Ally Sheedy is a retired golfer turned motivational speaker. Patsy Kensit plays her lover and also works with her. There is another girl as well. There are some difficulties at work, a New York firm. So Ally decides she's going to go away for the weekend to some property she owns at Shelter Island. Her lover goes with her. A big storm is coming to the island and the mansion is very isolated from the rest of the island's people. The storm is a perfect set-up for the visitor who just happens to show up, supposedly "stranded" by the storm. This is the Stephen Baldwin character. It seems at first, he is who he says he is. But then he keeps finding excuses to delay leaving, and then finally he attacks Ally Sheedy. He tosses her in a marsh thinking she is dead.
Allison W (mx) wrote: lway better than twilight! twilight stupid.
Katie C (us) wrote: the biggest joke of my life.
james m (br) wrote: I like this movie alot and it may be my favorite film by the Wachowski's. Although I'd seen Speed Racer on Mtv late night back in the day I was never really got into it. After seeing this movie however I'm really excitedc to go back and check it out since I thought the Wachowski's interpretation of it was so well done. From begining to end I was sucked in, I loved the style and the story. The races are over the top and ridiculous with alot of visual effects that are mind blowing which I loved. Maybe some people don't like that type of thing but I was impressed with how they turned the style of the old cartoon show into a realistic movie. The script is well written and comes full circle from begining to end which makes the movie feel finished and well thought out, more so then any other of their films, many of which I enjoy but just don't think were as well thought out or finished as this one. It's obvious they're fans of the old show just from the care they took in translating it into a film. I'd have to think that fans of the old show will love the movie, while other people have the chance at viewing a differn't kind of racing movie obviously based on a cartoon. That premise may not appeal to everyone but anybody who is interested will not be disappointed.
Khurram A (br) wrote: Its a very different Dolph Lundgren movie with bondage...
Michael S (ru) wrote: The best police academy film by not very much. I cant remember what happens though I remember crazy voice man being funny. Please please dont get crazy voice man confused with crazy noises man. Many many many humorous moments to enjoy . . .
Brett B (au) wrote: EYES OF FIRE is a fascinating little film, one that's ripe for rediscovery. It's unbelievably idiosyncratic, especially for a horror movie from the early 1980s, and it's set during an extremely underutilized period for the genre - right before the Revolutionary War. The rendering of the period is exceptional, in the sense that it feels like we're actually out in the frontier, and though the scenery is occasionally atmospheric, this is not a terribly picturesque film; everything looks dirty, wet, or grimy. There's a haunting, dreamlike quality to much of the film, including some truly strange and unsettling visual elements, which compliment and heighten the movie's overwhelming sense of oddness. It's slow going for a while, opting to paint a portrait of frontier living instead of delivering quick and obvious scares, but as the film moves along, some genuinely eerie apparitions begin to make themselves known, and the supernatural presence in the story is personified in ways that many, I think, will find effective, complete with some neat makeup/creature effects. The movie does lack a strong narrative throughline, but as I said, it's almost operating more on a "dream logic" level than a literal one. As such, some viewers would probably find much of it on the tedious side; personal mileage may vary. In any event, EYES OF FIRE is a singular, striking experience, and one that is consistently intriguing, even if it doesn't satisfying on a narrative level.
John E (ag) wrote: dad seen it he said it was crap
Yann F (au) wrote: Un nanar seventies sur les manipulations d'embryons, dont la trame est plus ou moins pompee sur celle de Frankenstein : un toubib, bouleverse par la mort de sa femme enceinte, mene des experiences pour sauver des embryons en accelerant leur croissance mais finit par engendrer un monstre qui se retourne contre lui et sa famille. La seule originalite ici, c'est que le monstre a la plastique tres avenante de Barbara Carrera, la James Bond girl de "Jamais plus Jamais", et que le createur finit par se taper sa creature. Ce funeste inceste aurait probablement beaucoup inspire des types comme Cronenberg, De Palma ou Verhoeven. Malheureusement, "Embryo" a ete realise par un tacheron hollywodien Ralph Nelson qui n'a absolument aucune idee de mise en scene. Tout est filme avec platitude, sans distance, avec des references ultra convenues comme ce plan sur une reproduction de la "Creation d'Adam" de Michelange, au moment ou le doc' decide de poursuivre ses experiences sur des embryons humains. Les monologues interminables du toubib plombent le rythme d'entree et la musique est absolument abominable. Esthetiquement, on se croirait parfois dans un episode de "Dallas" ou de "l'Amour du Risque". Et la fin est absolument ridicule.
Allan C (ag) wrote: Pretty much everything about this film is average, story, direction, music, etc. However, you've got a young, super cool Burt Reynolds starring as Gator McKlusky! The very cool cast (Ned Beatty, Bo Hopkins, Diane Ladd, Matt Clark) and excellent stuntwork by future "Smokey and the Bandit" director Hal Needham get a lot of credit for elevating an otherwise forgettable film into something of a semi-classic drive-in flick.
Antonius B (ag) wrote: The good: the extraordinary footage of Italy, Rome, Lake Maggiore, and the Italian Alps in particular. If you're not up for an early 1960's romantic comedy, watch portions of it just as a travelogue. You may smile at the complete absence of crowds in most scenes, but that's ok. Another nice point is the soundtrack, which has some sweet, romantic songs. Both of these create a mood conducive to love, and are the main reasons to watch the film. As an added bonus, you get Suzanne Pleshette in just her second movie, as well as Angie Dickinson, and both turn in reasonably good performances; Pleshette the strong young woman finding herself falling in love, and Dickinson displaying some pretty fierce cattiness. The bad: the script. Aside from the usual romcom formula which I personally can look past, there is so much sappiness in some scenes, such as the one where the young lovers comment on raindrops rolling down a window, that I thought it was about at the middle-school level of writing (and that may be insulting to middle-schoolers). In addition to that, Troy Donahue is so wooden he's almost robotic. I know he was (and perhaps still is) a heartthrob to women, but my god, he's so bad you may laugh out loud.The ugly: the sexism. There are two sides to this type of thing in an old movie: on one hand, it does reflect the time period, so even as we shake our heads over some things, it is educational. On the other hand, you may cringe as Pleshette's friend in the bookstore says she stayed in Italy because, as she puts it, "The first time a good-looking Italian man pinched my bottom, I said, 'This is for me!'" You may also of course laugh over such a line, and then cringe. Near the beginning a very recent acquaintance to Pleshette enters her room, holds her slinky nightgown up to her, and wonder aloud what her body would look like in it. In the middle in the jazz club, you'll see a friend of Donohue's call his girlfriend over to their table, and then display "this chick I picked up in Capri" as a piece of meat, leering and ogling as she turns back and forth, imploring Donhue to "dig her figure", all without her saying a word. There are others but I'm going on too long as it is. It's not so bad as to be outrageous (depending on where your line is), but it does go so counter to Pleshette's strong stand against book censorship in the beginning of the film that is extra disappointing.
Eva B (kr) wrote: It was rather interesting and gave the audience a lot to think about but it really struggled to keep us entertained, boasting lengthy and dramatic sequences that could've been given more.
Jenna G (us) wrote: Munich is a fine film. Well acted and often intense and thrilling. Not as good as I had heard it was, but still definitely worth watching.