text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
25k
|
|---|---|---|
Like many other people, I've heard about "more" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it <br /><br />seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.
| 0
| 3,218
|
A group of cats look to find their way home after being kidnapped by a greedy butler.<br /><br />The Aristocats is regarded as one of Walt Disney's finest 2D animations with its charming script and cool characters, but it doesn't quite have the magic that created Snow White or the Jungle Book.<br /><br />The slow opening will have younger viewers raising their eyebrows but once the cats become established into the story does the fun and entertainment begin.<br /><br />The young cats create the most enjoyment with a charming young hearted rivalry, the special kind of bonding any brother or sister of any age can associate with.<br /><br />Not the funniest Disney picture out there but there are some great comic moments, especially involving the Cats and the Dogs. The representation of the gangster cats is very impressive and equally amusing.<br /><br />The story, after the boring beginning, is consistently entertaining and exactly what a family film should be. There are hardly any lapses and no dull moments. The journey to find home is interesting and you get a sense of exploring, not to mention two very strange British swans.<br /><br />With Disney, you always get a strong meaningful message. With the Jungle Book it is where you belong, with Beauty and the Beast you explore the importance of inner beauty. However with this 1970 picture there seems to be something missing. The film has the importance and relevance of home but is not cemented enough; it seems very far fetched and irrelevant.<br /><br />My sister and I found it very strange watching this as some of the central characters were voiced by the Jungle Book cast.<br /><br />Despite the bad beginning and the confusion of its preaching message, this is a consistently fun family film with a good music score and some cool crazy characters that viewers of any age can relate to.
| 1
| 16,461
|
I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.<br /><br />I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.<br /><br />Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.<br /><br />Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.<br /><br />Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.<br /><br />"That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though." this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, "What about this?" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says "Are you okay?" or "How'd you do that?" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.<br /><br />What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said "Babe?" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.<br /><br />All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything.
| 0
| 8,182
|
This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers. A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days. While the bouyant optimism of the 1960's can't be regained, I think we can at least learn a lesson from the film's breezy energy and charm. I don't know what those who label the film "boring" were watching - there's so much packed into it that it never remains the same film for more that 15 min at a time.
| 1
| 12,814
|
This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!<br /><br />
| 1
| 20,459
|
Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.<br /><br />Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.<br /><br />Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.<br /><br />The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work. <br /><br />Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.<br /><br />This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film. <br /><br />What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.
| 0
| 11,686
|
When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out! <br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.
| 0
| 1,854
|
Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one.
| 1
| 23,640
|
I agree with the above comment, I love the realism in this, and in many movies (not just movies on eating disorders) the producers seem to forget that. They take an every day problem and create a hugely dramatic scene and then come the end of the movie everything is perfect again, which I dislike because its not reality. Not meaning to say things can't get better, and not meaning to say things don't in this movie, but it doesn't spend most of the movie creating all these problems, and come the end of the movie everything is perfect again. When people have eating disorders people don't just admit it and want to get better, and then life is peachy, it takes time, and I like how in this movie we grow with the characters, we go through the difficulties with them, getting better and worse, because it is a very important part of the movie. It gets into the minds of people with eating disorders, and shows the complications and pain, in a very realistic way, and I loved that. I also love how it shows The secrecy and betrayal people feel when suffering from eating disorders, it is scary to see how people react when they find out, especially if they approve of it. I thought this movie was very touching and beautiful and well told, and defiantly one of my favourites.
