text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
25k
|
|---|---|---|
The worst film ever, with characters from Carnosaur 1-3 inserted merely to fall to the same demise that they had in the first film, so that footage and special effects could be reused.<br /><br />Stay away from this debacle.<br /><br />Corman is ruining his legacy. He made and produced some amazing films - but that era ended with Carnosaur being his last "creative in its badness" film.
| 0
| 11,829
|
I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw a wheelchair he would simply say "Like Pelswick" and go on with what ever he was originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The "Genie" is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life. He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you can get a copy of the "Ntalented" episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will instantly love this show.
| 1
| 14,463
|
A long film about a very important character from South Africa, Stephen Biko. He is one of these Blacks who did not survive apartheid, who actually died a long time before their normal time. The already old film though does not show how important Biko was, what he really represented. His life and his teaching is reduced to little, at best a few witty remarks. The film being from 1987, the objective was to push South Africa over the brink that would lead her to liberation. So the film aims at showing how irrational the South African supporters of apartheid are, in 1987. To show this the film has to look beyond Biko's death, hence to center its discourse not on Biko but on a white liberal journalist and his escaping the absurd system in which he is living. His escape is made necessary because of the victimization he is the victim of, along with his family, and because he wants to publish the first book on Biko, after his death, and that can only happen in England. The film shows a way to escape South Africa, while apartheid is still standing and killing. So do not expect this way to be realistic and true. It could not be. But the film has tremendously aged because it does not show South Africa with any historical distantiation, the very distantiation that has taken place under Nelson Mandela's presidency and that is called forgiveness provided those who want to be forgiven speak up and out. The film is strong and emotional but that very historical limit makes it rather weak today, especially since the film does not mention the third racial community, the Indians. Panegyric books or films all have that defect: they are looking at the person they are supposed to portrait from only one point of view. That explains why the film has aged so much, seems to be coming from so long ago, as if nothing had changed at all. A remake is necessary.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID
| 1
| 20,431
|
Hey what a great idea to open a film - show someone`s home movie . Drama schools must be full of idiots ! , there they are taking drama lessons hoping to become the next big thing in Hollywood when all you have to do is send a home movie to a studio . Hey I think I`ll send in the video of my wedding and call it THE GREATEST ROMANCE EVER SEEN or send in a tape of my honeymoon and call it THE GREATEST SEX EVER SEEN . Oh hold on I`m not married and I`ve never been on honeymoon ! Not to worry I`ll send in a video of someone elses wedding/honeymoon <br /><br />!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!<br /><br />You`d think with an opening like that SHARK HUNTER could only improve wouldn`t you ? As shocking as it may seem the home movie is the best directed , best written and best acted part of the film , alas it`s all downhill from here as the family go to sea ( In reality a fog shrouded swimming pool ) in a three foot yacht where mom and dad get eaten by a CGI fin and their son Spencer swears revenge against the fin . Cut forward to the present day and the French are using an underwater research base for oil exploration . Only thing is - And it`s so obvious you can`t fail to notice this - it`s not filmed underwater !!! , the director hasn`t made any attempt whatsoever to even use the unconvincing technique of shooting the scene through a fish tank . The underwater research base is blown up by the shark ( Maybe it`s hired by Greenpeace ? ) killing everyone inside and Spencer now a grown man is hired to hunt down the shark that killed his parents and a bunch of Frenchmen . What else happens ? No idea because I decided to watch something else <br /><br />No hard feelings if any of the cast and crew are reading this and I do hope Matt Codd becomes a big fish in Hollywood . You think you know about sharks Matt ? You ain`t seen nothing yet
| 0
| 10,417
|
If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy."
| 0
| 6,741
|
First: a warning.<br /><br />I recently saw this movie on DVD in the Universal 'Hitchcock Collection' series. The source print looks to be in immaculate condition, but the image is a bit soft, suggesting it might be a second generation copy straight from video. The framing is far too tight, so all the compositions are terrible. Even the title of the movie is cropped. I gather from other IMDb reviews that there is a much better version available.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is just a footnote to Hitchcock's career.<br /><br />In his lengthy interviews with Francois Truffaut in the Sixties, Hitchcock gave a comprehensive overview of his whole body of work, but all he could say about this picture is that he did it as a favour to Carole Lombard and that he didn't understand the characters so just photographed Norman Krasna's screenplay.<br /><br />In truth, there is not much more that needs to be said.<br /><br />It is a screwball comedy out of the same mould as It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday and Philapdelphia Story. Carole Lombard is a typically feisty wife who learns that her marriage is technically invalid, falls out with with her husband on the flimsiest of pretexts and spends most of the picture being 'adorably' unreasonable.<br /><br />Robert Montgomery does well enough as the put upon husband, but it is hard not to lose patience with him. Long before the end of the movie the audience is saying: "dump the silly cow, she's not worth it."<br /><br />Gene Raymond plays the best friend with whom she becomes engaged. He is supposed to be a courtly, 'old family' Southerner, although this is not obvious from his accent and only really becomes apparent in the drunk scene (which he otherwise plays very well). He is an honourable, generous, teetotal gentleman, so of course he is bullied and patronised by Robert Montgomery and made the butt of many of the jokes - although he is not as badly treated as the similar Ralph Bellamy character in His Girl Friday.<br /><br />This movie feels like it was made by people who only knew of screwball comedies by reputation, but hadn't actually seen one. For example, a good screwball comedy has a strong central idea with a number of on-going comic threads that continually intertwine and overlap. Here, all the comedy elements are just strung out, like beads on a necklace. This is screwball comedy by the numbers.<br /><br />It is the same with the direction. Typically, these comedies race along at an ever increasing pace that rises to near hysteria by the end. Hitchcock doesn't get this. His direction is somewhat lethargic and the picture becomes a stately succession of scenes that all seem slightly over-written (but under-nourished) and slightly too long. He was never a particularly good director of actors so he just lets the cast get on with it. They do OK.<br /><br />Hitchcock had a good sense of humour, which he frequently used in his thrillers, but he had no feel for comedy as a genre. His later Trouble with Harry was also a misfire, for similar reasons to this movie, but at least he was involved in that picture. Here he is just going through the motions.<br /><br />All the people connected with this movie were good solid professionals so it is not especially bad. It just feels a bit derivative, over-familiar, over-long and ultimately rather flat.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is one for Carole Lombard fans and Hitchcock completists only.
| 0
| 11,567
|
What a joke. I am watching it on Channel 1 and I think watching paint dry is much more entertaining. What happened to Caspar Van Dien that got him roped into this nightmare. Terrible acting, very boring plot and terrible direction. It so terrible, it's funny. It's suppose to be full of suspense, but it more a comedy. If you want to see terrible acting, ridiculous script writing and sub-par plot, check this movie out. If I was Van Dien, I would not only ask for my 10% from my agent, but fire the bastard in the process. What a turkey. It's not even fit to be on MST 3K!! It would be a good movie to cure you insomnia. I especially love the part where Van Dien is throw overboard and then makes it back in just a few minutes! I can only image that this was written by non-union writers taking advantage of the writer's strike. What a horrible movie!!!
| 0
| 2,497
|
This may be all you need to know in order to decide whether you want to see this.<br /><br />The movie is bad. Really, really bad. And sometimes it seems to be aware of that and make fun of how bad it is. It aligns cliche after cliche and even manages to grow worse as it goes along with some moments that are bad enough to be hilariously funny.<br /><br />If you can laugh about really poor quality in script writing and production values, you might enjoy it. Otherwise prepare for some serious brain damage.<br /><br />3/10
| 0
| 12,160
|
I watched the first few episodes a short while back and felt I couldn't take it anymore. The horrible looking fight scenes are the worst I've ever scene in my life. About one-third of each episode is dedicated to Flash Gordon and his "mighty" fight moves. I know fight choreography from that era isn't exactly up to par with today's standards, but this is ridiculous. They don't even try to make it look realistic. Flash Gordon, who hardly resembles a fighter, uses his drunken slow moves and bare fist to knock out four or five guys with knives, guns, and other weapons. Give me a break! There's also a scene where he does some similar act while in the water. Basically every episode has scenes similar to that. As for the rest of the episode, there's not much else I remember. I basically viewed it out of curiosity on what science fiction looked like 70 years ago.
| 0
| 2,625
|
I would probably want to give this movie a zero if not for the climax, which involves not really Snakes on a Train, but rather Train IN a Snake. The premise was cooked up far more than likely over the course of a night of beers after hearing about Snakes on a Plane in production (this, in fact, was released to coincide with that film's release). The joke is probably not lost on those who will seek this out; I don't think there would be a soul out there who would consider this anything as a serious action-thriller effort (unless on an ironic level beyond the capacity for rational thought). It's about a Mayan curse placed on a woman who's damned by her family for leaving with another man, and is soon seen sickened and coughing up green slime laced with, of course, snakes. She and her beau go on a train headed for Los Angeles, and very soon after the more-than-cliché characters are privy to snakes overtaking the train- with the originator woman becoming a snake herself. <br /><br />If it would be worth listing more about the movie I would, but there isn't enough time during the day. All that can be said for the quality factor is that it's almost on-existent; there are student short films with larger budgets. Maybe that was a wise calculation on the filmmakers' end, that there would be so many copies sold, just for the joke factor alone, that they would re-coup their budget in the first weekend. Because by looking at the sets (the trains themselves change randomly in the middle of a scene!), the actors (if you can call them that, with only one other actor- the one with the very thin hair who hits on the one woman throughout the movie- who benefited from the flick being produced), the FX (also next to non-existent, making the effects in Snakes on a Plane seem like Star Wars), and the actual CGI snakes themselves, with the final huge behemoth snake something to behold in sci-fi movie channel terms.<br /><br />This all means, basically, that it is a laugh riot every step of the way (especially, as cruel as it sounds, when a little girl becomes involved in a snake's "attention"), with the very disregard for good taste working well in its favor. This being said, it is also 100% disposable, like a B-movie sour-flavor lollipop.
