put the nail in Hammer's coffin. Oh well, at least for the last time we get to see the always great Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing play roles that they by now had down pat, even if the lines and set up are campy as hell. Watch this one just for a good laugh to see how low Hammer Films had gone from it's heyday in the 50's and 60's to the low points of the 70's. This films gets 2 stars just for the fact that it has Lee and Cushing in the film.

This has to be the worst of the Lee-Cushing Hammer Draculas. One has to wonder if they had a film - lame - and they said - HEY lets put Lee in his cape in here and we will make money. Idiots! Sorry, I love Lee, Cushing and the other Dracula films but Hammer was in it for the bucks here and nothing else. The fact it was released under various titles tells you something, Satanic was one, but there was "Dracula is Dead and Well and Living in London" or uninspired "Count Dracula and his Bride". I mean that is ALL they could come up with?

Sequel to A.D., charming Joanna Lumley takes over from Stephanie Beacham as Van Helsing's granddaughter. Cushing is back as well. So bad it's sort of good...lol. Count Dracula decides to wipe out mankind with a super-plague so he can finally die? Well, I am sure they thought it sounded good on paper.

Of interest to Lee-Cushing fans, but others will yawn.

Hammer films is famous for producing some of the most effective vampire films ever. This, however, is not one of them.

Our protaganist this time around centers himself amidst a group of supposed witches in a coven. One finds out shortly what the purpose of this group is for and what Dracula intends to use their services for.

In short, this makes for a very poor plot and low budget effects, we only see Dracula approach one female victim and even then we are spared the horror of her fate.

For reasons that are only purley historical was this released on DVD. Hammer fans will be disappointed by this installment, and one can see why that studio shortly thereafter ceased making films.

What can I say that I bet hasn't been said about Satanic Rites of Dracula that hasn't been said before. By now Hammer had run way out of steam with there Dracula films, and Christopher Lee wanted badly to get away from the role. While the film isn't the worst Dracula/Vampire film ever made, it in no way adds up to the other Dracula films that Hammer made. As a matter of fact it's sad that in the same year Hammer's Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter came out, which in my mind could have saved Hammer and there vampire films for good, giving them a new hero and line of vampire films to play with, this film and the VERY VERY BAD Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires had to come along and put the nail in Hammer's coffin. Oh well, at least for the last time we get to see the always great Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing play roles that they by now had down pat, even if the lines and set up are campy as hell. Watch this one just for a good laugh to see how low Hammer Films had gone from it's heyday in the 50's and 60's to the low points of the 70's. This films gets 2 stars just for the fact that it has Lee and Cushing in the film.

This has to be the worst of the Lee-Cushing Hammer Draculas. One has to wonder if they had a film - lame - and they said - HEY lets put Lee in his cape in here and we will make money. Idiots! Sorry, I love Lee, Cushing and the other Dracula films but Hammer was in it for the bucks here and nothing else. The fact it was released under various titles tells you something, Satanic was one, but there was "Dracula is Dead and Well and Living in London" or uninspired "Count Dracula and his Bride". I mean that is ALL they could come up with?

Sequel to A.D., charming Joanna Lumley takes over from Stephanie Beacham as Van Helsing's granddaughter. Cushing is back as well. So bad it's sort of good...lol. Count Dracula decides to wipe out mankind with a super-plague so he can finally die? Well, I am sure they thought it sounded good on paper.

Of interest to Lee-Cushing fans, but others will yawn.

Hammer films is famous for producing some of the most effective vampire films ever. This, however, is not one of them.

Our protaganist this time around centers himself amidst a group of supposed witches in a coven. One finds out shortly what the purpose of this group is for and what Dracula intends to use their services for.

In short, this makes for a very poor plot and low budget effects, we only see Dracula approach one female victim and even then we are spared the horror of her fate.

For reasons that are only purley historical was this released on DVD. Hammer fans will be disappointed by this installment, and one can see why that studio shortly thereafter ceased making films.

In "A Night In Heaven", Lesley Ann Warren plays a college professor named Faye. Christopher Atkins is Ricky, a student in her class. At the end of his final report for his class, Ricky cracks a joke and Faye is not amused. She decides to fail him and make him take the course over again.

The next thing you know, Faye goes to watch some male strippers with some friends of hers. Who is one of the strippers? Ricky! Anyway, they develop one of the dreariest affairs I have ever seen. No sparks whatsoever.

There is also a dull side plot involving Faye's husband(!). He quits/is fired from his job. He puts 2 and 2 together and figures out that his wife is seeing the stripper. What does he decide to do? You'll just have to see in the exciting, I mean boring, climax.

I'm not really sure what the point of this movie is. There is no passion in anyone's performance. There is no actual plot and the romantic part of the film is tedious. Only recommended for fans of Christopher Atkins naked body.

I remember watching this movie on HBO after its failure attempt at the box office when came out back in the early 80's. Christopher Atkins who will always be remembered for his less than revealing role opposite Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon. In "Heaven", Atkins plays a college student by day? (I think) cause Atkins cant be in high school but then again I could be wrong../male stripper by night ...Well Atkins has to pay his way for College Tution Fees...
Lesley Ann Warren is the teacher that happens to have Atkins in one of her classes at school. As I remember, Warren happens to go to the club that Atkins works at and OMG!! Both Atkins and Warren see each other,does either one run? Nope then there would be no plot line to follow...When Atkins secret job is out he makes the moves on Warren that begins a torrid affair. Oh,BTW Warrens character is married. Atkins don't mind, neither does Warren. "Heaven" may not be Atkins nor Warren's best movie but the VERY bad acting is somewhat worthy to watch. If you like to see revealing shots of Atkins, I do have to say that you gotta see this on a pay cable channel of if you can find this at a rental video store if there is one. I havent seen this movie make its appearance on DVD yet (wink) (wink) to the studio that currently has the rights to it yet but I would get it.

Mmmm. . .Should Lesley Ann Warren risk a lifetime commitment for a few blissful hours with Chris Atkins? Oh, sure she should!!! Actually, this is a sweet, romantic story about two people who, beyond their strong mutual attraction, seem to genuinely like and find comfort in one another's company. The dance scenes are fun, the plot contains strong elements of humor and sensuality, and the leads turn in some engaging performances.
Good movie, especially for the ladies.