| 1
| 24,269
|
The dead spots and picture-postcard superficiality of "Out of Africa" just about buried any interest I might have had to read Isak Dinesen. So when my brother bought me "Babette's Feast," and knowing it was based on a Dinesen story, I didn't exactly race to the VCR. But as the titles rolled, it became clear that this was no ordinary movie. Jutland (where it's set) is not Africa; the chill mist that collects on the camera shots is not inviting. The cold, forbidding sea; the heavy, gray clouds; the pale, icy green cliffs--translate to hardships that show on the faces over which director Gabriel Axel draws the curtain. The craggiest is Bodil Kjer's as Philippa; amid the myriad merits of this movie, the most memorable is that face. It stands like a map laying before us the cherished wonder of her minister father's apostolate; like a maze of long-overlooked fjords where the complications of her congregation's perseverance and commitment hang like gleaming escutcheons.<br /><br />I gather it's Dinesen's point how the world is drawn inexplicably to Christian dedication, when Philippa is rejected by her only serious suitor (because he fears he'll never measure up to the rules and rigors of her small religious clique), and he returns to find her mistress of whom he regards as the greatest chef on the continent. I figure it's also her point that Christ answers the doubts and regrets of those who give up worldly success (Philippa's sister Martina rebuffs efforts by a visiting baritone (Jean-Philippe Lafont whose jolliness creates an uplifting counterpoint to the sparsity of spirit that surrounds his discovery) to turn her into an opera star; the title character leaves France and an enviable reputation and seeks sanctuary as the servant of two spinster sisters) to pursue artistic triumphs for only God and those closest to Him to witness. But it's Axel who weaves the asperity of these people's lives with the richness of Martina's voice and Babette Hersant's table and effects a sumptuousness you'd never expect from a movie about sacrifice, faith, and religious conviction.<br /><br />What sets this movie apart from other religious movies is its sly humor. "Babette's Feast," that is, the banquet itself--a posthumous commemoration of the minister's 100th birthday--is a beautifully orchestrated clash of sensibilities that delivers comic moments by an ensemble of actors that are unparalleled in their subtlety. It's just this deft comedy that enriches the solemn sentiments at closing. Together they do something pious movies seldom do. They leave a believer tremulously hopeful and unexpectedly resolute and humbled.
| 1
| 22,881
|
I am a long time fan of Luc Besson's work, and for about as long as I've known his name, I've also looked for this movie. I tried looking for this movie all over California for over four years. this past summer i took a trip to Europe, one of my missions on this trip was to at least see this movie. long story short, I bought it and watched it in France! I was blown away, it completely made my trip and i finally feel content that i have seen Luc Besson's first work. absolutely amazing character development, very thought provoking, great acting and the ultimate concept movie. if you are a concept movie fan this is one of the most original and classic. I feel as though it is a rare treat to see a movie like this one, its risky, its unorthodox, and ultimately its just downright unique. if you are a Luc Besson fan, its indeed a must see, however, whether your a Besson fan or not, its definitely an important work, overall a great contribution to the immortal art of cinema.
| 1
| 16,329
|
Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.
| 0
| 456
|
I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get "best animated short film" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic "Jason Steele Marathon." I do have a lot of those.<br /><br />-R
| 1
| 16,300
|
If Saura hadn't done anything like this before, Iberia would be a milestone. Now it still deserves inclusion to honor a great director and a great cinematic conservator of Spanish culture, but he has done a lot like this before, and though we can applaud the riches he has given us, we have to pick and choose favorites and high points among similar films which include Blood Wedding (1981), Carmen (1983), El Amore Brujo (1986), Sevillanas (1992), Salomé (2002) and Tango (1998). I would choose Saura's 1995 Flamenco as his most unique and potent cultural document, next to which Iberia pales.<br /><br />Iberia is conceived as a series of interpretations of the music of Isaac Manuel Francisco Albéniz (1860-1909) and in particular his "Iberia" suite for piano. Isaac Albéniz was a great contributor to the externalization of Spanish musical culture -- its re-formatting for a non-Spanish audience. He moved to France in his early thirties and was influenced by French composers. His "Iberia" suite is an imaginative synthesis of Spanish folk music with the styles of Liszt, Dukas and d'Indy. He traveled around performing his compositions, which are a kind of beautiful standardization of Spanish rhythms and melodies, not as homogenized as Ravel's Bolero but moving in that direction. Naturally, the Spanish have repossessed Albéniz, and in Iberia, the performers reinterpret his compositions in terms of various more ethnic and regional dances and styles. But the source is a tamed and diluted form of Spanish musical and dance culture compared to