| 0
| 2,118
|
2:37 is an intense and fascinating drama which has some similarities in tone and subject with films like Bully, Elephant and Kids (although, by my point of view, 2:37 is a superior film to those three ones).Before watching this movie, my expectations were neutral, but I ended up taking a very good impression thanks to the intelligent screenplay, Murali K. Thalluri's perfect direction and the excellent performances from a group of young actors.<br /><br />The sporadic instances of school violence around the world have inspired many movies, TV programmes and books which pretend to find and predict the external or internal reasons of those unbridled expressions of rebelliousness, discontent...and specially madness.Some people may say that 2:37 arrives too late to that artistic movement; however, I do not think like that, because that delay permitted the movie to make a more artistic analysis, focusing on the situation with more subtleness and intelligence instead of the obvious reaction of cruelty and anguish which impregnated other movies with similar stories.<br /><br />On the characters from 2:37, we can find clichés from the juvenile cinema (from director and screenwriter John Hughes -RIP-'s movies to the teen horror films): the beautiful "princess", the clumsy "nerd", the antipathetic athletes, etc.It would have been very easy to make them become in hollow caricatures defined by their function in the screenplay; but it is something admirable that the screenplay transcends the stereotypes to make them real people with credible problems which, in more or less degree, any person can find on his/her road to maturity.<br /><br />2:37 is an excellent movie, whose only fail is that the ending feels a bit affected, but which compensates that with a lot of positive elements.It will be very interesting to see Thalluri's next projects, since he has had a great debut with this movie.
| 1
| 17,219
|
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz
| 0
| 10,274
|
I'm a Black man living in a predominantly Black city. That being said, I have some major misgivings about Tyler Perry's work. I realize that some people out there feel the need to praise him, because he's Black and trying to portray a positive image about the culture. But, I honestly do believe that, were Perry White, this film would have had the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson all over his ass.<br /><br />I have been forced to watch this movie one whole hell of a lot recently and each repeated viewing makes my blood boil. The characters are poorly written and acted. The jokes are so bad, I have to actually be told something is supposed to be funny. I'm just going to break this big pile of sh-t down.<br /><br />Madea=suck. The character may have had some appeal, but it doesn't anymore. When the only thing she ever seems to do is smack around children and threaten adults with violence she is less than useless. She is unnecessary.<br /><br />The situation with the wife beating fiancé was horsesh-t. If a woman was so scared to death of her husband, why would she try to run away when he's sleeping in bed. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to leave when he was at work. At any rate, the characters in this arc were so annoying and overbearing that I hoped he would throw her off the balcony and was royally ticked when he didn't.<br /><br />Then there are the two lovebirds. A bus driver asks a woman out by harassing her while he's making his rounds. I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe when she agreed to go out with him even more. But, what takes the cake is that a grown man was reduced to tossing pebbles at a window and passing notes like a ten year old by a castrating mega bitch. I don't use this term lightly, but that woman only had two modes. Morose victim and psycho momma. No matter which of these two faces she showed, however, there was one constant. The bus driver wasn't going to get any. He even married her without sampling the goods--WTF! <br /><br />Then there's the family reunion scene. Here we've got the mother load which includes implied incestual taboos, grinding for the sake of grinding, shirtless, overly musclebound, b-ball, plus the great taste of Maya Angelou. When those babes dragged their butts outside and called a meeting, was I wrong to wish that the oldest of them was claimed by a heart attack. All this crap is going on at the reunion, in laughably easy to separate groups, and then they ring a bell. When they do, everyone drops what they're doing and heads on over for a stern talking too, just like a pack of Pavlov's doggies--WTF!! <br /><br />Then you have the final five minutes of the film. In it we see the abusive fiancé get manhandled by his longtime victim and all around bad actress. There is an impromptu wedding where Black people are dressed like angels and are hanging from the ceiling--WTF!!! The only reason to watch it this far, besides testing your threshold for pain, is the hope that the second villain of this story gets her ass handed to her as well. Guess what, it doesn't happen. Instead, Perry takes the testicularly challenged way out and plays it safe, ending the movie on a tone of forgiveness--WTF!! <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that, if given a day , I could probably write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways this movie sucks. Don't even get me started on the rest of Tyler Perry's films. I'm just going to say this. In my opinion, as a Black guy, D.W. Griffith's legacy lives on. The irony is that it is doing so through a Black man who will be praised for doing what Birth of a Nation did, selling us down the river. I only wish Perry's films were dudes so I could kick them in the nuts. Thanks a lot, dude!! What are you going to follow this up with in 2009, a comedy about the raping and savage beating of slaves in Colonial America?
| 0
| 7,785
|
This film would be considered controversial today, but is still very funny. The racial stereotyping is done from the view of humor & not hate. This film strips off & shows how corrupt politicians already were in the early 1930's. This film proves it started before the 1970's & beyond when it has accelerated in the United States. Lloyd is still in his typical genre here, even though his character was raised in China. <br /><br />The meaning of a Cat's Paw in this instance is a person who is running for political office but is being used by the established political machine to advance their agenda. In other words, they think this guy (Lloyd)is harmless when he runs for office. Then when he gets elected, he surprises them.<br /><br />This same theme is used later in James Stewarts film Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Stewarts is more famous & has a stronger message. This film is more clever & subtle which are Harold Lloyds trademarks. <br /><br />There is still the heart of romantic comedy hidden with the facade of the movie but today's mainstream audiences would still appreciate the political humor & the ending is absolutely priceless. I wish someone could beat today's political system in this way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film & find myself wishing Harold had done more like it during the 1930's. <br /><br />At least we have this one. I think the person who is quoted most in the movie is fictional Ling Po. I always thought Confusicus was the wise one but this one makes me believe the wisdom of China was not limited to him & is a vast field of comedy Lloyd mined in this movie.
| 1
| 23,125
|
Dooley and his canine partner, Jerry Lee are together again in this 2nd sequel (?!!?) I sincerely had no clue that they made one sequel let alone two. And for a film that was only slight better than "Turner & Hooch"? This time after Dooley retires, he has to mate his dog (with other dogs, people) and wait around for Jerry Lee to poo. Real classy stuff. I mean come on now. The original had at least a few good laugh. This one has nary a one. Jim Belushi just looks old and worn out. Both Belushi brothers were great in the '80's. If John hadn't died, would he be so bad today like his brother? That thought makes me sad for some reason.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Where i saw it: USA network
| 0
| 6,875
|
I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts.
| 1
| 19,025
|
I went to the movies to see Claudine and loved every minute of it the cast and the soundtrack as well. Diahann Carroll was never better than in this role. We saw Ms. Carroll downplayed her looks barely saw her naked,smoked a cigarette, drank beer and oh she cursed. Whenever this movie was shown on TV and finally cable I would call my friends to watch it. Just the soundtrack from the very beginning of the movie is awesome all thanks to Gladys Knight and the Pips. We saw a black woman struggling to raise her children, dealing with teen pregnancy and everyday life meets a man whom she learns later on has issues himself. Finally this movie made it to DVD and well deserving.
| 1
| 17,021
|
"Best in Show" is a often hilarious mockumentary that takes us into the world of dog shows and some of the dog owners who prepare for the event. The only thing that separates this movie from real dog shows is that the dogs in "Best in Show" act more sane than their owners! Funny stuff from a top-notch cast that includes Eugene Levy (who co-wrote the film), Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch, and Christopher Guest (who co-wrote with Levy and directed). They're all funny, but Fred Willard steals the movie with his explosively funny performance as the dog show announcer who says the most outrageous things. Plus the dogs are cute too. "Best in Show" isn't exactly the laugh riot that I expected, but there are laughs and it's worth seeing.<br /><br />*** (out of four)
| 1
| 22,015
|
I remember seeing this movie back when it was released and I still remember the 'buzz' I felt when I left the cinema. Everything about this movie is magnificent! The music is top notch and I still play the soundtrack after all these years.<br /><br />I have seen this movie so many times and yet I still get yearnings to watch it again and again. Nicholas Cage was great and whenever I see Cameron Dye in anything nowadays, I always associate him with this movie. It is too bad the rest of the cast didn't go on to greater things but maybe that is part of this film's charm.<br /><br />I won't do a film school critique as I am sure all the analysts out there can find fault if they wanted to, but what I will say is that this movie defined my teenage years and still continues to influence my life over 20 years later. The movie 'feels' great and stirs up emotions when you watch it (well...it did for me) and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anybody who has not yet seen it.<br /><br />You either 'get' the movie or you don't! Those of you who 'get it' will be rewarded with a unique movie experience.
