Joaquim-De-Almeida Movie Reviews

To be fair, I also disliked the much praised Terms of Endearment, so maybe McMurtry fans will love this. For myself, if there are ever prizes for the worst beginning and end of a movie, this is a contender for both. The first beginning is an elderly Native American woman warning her son to beware of a truly odd pair of women. Then it switches to a fascinating discussion among the cowboys: "Woody, did you ever see a whore (pronounced hur) with a snapping turtle?" "Why no, Gus, I never did see a hur with a snapping turtle. How about you Clem, did you ever see a hur with a snapping turtle?" "Why gracious sakes alive, no, I never did see a hur with a snapping turtle." I'm sure it didn't really last for twenty minutes, but it was a long time until she finally threw it at someone. "How about you Slim, did you ever see a hur with a snapping turtle?" "Oh no, I seen an investment banker with a snapping turtle, but never no hur." Maybe the idea is to convince us that, say what you will about television, it beats flying snapping turtles. "How about you, Russ ..." Most of the movie consists of watching the characters drop like flies from various causes, mostly being shot. This is less exciting than one might think: the very few characters I liked died, and I was utterly indifferent to the fate of the rest. Finally, our surviving heroes are held captive by the Mexicans and then sent on their way with two women and a boy. They are nearly attacked by the aforementioned Native American warrior. However, his mother did warn him that if he saw a white woman with leprosy riding naked on a horse followed by a black woman, also riding, brandishing a sword, he should high-tail it out of there. The most bizarre thing is that the women assume these postures as if this were the well-known, sure-fire method of scaring off attacking Indians. The viewer should take the hint and vamoose as well.

Its about Gus and Call, when they're not yet 20. It has a different ending than the book, but, I thin its a good ending, if a little strange. The way Call was portrayed in Dead Man's Walk was a little akward, but it was a good way to portray him. He wasn't that social, but willing to learn, and he was probably akward to. It makes sense. A lot of people think he wasn't ever akward and he was always competent. Thats not true. The music isn't as good as Lonesome Dove's music, but still, this is a movie worth while.

Dead Man's Walk is based on Larry McMurtry's book by the same name. The main characters, Woodrow Call and Gus McRae (from his best known in this series - Lonesome Dove) are shown as young men - probably in their late teens or very early twenties. This one is a little bloody at times. David Arquette (fiancee of Courtney Cox and they guy on those goofy 10-10-321 commercials) is Gus McRae. Jonny Lee Miller (Trainspotting, Hackers, Afterglow) is Woodrow Call. Jonny Lee is the standout in this video. His interpretation of Woodrow Call is right on the money - he says so much with just an expression and since Woodrow doesn't say much - that's pretty important. We really enjoyed it but again, younger kids might want to skip this one.

I can't buy baby-faced Estevez as a cold-blooded killer (with hard eyes, as someone says). With guns waving around, he wipes out not one, but two, armies of bad guys and doesn't get a scratch. Har har. In this movie a wagon outruns horses, and a priest sits on a fortune in gold while his people are starving and tormented. Ay carumba!

That's what I asked myself. It's got a Leone story (along with a 100% authentic imitation Morricone score), Woo action (the opening nightclub scene ripped COMPLETELY out of The Killer) and tries its best to have Raimi energy. But if you're going to be "inspired" or use an "homage", it should be to compliment a story and the story's characters; not build them.

A man with no name (ugh) gets involved with a one-legged ex-confederate soldier who's on the hunt for three pieces of a map that'll lead him to confederate gold. Tailing the mysterious man is another, beefier mysterious man (Howie Long) and his band of 'regulators' who seem to want to ventilate No Name's abdomen. Emilio Estevez as No Name, I am sorry, cannot be believed. With a gut hanging over his gun belt, I felt a little awkward as he sneered out tough-guy dialogue. Then when he reached up to put his hat on with tiny little hands, I lost it. When I saw that Estevez was starring, I hoped for a character somewhat like that of Billy the Kid in Young Guns 2, who Estevez was flawless as. Mischievous, lighthearted, smart-allecky. The Spider-Man of The Old West. But alas, we're given a Clint Eastwood character that the four foot-tall Estevez can barely fit.

The script, while containing some sharp lines, seems to be built entirely around them. I tried my best to understand where Dollar for the Dead went wrong and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly went right, but I couldn't put my finger on it. A cold, quick loner who reluctantly teams up with a man for whom he feels some animosity; but somehow No Name and Peg Leg just don't achieve what Blondie and Tuco had.