the echt Spanishness of pure flamenco. Flamenco, coming out of the region of Andalusia, is a deeply felt amalgam of gitane, Hispano-Arabic, and Jewish cultures. Iberia simply is the peninsula comprising Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; the very concept is more diluted. <br /><br />Saura's Flamenco is an unstoppably intense ethnic mix of music, singing, dancing and that peacock manner of noble preening that is the essence of Spanish style, the way a man and a woman carries himself or herself with pride verging on arrogance and elegance and panache -- even bullfights and the moves of the torero are full of it -- in a series of electric sequences without introduction or conclusion; they just are. Saura always emphasized the staginess of his collaborations with choreographer Antonio Gades and other artists. In his 1995 Flamenco he dropped any pretense of a story and simply has singers, musicians, and dancers move on and off a big sound stage with nice lighting and screens, flats, and mirrors arranged by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, another of the Spanish filmmaker's important collaborators. The beginnings and endings of sequences in Flamenco are often rough, but atmospheric, marked only by the rumble and rustle of shuffling feet and a mixture of voices. Sometimes the film keeps feeding when a performance is over and you see the dancer bend over, sigh, or laugh; or somebody just unexpectedly says something. In Flamenco more than any of Saura's other musical films it's the rapt, intense interaction of singers and dancers and rhythmically clapping participant observers shouting impulsive olé's that is the "story" and creates the magic. Because Saura has truly made magic, and perhaps best so when he dropped any sort of conventional story.<br /><br />Iberia is in a similar style to some of Saura's purest musical films: no narration, no dialogue, only brief titles to indicate the type of song or the region, beginning with a pianist playing Albeniz's music and gradually moving to a series of dance sequences and a little singing. In flamenco music, the fundamental element is the unaccompanied voice, and that voice is the most unmistakable and unique contribution to world music. It relates to other songs in other ethnicities, but nothing quite equals its raw raucous unique ugly-beautiful cry that defies you to do anything but listen to it with the closest attention. Then comes the clapping and the foot stomping, and then the dancing, combined with the other elements. There is only one flamenco song in Iberia. If you love Saura's Flamenco, you'll want to see Iberia, but you'll be a bit disappointed. The style is there; some of the great voices and dancing and music are there. But Iberia's source and conception doom it to a lesser degree of power and make it a less rich and intense cultural experience.
| 1
| 13,046
|
Witticisms, colorful characters, family relationships, coping with hardships, living with fun and humor. This film has it all and more. What a great 'every man (and woman)' story, with a top notch plot and script. It offers just clean fun, lots of laughter, many smiles and pure entertainment for the whole family. Other reviewers describe the story some. I'll just offer this comparison teaser it's part "Best of Show," "Grumpy Old Men," "Millions," and some other comedy and life flicks rolled into one.<br /><br />This gem of a film most likely had limited release and is probably not very available to rent. But, it's now out on DVD and I highly recommend it for purchase. If you like good old-fashioned fun and entertaining films for the family, you can't miss with "Manna from Heaven." This film is a sure fire cure for the blues or to chase the gloom away on nasty weather days or rough times.
| 1
| 23,406
|
Fred Carpenter screened Eddie Monroe at Boston College, and judging from the enthusiastic response, he has much to be pleased about. A taught, well done Indy, impressive for it's big budget look and feel. This movie has it all: a tight script that grabs you and doesn't let go right up to it's surprise ending. This viewer didn't see it coming! Excellent performances all around. Craig Morris and Jessica Tsunis were were especially well cast in the leads, delivering strong performances. And kudos to Frank Bongiorno and Alex Corrado for creating two detectives as engaging and interesting to watch as any in film. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It confirmed my belief that some of the best work in film will be coming from the independents, and Fred Carpenter looks to be one of the best.
| 1
| 14,836
|
One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!
| 0
| 10,159
|
"A Cry in the Dark" is a masterful piece of cinema, haunting, and incredibly though provoking. The true story of Lindy Chamberland, who, in 1980, witnessed a horrific sight, seeing her 3-month-old baby being brutally taken from their family's tent, while camping on the Austrailian outback. Azaria (the baby) was never seen again, and the result of her horrendous disappearance caused a true life frenzy all around the world. Meryl Streep does immaculate justice to the role of Lindy, as she always does. But the one thing that helps "A Cry in the Dark" never fall flat is the brilliant direction. A truly inspired and accurate outlook on this baffeling case, tears are brought to the eyes. The concept is nothing less then terrifying, and afterwards you are left haunted, but also inspired.