| 1
| 14,414
|
If you are the sort of person looking for a realistic film or one with a strong and believable plot, then this film is NOT for you. Nope--you'll hate it. However, for those who like sweet, slightly screwball comedies, then you'll have a nice time watching this slight film.<br /><br />Tony Randall works for the IRS and he investigates a very nice farmer who never realized he needed to file an income tax return. However hard he tries to convince them of the seriousness of his visit, everyone in the family is thrilled to have company. They dote on him and treat him like one of the family,...and have plans on getting him hitched to their daughter, Debbie Reynolds. That's really about all the plot there is. But the film gets high marks for a fun script and decent acting. A really nice little curio from the late 1950s.
| 1
| 24,707
|
Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk!
| 0
| 7,637
|
i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.
| 0
| 1,154
|
Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.<br /><br />It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try.
| 0
| 1,908
|
One of the best of the 'kitchen-sinks'. Fantastic views of London and invaluable snippets of working class life of the 60's. Loach's eye seems to capture everything, yet makes no judgment - a taste of things to come. As with 'Kes', 'Riff-raff' and 'Sweet Sixteen', it serves as a cinematic social history of Britain. Carol White is completely convincing, you love her, fancy her, want to take care of her, but hold your head at her self-destructive decisions and still follow her in some vain hope. Well backed up by Terence Stamp, ( fresh off 'The collector', also catch 'The Hit' ) and a plethora of English faces ( all looking very young ). Pefectly set to Donovan's dulcet tones. Stamp sings 'Yellow is the color', in a lovely scene, ending with him saying, " Getting better, ain't I " ( song also used in 'The rules of Attraction' - I think ) Watch Carol Whites screen mum getting ready to 'go out and get a bloke', putting on her false eye-lashes to the sound of 'Rosie' on the radio - priceless. A treasure for anyone who was around at the time and a reminder of how good life is now in England. Incidentally Soderburgh used clips from 'Poor cow' in 'The Limey'.
| 1
| 14,152
|
Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.<br /><br />Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.<br /><br />A well cared production.<br /><br />My rate: 7/10
| 1
| 17,776
|
This World War II Popeye cartoon had some very good sight gags in it, and its decidedly above-average for its genre. It was nicely drawn, too, with some great angles, good detail and....well, lots of interesting sights.<br /><br />What it amounts to is Popeye out at sea in his little boat and accidentally running into a small Japanese boat, with two guys on it. (Incidentally, why were the "Japs" always pictured with big, round glasses and bucked teeth?). <br /><br />Anyway, these harmless-looking Japanese sailors want Popeye to sign a peace treaty. Oh, boy, thinks the gullible Popeye, "wait until the Admiral sees this!" In one of those great artwork scenes I was alluding to above, we slowly see how that little Japanese ship is really a big destroyer.....and Popeye is in deep....um, water! "Why, you double-crossing Ja-pansies!," yells our Sailor Man.<br /><br />How he gets out of the situation is fun to watch.
| 1
| 23,605
|
Yeah, that's right. If I were to ask my friends this question: "What's the worst movie you have ever seen?" They might reply something like "Armageddon" (can you drill the hole?!?), "Shriek", "Plan Nine From Outer Space", "The Medallion", "Scooby Doo" etc... No - Don't get offended by this by thinking you have seen something that might be in the same department of naturally produced human fertilizer that this movie is in. If the worst movie you can think of is, let's say so bad it really pisses you off; then you know nothing my friend.<br /><br />Crazy Six... I remember the day me and a buddy of mine went to the local video store to rent a movie. Both of us had already been through most of the movies in there, and on the "new movies"-shelf we see it staring at us. "Wow, there's some good actors here man. Says something about mafia, lets just get it and get out of here". This was without doubt the worst movie mistake in my movie loving life. It was also the worst mistake for everybody else: movie lover or not.<br /><br />Watching this movie is as fun as watching a glass of ice cold water (or ice-tea....) until it reaches room temperature. Watching this movie will make you dream an eternal dream of death, if death is just blackout light and nothing, and then you realize you are just staring at your TV-monitor. Not staring. You are actually paying as much attention that is humanly possible. This is no joke.<br /><br />This movie is the perfection of making a bad movie. It's not the kind of bad you can watch, point and laugh of, its the kind of movie that is so bad you actually have no chance of ever get out of your memory. Unless perhaps you use electric shock therapy to clear out the brain. .... ... (Hey! That might be something similar to how I remember me and my buddy felt after watching it....)<br /><br />Best regards from me to you Albert Pyun.<br /><br />-Joergen
| 0
| 3,165
|
As a longtime admirer of the 2001 film "Moulin Rouge" and a more recent admirer of Jean Renoir's film-making, I knew that I'd inevitably watch his "French Cancan" sooner or later. The movie tells a fictionalized story of the opening of the Moulin Rouge nightclub. The impresario Danglard (Jean Gabin) tries to turn Montmartre laundress Nini (Françoise Arnoul) into a cancan star, without arousing the wrath of his tempestuous mistress, the belly-dancing Lola (Maria Felix). This is just one of several love triangles in "French Cancan"--true to stereotype, these French showbiz folk are always falling in love.<br /><br />Renoir directs with his typical gentle humor and attention to supporting characters, and also wrote the lyrics to a beautiful waltz song prominently featured in the movie. Gabin perfectly incarnates the aging French playboy hero. Arnoul is a cute redhead who holds her own in the dance numbers, except for a few trick shots where a double is obviously used.<br /><br />"French Cancan" is billed as a musical comedy and while there are lots of musical numbers that take place on the nightclub stage, etc., only one character, Casimir, ever breaks into song in the middle of conversation. The actor who plays him, Philippe Clay, is fun to watch--a really tall, skinny young man who sings, dances, and does contortions.<br /><br />The movie ends with a long cancan sequence, as all the characters learn to triumph over their problems and make art together. The dancing is much more brightly lit and coherently edited than in "Moulin Rouge"; in fact, if I have one complaint about "French Cancan," it's that the whole thing is a little too Technicolor. Even when Nini experiences heartbreak or someone sings a melancholy song, the lighting is bright and flat, no shadows intruding. Yes, the result is a cheerful and warmhearted musical comedy; it's just that I can't help thinking that things weren't ever this colorful and innocent in real life.
| 1
| 12,962
|
Corniness Warning. As many fellow IMDb users already know, I'm not a corny, cheesy person. If you don't want to read this kind of review, then go.<br /><br />To tell you the truth, you're hearing this from a man who laughed through Titanic and almost broke his parents' tape from continuously rewinding the propeller scene.<br /><br />---Spoilers---<br /><br />One day, I went off to the theatres with two friends to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, last year in August. The boring trailers rolled on until one started off so calmly. It was for Radio. The moment I saw the trailer, I just had to see this movie on opening weekend. When that weekend rolled along, Scary Movie 3 was out too so many teenagers were there waiting in line that Friday night. It turns out the movie sold out and those teens were so desperate to see a movie, they went and also sold out Good Boy and Radio. I couldn't get a ticket and the following weeks, I was busy with more important things. About 5 months later, my friend rented Radio. He let me borrow it and I watched it in my room. I'll tell you this now, this is the ONLY movie I have ever seen that got me crying EVER. When Radio's mother died, it just came out automatically. The next day, I went off to Blockbuster and bought the DVD.<br /><br />Well enough of my stupid personal story, let me tell you about the movie.<br /><br />Cuba Gooding Jr. stars as a mentally challenged man nick-named Radio. Ed Harris co-stars and this movie is directed by Mike Tollin. Based on a true story, Radio is a teenager who has a life by spending most of his day alone. He goes around with a shopping cart picking up whatever he can and is always carrying a radio around. He's got his own collection. At the end of every day, he goes home to his mother. He never went to school until later in the film. One day, Radio passes by the local high school while the football team is practicing. A football flies over the fence and Radio picks it up and continues on. Ed Harris plays Mr. Jones, the football coach. They meet and this is the life of Radio.<br /><br />Throughout the whole movie, Radio and Coach Jones spend quality time together, both teaching each other things. It is beautiful to see how the movie goes to the highest joys, the lowest lows, and just seeing Radio live his life. You will laugh, cry, and live the life of Radio with him. This movie holds a special place in my heart along with Toy Story and others. This is a must-see for the whole family, by yourself, or if you're someone who just wants a great drama. Radio is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Radio will never be forgotten by me. Never.<br /><br />As Ed Harris' character said greatly near the end of the movie:<br /><br />"We're not teaching Radio, Radio is teaching us."<br /><br />My Rating: 8/10<br /><br />Eliason A.
| 1
| 22,716
|
I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one...