Then the villains, oh my. There's a totally unexplained Union Cavalry officer who just casually shows up and wants to kill our heroes. Then there's a Mexican soldier who has some sort of weird NOT-Mexican accent that I can't understand. And Howie Long. Amazingly, Howie's bad guy is the most interesting, but, par for this movie, he's the one with seemingly the least time spent on, hence no character developement. So at last, when No Name, Howie and the Mexican soldier face off in a The Good, the Bad and the Ugly-style three-man stand-off, the only tension that's felt is from reminiscing on memories from the older movie.

A Western with Hong Kong-style action, it's what I thought the world needed. But what's here is a case of "done before and better", without a lighthearted camp that could have saved it. If you're curious to see Emilio Estevez rip off Django, Chow Yun-fat and Sylvester the Cat, then rent and be wary. Maybe with lower expectations you won't be as let-down as I was.

the film has alot of exciting parts go emilio

...this film is definitely NOT anti-American propaganda, as some viewers here have previously stated. Nowadays most open-minded people in this great nation of ours do not have a problem admitting the wrongs inflicted on peoples living here who at one time or another were deemed "different" or even "inferior" (i.e. Native Americans, African Americans, immigrants regardless of race, etc.). The problem is a lot of these same folks still find it painful to acknowledge that--contrary to what we would all like to think--the Yanks were not always the "good guys." That said, how, then, can we chastise other nations (Japan, for example) for supposedly re-writing history to their advantage when we ourselves are doing the same thing? No other nation on the planet teaches their children that the war against Mexico was provoked by "land disputes", as many American historians continue to claim. There weren't any. What was Mexico's was clearly Mexico's, period. I agree with those here who have pointed out the film's flaws. Yes, there ARE a few, the biggest one being: where did the Mexican bandidos learn to speak such good English?? But enough of that, as too many critics and angry movie-goers have already had a field day with this wonderful movie. Instead I'd like to point out the film's sad but accurate depiction of American mentality at the time, and that is the fact that many "decent, God-fearing" Anglo-Americans of the 19th and early 20th centuries were (I'm very sorry to say) bigotted, xenophobic warmongers. In that area of history the film hit the nail right on the head. Those who are offended by this shameful fact should instead try to stop seeing things as they want to see them and attempt to view this film as a lesson to be learned of the ugly realities of ignorance, bigotry and blind patriotism. And for that historical fact alone, so well depicted here, I would recommend ONE MAN'S HERO to anyone with an open-minded interest in U.S. history as it really happened. Peace, bro.

One Man's Hero depicts an important part of United States and Mexican history that is not taught in the schools in the U.S. It tells the story of persecuted Irish immigrants landed in the U.S., moving to and becoming Mexican citizens and their role in the subsequent Mexican-American War making them Mexican heros. In Mexico, St. Patrick's day celebrates the heroism of the San Patricios. The history does not compliment the U.S. government and therefore is most likely the reason those of us in the U.S. have not been told about it. While the movie seems to drag in the begining, subsequent viewings reveal more important details to the viewer. While I would not give the movie 5 stars, the importance of the story itself surpasses the average qualtiy of directorship and hollywoodizing and therefore deserves 5 stars in the knowledge it reveals.

This was a great movie, the fact that displayed the mexican-american war does not mean is anti-american, and should not be a way to be anti-american. It is just lessons to be learned to avoid doing the same mistakes over and over.

Pinata: Survival Island was a movie I just had to see. Being the horror film critic I am, I just had to rip this movie. What is it about slasher flicks that have to have stereotypes and use the same form of suspense that prior horror films have already used. Again, Hollywood thinks up a good idea but then ruins it with cliches and over-used tactics to create suspense.

The plot you probably already know: a group of college brats go to some island to play some sort of game that includes finding underwear. Meanwhile, there are Pinatas hanging every where with booz in them. Naturally, that's all these kids care about: booz. You have to love the cliche college student(s) portrayed in this movie, the kind of characters you can find in practically any other slasher film.
Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice what audience group is being targeted with this film: the younger generation, my generation. So Pinata follows the same cliche rules and has all the characters, minus two, that are young college kids as is the same in other horror films. Get the drift? This film is no different from other slasher flicks, the same kind of characters, in the same age group, all with typical reactions when the monster attacks.

I'm not even going to bother going over the characters in this movie, because I can't even remember most of their names. That's how shallow they were, which is common in most horror movies. Anytime in a horror movie, where the character's are so unoriginal that one cannot recall their names, it's a sure sign of a bad movie. Because it means those characters have no other purpose but to be future victims. Useless characters, sacrificed to the monster in order to create cheap suspense. Although, the character Lisa actually was developing more so than any of the other characters, and what does the movie do? It kills her off. Just goes to show how smart the screenplay was.

Let's talk about the monster. A killer Pinata swelled with evil spirits. I must admit and say the beginning really intrigued me, actually sent a chill or two up my spine, because it gave the monster a point to the movie, a reason for its horror. During its killing tirade, the Pinata Monster kind of switches between a guy in a suit and some animated red blob. The guy in the suit is much more scary than the graphics. This animation ruined the horror of the creature because it became like some sort of cartoon. Terrible special effects for this movie.