| 1
| 22,994
|
Loved this film. Real people, great acting, humour, unpredictable. The characters were believable and you really connected with them. If you're looking for a film about slightly offbeat characters outside the mainstream of society and how they help each other, this would be a good choice.
| 1
| 21,531
|
An excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting.
| 0
| 4,480
|
It is a rare occasion when I want to see a movie again. "The Amati Girls" is such a movie. In old time movie theaters I would have stayed put for more showings. Was this story autobiographical for the writer/director? It has the aura of reality.<br /><br />The all star cast present their characters believably and with tenderness. Who would not want Mercedes Ruehl as an older sister? I have loved her work since "For Roseanna".<br /><br />With most movies, one suspends belief because we know that it is the work of actors, producers, directors, sound technicians, etc. It was hard to suspend such belief in "The Amati Girls". One feels such a part of this family! How I wanted to come to the defense of Dolores when her family is stifling her emotional life. And wanted to cheer Lee Grant as she levels criticism at Cloris Leachman's hair color. The humor throughout is not belly laugh humor, but instead has a feel-good quality that satisfies far more than pratfalls and such.<br /><br />The love that is portrayed in this cinema family is to be emulated and cherished.<br /><br />It is no coincidence that the family name, Amati, translated from the Italian means 'the loved ones'.
| 1
| 12,647
|
Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.<br /><br />Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.<br /><br />Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.
| 1
| 18,082
|
This movie is very good and the whole family would enjoy watching it.When Susie Q is of to her big night at prom she dies in a fatal car crash on her way to prom by kids who are drunk and high.As the years go by Susie's house gets sold and a family moves into the house that she loves.As the boy who now lives in the house sees Susie and is the only one who can.The two team together with his little little sister and try to save Susie's parents from being broke.Staring Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q.This movie will fell your heart with comedy,sadness and laughter.I hope that you see this movie because it is very good.But no one seems to have it on DVD or Vh's and it no longer comes on TV.
| 1
| 15,235
|
It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, "Vertigo". To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak.
| 0
| 1,579
|
I am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.<br /><br />Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?<br /><br />I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it.
| 0
| 3,283
|
This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.<br /><br />My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)<br /><br />Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)<br /><br />Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.<br /><br />The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.<br /><br />We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.<br /><br />At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.<br /><br />Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.<br /><br />Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.<br /><br />
| 0
| 8,185
|
This is the funniest sequel I have seen in a long time it is much funnier than the other three and not a bit scary. It has some very gory pieces in the film, but not bad enough to make you sick. In this one he has a female doll companion, hence the name. If you liked the first three then you'll love this, go watch it!
| 1
| 16,598
|
Without a doubt, one of Tobe Hoppor's best! Epic storytellng, great special effects, and The Spacegirl (vamp me baby!).
| 1
| 19,241
|
This extraordinary pseudo-documentary, made in 1971, perfectly captures the zeitgeist of America today...which makes it all the more scary and relevant. "subversives" (college students, hippies, black activists, academics) are being rounded up by the government and given lengthy prison terms for what amount to thought crimes and social protest. As an alternative to life in prison, these convicted "criminals" are offered three days in "Punishment Park". Their objective inside the park is to make their way to the American flag where freedom awaits them. Not surprisingly, the Punishment Park option is a dirty lie. This brilliant film from Peter Watkins even pre-dates "Battle Royale" and "Series 7", though its angle of attack is more blatantly political. Shot in '71, it looks and feels as fresh as anything made today. The performances are exemplary and the direction is razer sharp. The narrative cuts back and forth between various groups trying to survive the harsh conditions of the park and the McCarthy-like trials that convicted them. Today, this film still retains its power. In '71, there was nothing but nothing quite like it. This is a masterpiece that succeeds on a dozen levels. It has the balls that most people today have lost.