| 0
| 12,244
|
Italian-born Eleonora has inherited from her deceased lover Karl, an ultra-modern and isolated house in the middle of the woods. It's winter and she meets the mysterious caretaker Leslie, who eventually ends up not only just looking after the house, but also that of Eleonora, as she tries to adapt to her new surroundings and a growing attraction between the pair.<br /><br />What was I expecting? A thriller indeed, but it wasn't quite so. That's just the advertising on the package for ya! I'm quite perplex about everything. The title, the story and the motivation. So how to classify it? Well, this wooden character drama is more a enigmatically moody romance bound-story of alienation, possession and dependence twisted into a complicatedly passionate relationship of two masked individuals. Co-writer (along with William Dafoe) and director Giada Colagrande's art-house film is just too clinical, distant and calculated with its mysteriously metaphoric story, which it leaves you questioning what does it all really mean
although when its sudden conclusion materialises, you'll thinking why should I actually care. What we go through feels aimless with ponderous exposition of dead air that focuses of insignificant details and images. Sterile dialogues can contributed to many awkward developments, but more so make for an leaden experience, as it never delves deep enough. Like it believes it does. The sexually salty activities filtered in just never convince and are far from erotic. They are kind of a bump in the already sluggish flow. The base of the plot makes for something interesting and fresh, but it's never fulfilling and I thought there'll be more to it then all of this dreary lingering. Colagrande's direction is professionally stylish and suitably gloomy to want she imagines, but everything feels like it's in slow motion and can get caught up admiring the same views. Most of the action stays at the one location
the house. Camera-work is potently taut, but the sullen musical score can get a bit ridiculous when it goes for some dramatically stabbing music cues that served little sense and purpose to the scenes. Giada Colagrande plays it sensually and William Dafoe sleep walks the part. He looks dog tired! While Seymour Cassel, pokes his head in now and then.<br /><br />Just where is it heading, is anyone's guess. Well, that's if you can wait around for it. I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's definitely not what I was expecting from this Indie film.
| 0
| 5,758
|
the one and only season has just aired here in Australia and i thought it was absolutely brilliant! i love it! all the story lines are so good! and its a much more realistic view on teen and family life today. yet it still kept strong family values of sticking together and being there for each other. their problems were real, and it really drew you into the show. the show is basically about this family called 'the Days' and their lives. the family consisted of Abby Day (mum), Jack Day (dad), Natalie Day (sporty daughter), Cooper Day (outsider son), and Nathan Day (boy genius son). each episodes a day of their life, with coopers perspective on things throughout it. i loved cooper his insight through out the show was just great. he was by far my favorite character. it ended with so many things it could've continued with, I'm really sad another season wasn't made. it was a great show I'm gonna miss it.
| 1
| 12,855
|
Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".<br /><br />The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.<br /><br />This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.<br /><br />Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.<br /><br />As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.
| 0
| 2,016
|
The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.
| 0
| 5,914
|
First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.<br /><br />I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing.
| 1
| 19,060
|
A Roger Corman rip-off assembled for what appears to be virtually zero budget. All of the special effects were originally used in "Battle Beyond the Stars", and I suspect a fair amount of the props, costumes and sets were re-used from other sources as well. The story seems to have been written around these elements, so this isn't really a movie as much as it's a recycling project. Third-rate "Star Wars" junk wasn't needed then or now.
| 0
| 5,622
|
I'm seen this documentary in its feature-form, in a movie theatre. And... wouah! The pictures are astonishing, one really wonder how by Jove did they manage to film those waves, those animals, those... is that a plant ? a predator ? a creature from the movie Abbyss ? Anyway, it's remarkable. Sure we've seen a lot of such documentary on TV, with weird animals and so on, but none with such a beauty, a precision, a deep emotion. The only downside is the commentary. In French it's narrated by François Perrin, usually good and familiar with beautiful documentaries, but the text is not good at all. Not enough informative of too much, innapropriatly anthropoid...
| 1
| 15,956
|
When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations, just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either, there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again, this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means, I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something.<br /><br />The movie doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many things in common but are worlds apart.
| 1
| 23,693
|
At least something good came out of Damon Runyon's misguided attempt to sentimentalize the Mafia. "Guys and Dolls," the seemingly indestructible stage musical, was captured on film in 1955 by Joseph L. Mankiewicz ("All About Eve") in a colorful, enjoyable movie that featured an all-star cast including Vivian Blaine (from the original Broadway show), Jean Simmons (whose character bears an odd resemblance to Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday") and two of the all-time great leading men, Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando, both of whom had recently won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor ("From Here To Eternity") and Best Actor ("On the Waterfront") and were on the top of their game. One listen to Brando singing "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" speaks volumes about where the early Dylan got his voice. Stubby Kaye steals the show as Nicely Nicely Johnson, who brings down the house with "Sit Down You're Rocking The Boat." The ubiquitous Sheldon Leonard adds yet another page to his rogue's gallery of screen gangsters. The film has a bright, cartoonish look, anticipating the Pop Art of the early 1960s. The characters speak in a stylized patois, apparently based on Yiddish idioms. Although the film's social attitudes and gender roles are dated, it's all great fun, and even the gentle kidding of the Salvation Army is harmless and reflects no real animosity toward organized religion. Just seeing Sinatra and Brando in the same film is reason enough to watch this movie, but it has lots of other attractions to offer during its 149 minutes.
| 1
| 15,978
|
Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too.
| 1
| 18,585
|
Some describe CALIGULIA as "the" most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.<br /><br />For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited "R" and original "Unrated" versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.<br /><br />The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.<br /><br />Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.<br /><br />In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.<br /><br />On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.<br /><br />The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
| 0
| 10,103
|
This is a low-budget spoof of the espionage genre. To help frame your expectations, you should know that: (1) The acting is wildly heavy-handed. The stars are having great fun delivering their lines with excessive eye movement, frequent hand gestures, and off-key pacing. (2) The script deliberately lacks continuity and plausibility. Oftentimes lines are abruptly jarring and humorous because they have absolutely no relevance to previous plot elements. (3) Shots are frequently framed in off-balance angles, poking fun at genre excesses. (4) A pop-eyed Jeff Goldblum delivers complex and classically preposterous dialog in a winningly sarcastic manner.<br /><br />The film has a guiding intelligence, deliberately starting with a plot element stolen from the B-films of the 1930's: a secret code with a structure that would defy explanation by Carl Sagan. The film's over-the-top acting is used mostly for comic effect during the first 90 minutes. In an early running gag, Fay Grim's son Ned is so frequently told to leave that you can't help chuckling while feeling sorry for the lad. Parker Posey's nicely choreographed fall from bed also helps set a humorous tone early in the film.<br /><br />The film's slow pacing does not enhance the comedy elements or the drama elements that later emerge. The film's impact as drama is significantly lessened by the early comedy. Moreover, it is hard to be overly involved with the characters and their fates when the early portions of the film are so sarcastic. The musical score is intentionally heavy handed, and I found this (and the off-kilter camera angles) more irritating than humorous.<br /><br />The over-the-top acting, the implausible and nearly incomprehensible plot of conspiracies/counter conspiracies, and the slow pacing will grind on many viewers. The movie is much too long at 158 minutes.<br /><br />That said, fans who are receptive to the film's sarcasm might want to watch again ... using closed captioning to best catch the intelligent ridiculousness of the dialog. The film was too slow for me and the sarcasm felt more heavy-handed than light-hearted. But, the comedy may well appeal to your tastes. The film is worth a view for those who enjoy independent films, fans of director Hal Harley, or devotees of Parker Posey (who has the most camera time).
| 0
| 1,835
|
Like other people who commented on "Fräulein Doktor" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.<br /><br />To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Paths Of Glory", "Gallipoli" and the post-war "La vie et rien d'autre"). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.<br /><br />I only wish I had taped the film.
| 1
| 14,143
|
I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.<br /><br />As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).<br /><br />That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.<br /><br />Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.<br /><br />Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.
| 0
| 4,416
|
A friend of mine recommended this movie, citing my vocal and inflective similarities with Des Howl, the movie's main character. I guess to an extent I can see that and perhaps a bit more, I'm not very sure whether or not that's flattering portrayal.<br /><br />This is a pretty unique work, the only movie to which this might have more than a glancing similarity would be True Romance, not for the content or the style of filming or for the pace of dialogue (Whale Music is just so much more, well, relaxed.) But instead that they both represent modern love stories.<br /><br />In general I'm a big fan of Canadian movies about music and musicians (for example I highly recommend Hard Core Logo) and this film in particular. It has an innocent charm, Des is not always the most likeably guy, but there's something about him that draws a sterling sort of empathy.
| 1
| 22,888
|
QUESTION: How does a film merit two different titles like "The Librarians" and "Strike Force"? <br /><br />ANSWER: The film is sooooooooo bad that the filmmakers couldn't even decide on a title!!!! <br /><br />This film is a hodgepodge of martial arts, death wish-vendettas, melodrama, romance, and other cliché film techniques. The story focuses on a vigilante group called The Librarians led by Agent Simon (WIlliam Forsythe). The group is hot in pursuit of a nefarious, multi-lingual, pockmarked creature named Marcos (Andrew Divoff) who captures women and holds them hostage in the lawless urban world of south Florida. <br /><br />Burt Reynolds appears as a cameo in this film, and his scene is entirely extraneous to the action. Burt delivers a long monologue in one of the strangest drawls I have ever heard. This may have been Burt's attempt at an Irish dialect, but the overall effect is a kind of perverse imitation of Marlon Brando in "The Godfather." <br /><br />Also appearing in this film is Erika Eleniak, who has infiltrated the inner circle of Marcos' bizarre world. Erika's character kick-boxes her way into an alliance with Simon. The Librarians and Erika will become a powerful strike force against evil in a film that has been delivered directly from the editing room to your cable TV converter box.