Also, the suspense of the film has been washed over from prior horror movies, so this movie presents no original way to keep you gripping. Such as the camera man approaching the unsuspecting victim from behind. How many horror movies do I see this in? Plenty.

Lastly, I think some of the gore in the movie is a little over-done. I especially didn't like the abundance of head bashing nor the killing of a lot of the cute girls. One even gets beheaded. Now, that's not scary, that just disturbs me to the point where I don't want to see this film again.

This film is suspenseful the first time around, maybe even scary at some points, but it doesn't last. It's not the kind of film you'll care to see more than once. It's a let down with the animation of the monster, the over use of gore, and the typical horror movie cliches that seem to be the trend in slashers. Pinata is a bust and there is no candy inside.

being a Nicholas Brendon fan, when hes on Buffy, is great but this movie made him look like a doofus, him and Pressly are great for a while, then sorta bank in the sand a little in the middle and the story goes nowhere. though Brendon has some good scenes. not much fun

This movie starts off nice, with a rather long sequence showing the creation of the evil pinata. It's rather "gothic" or at least a tad scary. Then fast forward to the present, with some rock 'n' roll, and a group of college students riding their boats out to an island.

It's your run-of-the-mill slasher flick as far as the plot.

The acting is rather above average for this sort of movie.

Overall, it's an enjoyable film. Nothing new here, but it moves along nicely.

Pinata: Survival Island was a movie I just had to see. Being the horror film critic I am, I just had to rip this movie. What is it about slasher flicks that have to have stereotypes and use the same form of suspense that prior horror films have already used. Again, Hollywood thinks up a good idea but then ruins it with cliches and over-used tactics to create suspense.

The plot you probably already know: a group of college brats go to some island to play some sort of game that includes finding underwear. Meanwhile, there are Pinatas hanging every where with booz in them. Naturally, that's all these kids care about: booz. You have to love the cliche college student(s) portrayed in this movie, the kind of characters you can find in practically any other slasher film.
Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice what audience group is being targeted with this film: the younger generation, my generation. So Pinata follows the same cliche rules and has all the characters, minus two, that are young college kids as is the same in other horror films. Get the drift? This film is no different from other slasher flicks, the same kind of characters, in the same age group, all with typical reactions when the monster attacks.

I'm not even going to bother going over the characters in this movie, because I can't even remember most of their names. That's how shallow they were, which is common in most horror movies. Anytime in a horror movie, where the character's are so unoriginal that one cannot recall their names, it's a sure sign of a bad movie. Because it means those characters have no other purpose but to be future victims. Useless characters, sacrificed to the monster in order to create cheap suspense. Although, the character Lisa actually was developing more so than any of the other characters, and what does the movie do? It kills her off. Just goes to show how smart the screenplay was.

Let's talk about the monster. A killer Pinata swelled with evil spirits. I must admit and say the beginning really intrigued me, actually sent a chill or two up my spine, because it gave the monster a point to the movie, a reason for its horror. During its killing tirade, the Pinata Monster kind of switches between a guy in a suit and some animated red blob. The guy in the suit is much more scary than the graphics. This animation ruined the horror of the creature because it became like some sort of cartoon. Terrible special effects for this movie.

Also, the suspense of the film has been washed over from prior horror movies, so this movie presents no original way to keep you gripping. Such as the camera man approaching the unsuspecting victim from behind. How many horror movies do I see this in? Plenty.

Lastly, I think some of the gore in the movie is a little over-done. I especially didn't like the abundance of head bashing nor the killing of a lot of the cute girls. One even gets beheaded. Now, that's not scary, that just disturbs me to the point where I don't want to see this film again.

This film is suspenseful the first time around, maybe even scary at some points, but it doesn't last. It's not the kind of film you'll care to see more than once. It's a let down with the animation of the monster, the over use of gore, and the typical horror movie cliches that seem to be the trend in slashers. Pinata is a bust and there is no candy inside.

being a Nicholas Brendon fan, when hes on Buffy, is great but this movie made him look like a doofus, him and Pressly are great for a while, then sorta bank in the sand a little in the middle and the story goes nowhere. though Brendon has some good scenes. not much fun

This movie starts off nice, with a rather long sequence showing the creation of the evil pinata. It's rather "gothic" or at least a tad scary. Then fast forward to the present, with some rock 'n' roll, and a group of college students riding their boats out to an island.

It's your run-of-the-mill slasher flick as far as the plot.

The acting is rather above average for this sort of movie.

Overall, it's an enjoyable film. Nothing new here, but it moves along nicely.

