javier_garcon-47-656552 Some people that rate this are very harsh, "IGNORANCE IS BLISS" Many people today do not know how hard it was to film in the 80's with 100 pound cameras that film only once! editing nightmares! sound nightmares in the 80's going from mono to stereo quality was epic but today its in 7.1 Dolby. Things are much easier today because today you can go buy 5 go pro cameras and have them film all at once and edit it on the fly then show it within hours while back in the 80's it took months to film, a year to edit and finally 3 years later it shows up on the big screen. This movie is a historical movie, first it shows the vehicles of that era, it shows the end of the Hippie revolution which honestly this was filmed in 1978 and 1979 then look at how they talk, how they move, The background and the way things were done back then. Life was hard in the 80's, If you want to have fun watching a movie for historical purpose give this a shot, The emotions and the bad acting helped some of these would be actor to grow and flourish.

A_Minor_Blip This is a great film after the first time seeing it and then watching it twice. When you realize that the entire plot is about a man dying and coming to terms with the fact that his days, hours and minutes are numbered. When I first saw this, Ed Harris, although an excellent actor, annoyed me, but it really was his character, "Billy", who annoyed me since he was so melancholy and took himself so seriously and was such a primadonna to the other riders whom he was the chosen "King". But then I realized something; "Billy" is a man who knows he is basically dead (in a matter of speaking) (which fits being that it's a Romero film) and he must come to terms with letting go of his title, and his troupe. He is not trying to regain anything, which is what it seems like at first; he's trying to give it up gracefully. Tom Savini's "Black Knight" character is the opposite; he is very much alive and knows he won't die but he has to learn to not only humble himself, but to prove worthy of inheriting the king's title, not only through the motor-joust but through his attitude. It was nice to see a few "Dawn of the Dead" alumni, especially Scott H. Reiniger whose character "Roger" is one of the best horror films characters of all time, but we needed more of him. Some other actors came and went without much story but the main characters held everything together. This is an excellent movie, possibly one of the most underrated, and definitely the most ambitious movies ever, ever made. A true labor of love, it is one to watch again and again... because the more you see it, the more you'll get out of it. Watch for Stephen King in a very brief cameo as a hillbilly local who is watching the first jousting match in Bakersfield.

Bozo I liked this movie a lot, I really did. George Romero is one of my favorite directors and always manages to make a great movie in my opinion. His "Dead" series are my favorite zombie movies. "Martin" was a great vampire movie, and "Creepshow" was a unique movie. This movie was also very good, its only problem was that there were a lot of things that weren't properly explained or introduced. A lot of characters were left unnamed and weren't given a proper introduction. Also, a lot of actions were never properly explained, and many scenes seemed to pop out of nowhere and vanish without a trace (as many characters did). However, the story was excellent. And a lot of the great actors I had seen in other Romero movies were here: Billy Harris (Creepshow), my man Tom Savini (Dawn of the Dead, Martin, Creepshow 2, Land of the Dead), Patricia Tallman (Night of the Living Dead(1990)), John Amplas (Martin, Day of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Creepshow), Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead), Scott H. Reiniger (Dawn of the Dead), David Early (Dawn of the Dead, Creepshow), Taso N. Stavrakis (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead), James Baffico (Dawn of the Dead), Joseph Pilato (Day of the Dead), Anthony Dileo Jr. (Day of the Dead), and even Stephen King (Creepshow). The cast was great, the equipment they used was great and realistic looking. I give this hit or miss movie a 7/10.

markanderson This movie pretty much rocks. The only problem with it is the extras. They remind me of the Toxic Avenger movie - very low class - but the main characters are awesome. Ed Harris totally has the Right Stuff and the mystical qualities of this movie are indescribable. Much like life itself, it strives for the moon and ends up with romantic nonsense and utter disarray. It is perfect.It is a movie about a group of renaissance festival-type motorcycle jousters who confront the possibility of commercial success - at the expense of the altruistic round-table idealism that the group was founded on. The King Arthur of the group (Ed Harris) attempts to maintain his Puritanical hold on the group. His arch-rival (Sir Gallahad?) is the major antagonist and is a poster-child for commercialism. The end result is a cataclysm of Puritinism versus Commercialism that results in the most nihilistic nirvana that the human mind can imagine. For a romantic, it is pure gold - if you can get past the gimmicks.I actually saw this movie on cable as a boy, and I loved it. Then I bought it on DVD as a grown up and still loved it, but I also noticed the low production-quality blemishes. The director's narrative kind of makes up for it though, because you get to understand how this movie got its magical aura.