| 0
| 351
|
OK, the very idea is ludicrous.<br /><br />1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel<br /><br />The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break.
| 0
| 1,232
|
The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).<br /><br />The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.<br /><br />In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses.
| 1
| 14,849
|
One of the more intelligent serial killer movies in recent history. ZODIAC KILLER offers an imaginative take on the background and history of one of the most notorious serial killers. The filmmakers create an unexpectedly good insight into the pathology of this mysterious killer, and anyone who remembers Zodiac will be intrigued. Others will want to discover more about this enigmatic criminal. Unlike many serial killers, Zodiac was not insane at all but very methodical and a self-promoter. The director here plays viewer expectations and pulls it off. The film is constructed as a murder mystery, or a "cold case"-style thriller. It is an intelligent investigative/procedural-style horror film that will put-off gore-hounds in search of cheap thrills.<br /><br />Some people dislike any movie that is shot on video. This attitude is very old-style and provincial. It is an attitude and view of movies that puts technical issues above entertainment value or artistic value. These attitudes are on the way out. ZODIAC KILLER is a low-budget film, no doubt, but discerning viewers will look beyond that and find a carefully-crafted gem.
| 1
| 19,400
|
This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..<br /><br />As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.<br /><br />The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..<br /><br />I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.<br /><br />It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.
| 0
| 7,690
|
Brilliant adaptation of the novel that made famous the relatives of Chilean President Salvador Allende killed. In the environment of a large estate that arises from the ruins, becoming a force to abuse and exploitation of outrage, a luxury estate for the benefit of the upstart Esteban Trueba and his undeserved family, the brilliant Danish director Bille August recreates, in micro, which at the time would be the process leading to the greatest infamy of his story to the hardened Chilean nation, and whose main character would Augusto Pinochet (Stephen similarities with it are inevitable: recall, as an example, that image of the senator with dark glasses that makes him the wink to the general to begin making the palace).<br /><br />Bille August attends an exceptional cast in the Jeremy protruding Irons, whose character changes from arrogance and extreme cruelty, the hard lesson that life always brings us to almost force us to change. In Esteban fully applies the law of resonance, with great wisdom, Solomon describes in these words:"The things that freckles are the same punishment that will serve you." <br /><br />Unforgettable Glenn Close playing splint, the tainted sister of Stephen, whose sin, driven by loneliness, spiritual and platonic love was the wife of his cruel snowy brother. Meryl Streep also brilliant, a woman whose name came to him like a glove Clara. With telekinetic powers, cognitive and mediumistic, this hardened woman, loyal to his blunt, conservative husband, is an indicator of character and self-control that we wish for ourselves and for all human beings. <br /><br />Every character is a portrait of virtuosity (as Blanca worthy rebel leader Pedro Segundo unhappy ...) or a portrait of humiliation, like Stephen Jr., the bastard child of Senator, who serves as an instrument for the return of the boomerang. <br /><br />The film moves the bowels, we recreated some facts that should not ever be repeated, but that absurdly still happen (Colombia is a sad example) and another reminder that, against all, life is wonderful because there are always people like Isabel Allende and immortalize just Bille August.
| 1
| 24,662
|
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in the cinema!! Could not wait for it to end. To make matters worse it is given a 12A certificate so you do not see anyone getting shot, just bodies slumping to the ground, even Babban getting killed was cut out!!! Too many scenes were cut to bring in the younger viewers as I think the makers knew it would flop disastrously!! Amitabhs acting was great but that 'Basanti' wannabe and the other idiot who plays Devgans mate can't even act. Devgan was wasted!!<br /><br />I would not watch this for free again and I advise all others who read this to do just the same YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!
| 0
| 6,564
|
Hello again, I have to comment on this wonderful, exciting, and believable tale of romance and intrigue. The music in wonderful and memorable. Very good colorful movie. Another movie I liked as well later on was High Society with Bing Crosby. Wonderful music. Thanks for listening, Florence Forrester-Stockton, Reno, Nevada
| 1
| 18,454
|
It is characteristic that this film is not better known. It obviously lacks most elements that a successful theater film needs: heroes, villains, conflict and resolution, romantic love interest.. <br /><br />Everything is topsy-turvy here, nothing works out as it should, everyone is clumsy, sad, angry, hurt and hungry and nobody has a solution for anything. In short: it is war and it is hell for everybody involved. People try to do best, but interests, allegiances and so called duty interfere. The picture transports us back in time to the Civil War with an intensity seldom seen in today's cinema. Straightforward honest images of an intense beauty. The actors are very well cast for the story and they make the characters come truly alive in front of our eyes. <br /><br />A silver dollar in a heap of nickels!
| 1
| 19,811
|
18 directors had the same task: tell stories of love set in Paris. Naturally, some of them turned out better than others, but the whole mosaic is pretty charming - besides, wouldn't it be boring if all of them had the same vision of love? Here's how I rank the segments (that might change on a second viewing):<br /><br />1. "Quartier Latin", by Gérard Depardieu<br /><br />One of the greatest French actors ever directed my favourite segment, featuring the always stunning Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara. Witty and delightful.<br /><br />2. "Tour Eiffel", by Sylvain Chomet<br /><br />Cute, visually stunning (thanks to the director of "The Triplets of Belleville") story of a little boy whose parents are mimes;<br /><br />3. "Tuileries", by Ethan and Joel Coen<br /><br />The Coen Brothers + Steve Buscemi = Hilarious<br /><br />4. "Parc Monceau", by Alfonso Cuarón ("Y Tu Mamá También", "Children of Men"), feat. Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier (funny);<br /><br />5. "Place des Fêtes", by Oliver Schmitz, feat. Seydou Boro and Aissa Maiga (touching);<br /><br />6. "14th Arrondissement", Alexander Payne's ("Election", "About Schmidt") wonderful look for the pathetic side of life is present here, feat. the underrated character actress Margo Martindale (Hilary Swank's mother in "Million Dollar Baby") as a lonely, middle-aged American woman on vacation;<br /><br />7. "Faubourg Saint-Denis", Tom Tykwer's ("Run Lola Run") frantic style works in the story of a young actress (Natalie Portman) and a blind guy (Melchior Beslon) who fall in love;<br /><br />8. "Père-Lachaise", by Wes Craven, feat. Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell (plus a curious cameo by Alexander Payne as...Oscar Wilde!);<br /><br />9. "Loin du 16ème", by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas (simple but moving story from the talented Brazilian directors, feat. Catalina Sandino Moreno);<br /><br />10. "Quartier des Enfants Rouges", by Olivier Assayas ("Clean"), a sad story feat. the always fantastic Maggie Gyllenhaal;<br /><br />11. "Le Marais", by Gus Van Sant, feat. Gaspard Ulliel, Elias McConnell and Marianne Faithful (simple, but funny);<br /><br />12. "Quartier de la Madeleine", by Vincenzo Natali, feat. Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko;<br /><br />13. "Quais de Seine", by Gurinder Chadha;<br /><br />14. "Place des Victoires", by Nobuhiro Suwa, feat. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe;<br /><br />15. "Bastille", by Isabel Coixet (fabulous director of the underrated "My Life Without Me"), feat. Miranda Richardson, Sergio Castellitto, Javier Cámara and Leonor Watling;<br /><br />16. "Pigalle", by Richard LaGravenese, feat. Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant;<br /><br />17. "Montmartre", by and with Bruno Podalydès;<br /><br />18. "Porte de Choisy", by Christopher Doyle, with Barbet Schroeder (mostly known as the director of "Barfly", "Reversal of Fortune" and "Single White Female").<br /><br />I could classify some segments as brilliant and others as average (or even slightly boring), but not a single of them is plain bad. On the whole, I give "Paris, Je t'Aime" an 8.5/10 and recommend it for what it is: a lovely mosaic about love and other things in between.
| 1
| 16,112
|
Most of the Brigitte Bardot movies I've seen have failed to take full advantage of her captivating screen presence. Unfortunately, she was given few really good roles in movies of undeniable quality, which was a real oversight. She deserved them and was able to demonstrate her full cinematic power when they came her way. As Genevieve in "Love on a Pillow" we had a clear exception to the trend of light, fluffy vehicles, for it was an interesting, artistic film by any reasonable measure, and in it, a 28-year-old BB was at her most alluring. "Une Parisienne" is another, featuring an extremely captivating Brigitte in an interesting, well-crafted comedy that explores how an ambitious lady's man can be convinced to remain faithful to an incredibly beautiful young wife. There are several good performances here. Her playboy husband, Michel, is one, "the prince," played by Charles Boyer, is another, with entertaining efforts by a good supporting cast. As for Brigitte Bardot, the way she looks in this movie is the way I remember her as a kid in the fifties. She was 23 in 1957 and way ahead of her time, more beautiful than any other actress of the period, including Marilyn Monroe. Her curvy, coquettish sexuality, amply displayed in several bosom-baring, skintight dresses, simply jumps off the screen. She was more hip and cute than the women of America are today, nearly fifty years later. Obsessed with their careers and still desperately clinging to feminist politics, they come off like a bunch of clueless lesbians. In stark contrast, the sex kitten was sexually liberated, intelligent, and clearly independent long before it was fashionable, yet while fully understanding the power of her exceptional femininity, she used it for a higher purpose than mere self-interest -- she believed in love. A still photo simply could not do her justice. You had to watch her slender yet voluptuous form (with its 20-inch waist) lightly cross a room. You had to see that wild blonde mane, gaze into her big, brown, seductive eyes, and listen as her full, pouting lips spoke French. In a closeup at the end of this movie she winks and flirts with the camera, her beautiful orbs twinkling. What a babe! For fans of Brigitte Bardot, "Une Parisienne" is not to be missed.