Pinata: Survival Island was a movie I just had to see. Being the horror film critic I am, I just had to rip this movie. What is it about slasher flicks that have to have stereotypes and use the same form of suspense that prior horror films have already used. Again, Hollywood thinks up a good idea but then ruins it with cliches and over-used tactics to create suspense.

The plot you probably already know: a group of college brats go to some island to play some sort of game that includes finding underwear. Meanwhile, there are Pinatas hanging every where with booz in them. Naturally, that's all these kids care about: booz. You have to love the cliche college student(s) portrayed in this movie, the kind of characters you can find in practically any other slasher film.
Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice what audience group is being targeted with this film: the younger generation, my generation. So Pinata follows the same cliche rules and has all the characters, minus two, that are young college kids as is the same in other horror films. Get the drift? This film is no different from other slasher flicks, the same kind of characters, in the same age group, all with typical reactions when the monster attacks.

I'm not even going to bother going over the characters in this movie, because I can't even remember most of their names. That's how shallow they were, which is common in most horror movies. Anytime in a horror movie, where the character's are so unoriginal that one cannot recall their names, it's a sure sign of a bad movie. Because it means those characters have no other purpose but to be future victims. Useless characters, sacrificed to the monster in order to create cheap suspense. Although, the character Lisa actually was developing more so than any of the other characters, and what does the movie do? It kills her off. Just goes to show how smart the screenplay was.

Let's talk about the monster. A killer Pinata swelled with evil spirits. I must admit and say the beginning really intrigued me, actually sent a chill or two up my spine, because it gave the monster a point to the movie, a reason for its horror. During its killing tirade, the Pinata Monster kind of switches between a guy in a suit and some animated red blob. The guy in the suit is much more scary than the graphics. This animation ruined the horror of the creature because it became like some sort of cartoon. Terrible special effects for this movie.

Also, the suspense of the film has been washed over from prior horror movies, so this movie presents no original way to keep you gripping. Such as the camera man approaching the unsuspecting victim from behind. How many horror movies do I see this in? Plenty.

Lastly, I think some of the gore in the movie is a little over-done. I especially didn't like the abundance of head bashing nor the killing of a lot of the cute girls. One even gets beheaded. Now, that's not scary, that just disturbs me to the point where I don't want to see this film again.

This film is suspenseful the first time around, maybe even scary at some points, but it doesn't last. It's not the kind of film you'll care to see more than once. It's a let down with the animation of the monster, the over use of gore, and the typical horror movie cliches that seem to be the trend in slashers. Pinata is a bust and there is no candy inside.

being a Nicholas Brendon fan, when hes on Buffy, is great but this movie made him look like a doofus, him and Pressly are great for a while, then sorta bank in the sand a little in the middle and the story goes nowhere. though Brendon has some good scenes. not much fun

This movie starts off nice, with a rather long sequence showing the creation of the evil pinata. It's rather "gothic" or at least a tad scary. Then fast forward to the present, with some rock 'n' roll, and a group of college students riding their boats out to an island.

It's your run-of-the-mill slasher flick as far as the plot.

The acting is rather above average for this sort of movie.

Overall, it's an enjoyable film. Nothing new here, but it moves along nicely.

Hey now everybody just listen up!! Chris wasn't the let-down this film, He's an excellent actor !! It was just the storyline that needed some work doing to it

Chris is a very good actor but this was not the role from him. To say that he is a poor actor is not fair if you have seen Greystoke of Highlander. If he was a poor actor he would not make as many movies. They sell a lot overseas. This role was just okay not great. He is much better in suspense and action.

Christopher Lambert is the worst actor I have ever seen. He is completly unnatural in movies, and worst yet he can't even muster movie chemistry with his then wife Diane Lane. She always proves to give wonderful performances, but even she couldn't make poor ol' Chris relax. The plot could have been better, the movie is kind of blah,but with only one real actor (Lane) not much can be expected.

Anglo-Paraguyan doctor Eduardo Plarr (Gere) moves into Corrientes, meets the honorary British Consul, Charlie Fortnum (Caine), an incorrigable drunk. Fortnum and the local chief of police, Colonel Perez (Hoskins), introduce him to the realities of life in the border town, which is under military occupation due to the high incidence of Paraguayan terrorism in the area. Eduardo starts having a passionless affair with Fortnum's 19 year old ex-prostitute wife and gets involved with terrorists who kidnap Charlie instead of the American Ambassador. It ends badly.

Despite the excellent cast, the performances in this film are disappointing across the board: Gere's trying to hard, Caine's trying only as hard as he has to and the usually reliable Hoskins has a worse Spanish accent than Gere's English one. The characters are one-dimensional and unsympathetic and Mackenzie directs at a snail's pace, which adds to the general feeling that nothing interesting is happening.