| 1
| 21,320
|
As you might not know Eça de Queiroz is one of Portugal's most rightfully celebrated writers. He was witty, he spared no one in his critics and must now be rolling in his tomb. And that's not due to this movie being bad, which it is, but as a result of the treatment dispensed to one of his masterworks "O Crime do Padre Amaro". It's treated like cheap, throwaway trash.<br /><br />When it was publicized that this was to be a "modern and urban" take on the book I feared for the worst, normally modern in these contexts means taking the liberty to take the p**** when doing an adaptation, to half arse it in the shoddiest possible way. And so the moral and social dilemma of a priest having a secret,forbidden affair are substituted by extra-long passages of people dealing drugs and singing hip-hop for no particular or pertinent reason to the plot. It's just there like it might very well not have been.<br /><br />Oh and there's lots of sex so you can at least be counting on that when you put this on. Remember how every movie in the 80's, no matter the genre or the tone always found a way to sneak in some nudity? If it was a thriller and they had no need for it they simply found a way that when they were capturing a felon he "happened" to be in bed with a woman that would prance around screaming (naked of course) when the cops barged in. Ahem, gratuitous is the word I think. Not that there's anything wrong with nude scenes but here they make the creators of this movie look desperate simply because there's nothing else to the movie, it's totally devoid of what do you call it dramatic content.
| 0
| 5,081
|
I have just returned from Santa Fe. NM. I visited Loretto Chapel. As I looked around this building, which has been acquired by a private owner, I relived the movie version of the staircase. It is an overwhelming mystique that occupies this building. It is about what can happen if you really have faith. The bookstore there has a narrative on the subject, which is the story of the staircase. I read the narrative in its entirety. I was absorbed by the ambiance surrounding the people therein. It was like we were totally enclosed in a time warp, all with the same thoughts and awe. When we departed, the hush was overwhelming. Everyone should visit Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe. NM.
| 1
| 17,914
|
As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.
| 0
| 938
|
I am always impressed when a director (and this case director/screenwriter) takes a piece of classical text - and makes it come alive. Sure, Shakespeare's text can give you goosebumps even when hammered out with self-importance, but to see a production where true inventiveness makes wonderful words even more so - by the provision of context or nuance not found in the stage directions is simply awe-inspiring. There are many troubling things about the play. It is a racist play about racism - and that still sticks. I have never accepted Jessica's desertion of her father without any acceptable reason. I have never accepted the Christians' position of sanctimonious self-righteousness. But, brilliantly, there is a text prologue which helps us understand the times and politics in which the story is set, and mercifully, much of Jessica's part is cut.<br /><br />The text is quite stripped down with many passages cut. But, I only noticed one line which was cut at the moment when I expected to hear it - and it was replaced by a look that said it all. This economy and judicious editing has given us a gripping movie - not just a film of the play.<br /><br />And at last, there is a rationale as to why Antonio is so loyal and generous to the undeserving/unrelated Bassanio - you can almost feel Antonio's pulse start to race when he catches glimpse of Bassanio passing by in a gondola, or arriving for a visit. But it is as subtle as that - no more. I was spellbound.<br /><br />There were many other highlights. I felt the arguments during the trial to be heartbreaking. And, the suitors' trials are hilarious.<br /><br />Add all that to glorious cinematography and costumes that resonated with the times, and you'll understand why I can't wait to see it again. And again.
| 1
| 22,369
|
I am a chess player and I wanted to like this film. Trouble is, the content could have been fitted in a 30-minute documentary.<br /><br />There were lots of shots of corridors being walked down and Kasparov gazing out in the hall where he won the World Championship. There were other shots of Kasparov being walked round the site of the 1997 match and being told where he sat and where Deep Blue was located. This just looked like filler.<br /><br />Also, I didn't find it interesting to see in detail where Deep Blue was now and seeing an IBM techie trying, unsuccessfully to 'open' it. What would we have seen of interest inside anyway - a little grandmaster?<br /><br />Also, the recent match against Karpov. I no longer follow professional chess enough to know when and where this was. It would have been nice to have been told: was this a one-off 'just for the money'? Was it part of the world championship cycle? What was the final score? The nub of the film was the play in game two. Could/would IBM let Kasparov see 'inside' the machine? That's where the focus should have been.
| 0
| 9,976
|
Mild spoilers below.<br /><br />The prospect of war was clearly on the horizon when TFW was filmed. From the opening scene of European refugees to the final prediction that Naziism will be the death of millions of Germans, this movie is as much a propaganda film as the films made after Pearl Harbor. There isn't a lot of entertainment value here though the footage of the dust bowl is interesting to those of us who aren't old enough to remember it. The rest of the plot is pretty forgettable with the Herr Docktor Coburn - with a pretty bad accent - and daughter assimilating into America with Wayne's help. Other than the dust bowl scenes, the only memorable aspect of the movie is one best viewed with hindsight. Coburn's speech comparing Naziism to a malignancy worse than cancer and describing the (then current) successes as a momentary outburst of energy from a patient right before death were eerily accurate and Varno's Dr. Scherer played accurately to post war newsreel footage of unrepentant Nazis justifying their actions.<br /><br />When viewed from a historical perspective, some aspects of TFW are interesting. If you look at it for entertainment outside of the WWII perspective, you'd have to say this is one of Wayne's less successful efforts.
| 0
| 12,171
|
"New Best Friend" is another entry in the "steal another woman's life" sub-genre; the best of which are "Single White Female" and "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle"; the worse of which you can catch almost any afternoon on the Lifetime Channel. For some reason this type of identity theft happens exclusively to women.<br /><br />There are just two basic ways to play this type of story. You can make the woman evil at the beginning and let the audience watch knowingly as she hatches and implements her evil scheme. Or you use misdirection to make her appear a good person, as a seemingly unplanned series of events break in her favor until she is revealed to be evil in the climatic scene. Unfortunately the makers of "New Best Friend" could not decide how they wanted to play it and things crash and burn early. We first meet Alicia (Mia Kirshner) scamming the college's financial aid office for scholarship money. We now know that she is a bad person and will view all her subsequent activity with suspicion. But the director and editor apparently forgot that this revelation had been made and spend the next 50 minutes laying misdirection to make us think that Alicia is a good person. This introduces the only element of suspense, not about whether she is evil but about when the director and editor will wise up and stop wasting our time with transparent misdirection.<br /><br />"New Best Friend" suffers more than most from the teen movie curse of a cast too old to be portraying undergraduate students. There are really only two big parts, Hadley (Meredith Monroe) and Alicia (Kirshner). They were 31 and 26 respectively at the time of the production. It almost works for the 26 year-old Kirshner when she plays the mousy version of Alicia but it becomes glaring when she is transformed into the glamed-up version of Alicia. Monroe's casting is simply a joke, about like having Nicholette Sheridan try to pass as a classmate on "Lizzie McGwire". She looks much closer to a mid-life crisis than to a term paper.<br /><br />The producers must have owed a lot of favors because this age issue extends to most of the supporting characters. Taye Diggs who plays the town sheriff is younger than most of the students.<br /><br />The basic setup is that Hadley and two other rich party girls (played by Dominque Swain-age 21 and Rachel True-age 35) are undergrad roommates at college. They share (as their student residence) a mansion that is nicer and better furnished than the mansion on Real World-New Orleans (a premise more believable than soccer moms playing students). Alicia moves into the mansion and begins to take over Hadley's life. At least that way Swain finally gets a roommate from her own generation so the two can have a lesbian scene. Swain's supporting performance is the only good thing about "New Best Friend" and her love scene with Kirshner is fantastic, so cool and artsy that it doesn't fit with any of the other segments, maybe it was subcontracted out to a good director and cinematographer.<br /><br />The unintentionally hilarious story is presented in a series of dreary flashbacks of rampant sex and nonstop parties, each proceeded by a shot of a comatose Alicia in a hospital bed. About half of Kirshner's screen time is spent lying motionless with a tube in her mouth. Not a good career move Mia.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
| 0
| 6,604
|
Some critics have compared Chop Shop with the theatrical releases of City of God and Pixote. I've seen both of those as well as Chop Shop and like in many instances, I don't feel the comparison is warranted. City of God and Pixote surely had a much higher budget. Chop Shop is a low budget independent film about survival and hope, disappointment, and continuing with life. One of the scenes is allegedly filmed during the US Open and either the filmmakers had incredible connections or the scene was filmed at another time and the US open footage was added. I say that because I live in the area where this movie was filmed and security is insane while the tennis matches are in progress. It's also noteworthy that the actors actual names were their character's names in the movie. Back to the movie. It's an enjoyable story about survival. However, it ended up getting a 7 because... at times the actors acted extremely well. At other times, they appeared to be just reciting their lines. If the actors were less competent (as they were in the low budget "The Big Dis" for example) I would have been more forgiving. But in several scenes each and every one of these actors gave exemplary performances. At other times, they appeared bored. The director might be at fault here. I also had problems with the ending. This is one of those movies that "just ends". Maybe there will be a part 2? Definitely worth getting on DVD. I wont bother summing up the story because that info is already available on IMDb.
| 1
| 14,944
|
UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2<br /><br />WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?<br /><br />UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.<br /><br />As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).<br /><br />The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...<br /><br />In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them.
| 0
| 12,053
|
I found this movie to be a simple yet wonderful comedy. This movie is purely entertaining. I can watch it time and time again and still enjoy the dialog and chemistry between the characters. I truly hope for a DVD release!
| 1
| 14,925
|
Irvine Welsh's follow up to Trainspotting hits the screen as three short stories set in Edinburgh, all with a few of Welsh's trade marks, drug culture, depression, the working class and Hibernian football club. Uneasy to watch in places, it is no less than very well written, 2 of the stories having a darkly comic twist to them while the 2nd story a serious (and shockingly realistic) plot to it. Will not appeal to most, including myself to a point, but will no doubt adopt a cult following.
| 0
| 11,481
|
It took me years to finally catch this gem of a film and it was worth the wait. In nearly all of his films Clint always plays the hero. Be it hero, anti-hero or avenging hero. In this film he is pure villain and he plays it well.<br /><br />As a wounded union soldier he is brought into a confederate girls school by the students and teachers to heal. Soon after he begins to seduce the ladies no matter their age and some are quite young. He also plays upon their jealousies and pits them against each other. In the end you are never so happy to see Clint die a terrible death.<br /><br />That is what makes this film such a gem. Clint has never done any other film like it and after seeing this film you wish he had. He plays the role of the villain so well it will make you wonder why he never did any more films like it. It also explains why the film is not seen very often. Most people don't want to see Clint as the villain and with Dirty Harry being released shortly after this film it has become a hidden gem. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan you owe it to yourself to see this film. You might not like what you will see but you won't soon forget it.
| 1
| 20,381
|
I read the book after seeing the movie and didn't care for it, finding it somewhat trashy; but trashy books often make good movies, and this one certainly could have. The story of a teen girl's exploration of her attractive power over boys, which she finds as irresistibly stimulating as it is doubtfully controllable, and which has an even tighter grip on her than it would on a normal girl because it affects her through her werewolfry--this story would have an obvious appeal to the young audience for which movies are made: an appeal of one kind to girls, and of another kind to boys: and I don't understand how the movie makers could be blind to that and turn the story into one with little appeal to anybody.<br /><br />To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of "Like Water for Chocolate," and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.<br /><br />In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in "Howling" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.<br /><br />In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with "meat" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.<br /><br />At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.<br /><br />But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.<br /><br />There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.<br /><br />But no.
| 0
| 9,952
|
I remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants.
| 0
| 8,004
|
Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.<br /><br />In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.<br /><br />First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.<br /><br />Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.<br /><br />How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.
| 1
| 24,655
|
Let's see. This movie is many things to different people. To Finns, as shown by the comments, it can be OK or dreadful or boring. To other folks, it can be something different. First off: if you do not speak Finnish (I do), you will understand half of what is going on, as subtitles are dreadful and even the title is translated incorrectly ("Paha maa" would probably be idiomatically translated as Badlands in UK English).<br /><br />Why did I not like it? Because it is a Tarantino-style movie: it simply takes a very harsh reality and throws it back at you, as brutally as possible. I, however, am not American, and thus I am not particularly fond of this proceeding, because all it does is show that the director has really nothing new to say. Technical prowess (camera work is brilliant), script (not that unoriginal) do not rescue this movie from the bottom where it belongs. Should you wish to see a Finnish movie, then go for any of the Kaurismäki brothers' movie, who match talent and directorial skill, with very good actresses and actors. <br /><br />This director ought to review his intention and priorities: none was intelligible, and thus this film failed. By not watching it you won't miss much.
| 0
| 1,709
|
Friday the 13th meets the Matrix. As with all of these stupid horror movies, everyone knows who has been killed and who will be killed next, but do nothing to prevent anything, all with the added CGI action effects from the Matrix. Hasn't the world seen enough Matrix reproductions?
| 0
| 3,284
|
Mel Brooks really outdid himself with this hilarious stand-up of the Robin Hood story. The cast is perfect, and Cary Elwes does a fine job at his role. In my personal opinion (besides the fact that I'm a Cary Elwes fan) this movie is the best, and funniest, I've ever seen! It will have you laughing every time you see it!
| 1
| 15,451
|
What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here? <br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.<br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.<br /><br />Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.<br /><br />I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.<br /><br />For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10 <br /><br />Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.
| 0
| 7,688
|
This movie is awesome on so many levels... and none of them are the level that it was intended to be awesome on.<br /><br />Just remember this: When you're watching Shaun of the Dead and other recent zombie movies... be they good or bad... THIS is the formula that they are using. THIS is what makes zombie movies so great.<br /><br />And what makes it BETTER than great is the story behind the movie. A simple web search will provide you with everything you need to know.<br /><br />All in all, it doesn't linger. There's never a point where you think to yourself "c'mon, get on with it"... it moves quick and corners nicely. This is the sporty, little Italian number of zombie flicks.<br /><br />So awful, it's wonderful! If your tongue spends an ample amount of time in your cheek... rent it, buy it, love it.<br /><br />As a great trivia note: If you're watching it on DVD, you'll notice that there is sound effects during the menu screen, underneath the musical score... Well... that's because that music was lifted straight from the trailer... which is probably the only working print of that music that still exists which is long enough to loop.
| 1
| 22,254
|
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is set in 2001 and the main character is HAL. A computer. That's right, a computer who talks and thinks entirely on its own. This was made in 1968 and to think by 2001 it would be conceivable that computers would talk is a joke. If this was in 3064, a talking computer that had emotions and made its own decisions would be considered just as moronic as this. There is nothing in this film that provokes any kind of emotion. It provokes two reactions and one is called: sleep. It starts with nothing, but a pitch black shot for well over two minutes. Then, the first shot we see that has some kind of lighting is "The Dawn of Man" sequence. So, if it's in chronological order, the blackness prior to this, is the birth of the world? <br /><br />During "The Dawn of Man" sequence out of no where, a huge monolith comes from
out of the ground, from the sky, we'll never know where it comes from, but for one reason or another it's there. The monkeys go Apesh!t once they find this monolith that only man could have made, but that's the catch
man hasn't evolved yet. So, who made it and where did it come from? What is its purpose? The monkeys find a tool. The monkeys use bones to fight an opposing group of monkeys. The monkeys with the weapons are now the dominating group because they have used their mind to gain an advantage. The more advanced monkeys, and more importantly smarter and more innovative monkeys, are the dominate group as they have taken over the watering hole.<br /><br />We quickly jump into space, millions of years later, where we see a bunch of spaceships floating around to classical music. We can see the earth, the moon, the sun, the universe and for a film made in 1968 the visual effects are stunning, but outdated. The score is legendary. The cinematography is spectacular. The editing is atrocious. There are countless shots of boxy looking space ships floating in outer space for, what feels like, an infinite amount of time. Once we board the ship there isn't much to talk about. For the next hour Kubrick shows various shots of life in outer space. Kubrick shows us the life of an astronaut, which is very boring, and we completely get the message. The spaceships interior and exterior are bulky and outdated looking. Remember what the first cell phone looked like? Me neither, but that's what the future looks like in 2001. All the characters have clothes and hairdos that resemble 1968. The chairs are decorated in bright red colors and oddly shaped because we all know, in the future, we're going to be sitting in weird looking chairs. The computer screens are hideous looking and this is obviously prior to HDTV because the clarity is atrocious. All the TV sets look like they're from 1968, so it's not all that futuristic. Like all films set more than 20 years in advance, they look terrible and unconvincing. Just because this is Kubrick, we shouldn't say, "Well, that's how you would think it looks." No, I wouldn't. Just, like I wouldn't think a computer would be talking to me in the year 2047. It's not going to happen and if someone made a film right now, set 30 years in time and had a talking, self thinking computer, I would laugh at the stupidity of it. Just like I did with "2001". <br /><br />HAL is the liveliest person, shoot
I just called him a person. HAL is a computer, but he has more life than any of the muted characters in the film and he actually thinks he's alive. HAL is the only thing that's lively and he sees the humans as his maintenance men taking care of him while he does all the work. HAL "reads" the lips, of one of the very few conversations between Dave and Frank, and he "sees" that they are planning to turn him off. This is where the only dramatic part of the film enters- An ensuing battle between a red light and a guy in a spaceship trying to get into the bigger spaceship. Oh, the drama. Once HAL thinks he has the upper hand, Dave makes his way back into the spaceship, proving mans ingenuity. Dave proceeds to terminate HAL. HAL, pleads for his life as he slowly fades away, which, like everything else, seems to take forever.<br /><br />The final act is just as tedious as the first two. Once again, the monolith that the Apes found appears at the end. It comes out of nowhere, again. Then, an infant is born in a placenta-like shield overlooking the earth from space. What is Kubrick saying? Is it about transformation? Dave to an infant? Is man evolving again? Is Kubrick saying this is the end of man and the start of
whatever that alien looking thing is? Maybe I'm going crazy trying figure out what this crazy director is trying to say, but the more I think about the more the beginning and the ending make sense. There are so many questions left unanswered, especially for the purpose of the monolith. If you can make it through the film it should spark some thought. <br /><br />In the end the film struggles with getting to where it wants go. The first act and the third acts are strong, but the second act meanders around, hovering in one place for what seems like eternity. There is some intriguing stuff in the film that will provoke some thought if you give it a chance. Once the start of the film makes sense the ending works much better, even if you still don't what Kubrick is trying to say, which I don't.
| 1
| 15,093
|
This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.
| 0
| 7,627
|
Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.<br /><br />The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.<br /><br />The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.<br /><br />1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"<br /><br />That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"<br /><br />The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.<br /><br />The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.<br /><br />What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.<br /><br />How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'<br /><br />Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.
| 0
| 6,486
|
I liked Antz, but loved "A Bug's Life". The animation that was put into this paid off. I will definitely be getting this on DVD. By the way, Disney should make a widescreen version of this movie on tape. (I heard talk of squishing all of the characters into the screen on the standard video format). Most will have to agree that the ending credits were the funniest! I only saw one of the two sets, but I can't wat to see the other one!
| 1
| 21,310
|
The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917. Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently, Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with government agencies insisting on "socialist realism." Influenced by the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a "collision" of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content, lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied sequence in world cinema history - is the "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin.<br /><br />In structure Potemkin is a "five reeler" divided into five narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of Western drama. In "Men and Maggots," Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper class officers/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in perhaps the first deliberate "jump cut" in cinema history).<br /><br />Identified by inter-titles as "Drama on the Quarterdeck" and "An Appeal from the Dead," Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge "Death to the oppressors." Shots of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary consciousness.<br /><br />The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Christian church.<br /><br />Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach (the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened rage.<br /><br />Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power.
| 1
| 23,215
|
OK i own this DVD i got it new at amazon... i mean i think its badass and a pretty cool flick and melissa bale the slutty/bitchy girl they pick up is hot as hell ..., the acting sucks and the whole polt just sucks the clown is some huge guy wearing a mask and its disgusting but its OK i wouldn't recommend it if like u wanted to rent a good entertaining flick after a hard days work but if u have nothing else to do and ur obbsessed with this stupid movies like i am, watch it sometime, and i do not know how artisan DVD has S.I.C.K. in its DVD collection , s.i.c.k. is not good enough to be owned by a half way decent movie company OK well thats all
| 0
| 9,235
|
It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.<br /><br />If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.<br /><br />I rate it 3 out of 10
| 0
| 7,614
|
Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.<br /><br />But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.<br /><br />It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.<br /><br />Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.
| 1
| 24,782
|
One of the worst movies I've ever seen with Robert De Niro, The Fan is a pointless cliché of an exercise in slasher flicks. It tries to spin or twist the genre with preposterous plot lines of a a crazed fan turned psychotic - the movie meanders into nothing. (spoiler) We're to believe that a knife-wielding idiot has access to and murders a baseball player in a lavish hotel with no witness, security, or cameras? The movie is nonsense trying to tug at our heart-strings through the hoopla of baseball ending up mockingly unsophisticated and gimmicky. Not sure what all the actors were thinking when they got onboard this razzie. This is as big a dud as they come. Stay far away if you prefer thought in your movies
| 0
| 6,084
|
This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.<br /><br />Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself! <br /><br />What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy.
| 1
| 14,018
|
This was a great anime. True the animation is old but its still worth watching and has a better plot than Ninja Scroll, the problem that it was kinda long.<br /><br />Japanese movie star Hiroyuki Sanada who played Ujio from Last Samurai played the main character Jiro and it was directed by Rintaro who did Galaxy Express 999 and Metropolis.<br /><br />The anime has some good animation for an old anime, interesting characters like the main villain Tenkai and Ando Shouzan and of course lets not forget the beautiful musical scores in the film.<br /><br />All in all this movie is worth watching for fans of anime, animation in general, action, and Samurai/Ninja flicks. Despite the lows in the film that didn't the film from being a great film to watch.<br /><br />Don't miss this film.
| 1
| 24,575
|
This is a romantic comedy where Albert Einstein, played wonderfully by Walter Matthau, and his cronies play match maker to his niece (Meg Ryan) and a talented auto mechanic (Tim Robbins). The interplay among these major roles is augmented by a terrific supporting cast of well recognized character actors. This movie is cute and fun ... a "feel-gooder"! Hearty recommendations.
| 1
| 20,943
|
This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples. <br /><br />It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.<br /><br />The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.<br /><br />I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.
| 0
| 6,408
|
I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.<br /><br />I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.<br /><br />The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.<br /><br />Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.<br /><br />Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.
| 0
| 9,530
|
This is probably the greatest war film and certainly one of the greatest films. There's no sentimentality, no patriotic agenda, not even a hopeful message of universal brotherhood in this bleak glimpse of what we can only call hell. It's this quiet rigor and lack of manipulation that give the film its astounding power. There aren't any attempts to make a hero out of Ichikawa's protagonist Tamura either. He's just a poor doomed sap trying to stay alive in a world of horror who hopes, but isn't sure, he can hang on to his humanity in the process. Ichikawa's fierce lack of cant and illusion make Fires on the Plain stand alone. Ichikawa died February 2008.
| 1
| 18,246
|
I saw Dark Harbor at the '98 Seattle Film Festival. Filmed against a autumnal Maine backdrop, this movie boasts an excellent cast and a plot that keeps you guessing throughout. At times eerie, at times funny, I have to say that it stayed with me for days after seeing it. Rickman and Walker are wonderful as the icy marrieds and Reedus is someone you'll be hearing more from, I'm sure. The opening shot of a winding, deserted road in a downpour at dusk (and the score that accompanied it) set the tone so well -- just terrific. Nice, nice work from a new-ish director/screenwriter and his talented crew.
| 1
| 19,830
|
This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).<br /><br />Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!
| 0
| 3,277
|
Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"
| 0
| 9,145
|
End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.<br /><br />That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.<br /><br />I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:<br /><br />(SPOILER)<br /><br />After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?<br /><br />Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name "Christine York" after examining the phrase "Christ in New York" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.<br /><br />All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?<br /><br />The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.<br /><br />As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and *falls on it* physically.<br /><br />The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.<br /><br />How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.<br /><br />In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.<br /><br />Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?<br /><br />Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like "YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line "You're the luggage!".<br /><br />The whole theory about 666/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire. <br /><br />(END SPOILERS)<br /><br />It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.<br /><br />Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
| 0
| 11,241
|
This movie is Damian Szifrón's second immersion in movies after his excellent character study in "El Fondo del Mar". With "Tiempo De Valientes" he creates extremely well done characters, far away from prototypes and with an unprecedented chemistry between them. I've seen Szifron's talent to present every character in a lighthearted way but just enough to involve us emotionally with them. His control over them is magnificent, so he restores on the movie a great direction and an overall brilliantly polished script, the characters laugh and cry with real sentiment and invite the viewer to join them in their emotions and their evolution on screen.<br /><br />The Spanish takes over the English, the Buenos Aires urban landscape at night replaces Hollywood sets and the premise is just as interesting as any other, so we have a film daring to compete over Hollywood's Machinery.<br /><br />But I want you to see the movie mainly because I've never dealt with such endearing characters, all of them. It seems the script suits perfectly to the actors and vice versa. I really believe with a film making like this Argentina is really up to the Competition.
| 1
| 15,355
|
Yes it was a little low budget, but this movie shows love! The only bad things about it was that you can tell the budget on this film would not compare to "Waterworld" and though the plot was good, the film never really tapped into it's full potential! Strong performances from everyone and the suspense makes it worthwhile to watch on a rainy night.
| 1
| 16,650
|
I found this film to be one of those great heart-warming gems. The story line is tightly woven and the character development throughout fantastic! I am a big fan of non-US films anyway and this is right up there with: "Happenstance," "The Closet" even "King of Hearts." Vlastimil Brodsky as Fanda, is fantastic. It is a love story in the true sense of loving life and the twists and turns it takes to get the viewer to understand/enjoy Fanda's view of life (which nearly costs him<br /><br />more than he is prepared to give) are wonderful. His co-star Stelle Zazvorkova is unforgettable as his fed-up wife. I highly recommend this movie for the whole family--my children loved it.
| 1
| 17,567
|
This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.<br /><br />If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.
| 0
| 716
|
sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie.
| 0
| 6,876
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.