| 1
| 15,008
|
There's not much anyone can say about this flick....the plot is quite simple: Two police officers (who also happen to be lovers) are using a brothel as a stakeout in order to catch a criminal, with the help of the "lady of the house", played by hardcore pornstar Chloe. As anyone can guess, there's a few plot twists and some blurred alliances, but the writing was just horrible, even for a softcore movie.<br /><br />I've read some previous posts about Nicole Hilbig's accent (she plays the female cop). Yes, it's hard to understand what she's saying at times, but I think I've placed it. I did some sniffing around....I think she's from Germany, hence her odd-sounding accent. She makes an impression even without speaking, however...she's got a great looking body.<br /><br />There were a couple of "from behind" sex scenes in this movie that were quite graphic for a softcore film....excellent work there. The three-way scene toward the end wasn't bad either.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT*<br /><br />I kinda knew the female cop was gonna turn into a part-time call girl at the end. She enjoyed her three-way WAY too much.<br /><br />*END SPOILER*<br /><br />I'm not gonna nitpick about the story TOO much, seeing as this is a low-budget, direct-to-video softcore flick. However, it just seems like I've seen way too many movies in this genre with a similar type of storyline.<br /><br />Women: B (Chloe and Hilbig were okay as the eye-candy) Sex: B+ (scenes were kinda short, but good) Story: C (a recycled plot, but whatever works, eh?) Overall: B-
| 1
| 23,120
|
Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true!
| 1
| 19,587
|
Read the book, forget the movie!
| 0
| 6,845
|
Once in the Life means that once a hoodlum, always a hoodlum, and nobody gets in or out of `The Life' for free. Neighborhood hoodlums in New York sell drugs and run scams because they can't make it in the legitimate world, maybe because they have a criminal record, or a drug habit, or because they're just lazy. This simple story with a couple of twists about mostly despicable characters manages to draw compassion out of the audience for its main players because of their loyalty and compassion for each other. The film is written, produced, and directed by Laurence Fishburne, who also stars as 20/20 Mike (all hoodlums have nicknames), and is based on his play, `Riff Raff.' It feels like a play from beginning to end, especially during the longest scene where the three main players square off to decide who can be trusted. Often times the dialog comes very fast, much faster than it would on stage, and I think it's the film's biggest flaw. Mixed in as flashbacks throughout the film are poems from the street, a sort of iambic pentameter rap, that is violent and evocative of the world this movie discloses. The poetry makes it difficult to dismiss these men, these hoodlums who murder, cheat, and betray each other, as unworthy of our attention or below our contempt. The disturbing thing about this film is that its realism shows us not only how these people live, but how they suffer for the same reasons as us all. One is too stupid, another a junkie, and the last suffers from conscience while the audience wonders, or even laughs, at the irony of executioners demanding from him hanging in the gallows to tell jokes in the midst of his demise.
| 1
| 14,812
|
I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's "more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.<br /><br />Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.<br /><br />Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.<br /><br />Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.<br /><br />To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.<br /><br />You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.<br /><br />Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.<br /><br />If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead.
| 0
| 9,600
|
Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less "action packed". To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.<br /><br />Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.<br /><br />On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...
| 0
| 2,685
|
The original GRUDGE (the original American remake) surprisingly pulled off just about everything you could do right with a ghost flick. It had suspense, dark and moody atmosphere, some good jolts, and some genuinely creepy images. THE GRUDGE 2 attempts all of these techniques, but ultimately fails, only showing us the same old stuff we saw in the first movie, as well as a messy storyline constantly switching from Tokyo to California. It begins in Tokyo with some schoolgirls who wander into the house, now heavily blocked by one strip of police tape. One of them comes face to face with a similar wide-eyed ghost girl while trapped in a closet. She gets out, screaming frantically and they all run out of there. Next we cut to America where Karen's sister is sent by their mother to Japan to find and bring her back home. We eventually find ourselves following a very familiar concept involving a curious guy and girl investigating the history of a mysterious house. We cut back and forth to the girls from the beginning who are disappearing one by one as well as a young boy hearing strange noises in the next apartment at night, all leading up to a very unsatisfying ending. The "scare" scenes are dull and ineffective. Like The Ring 2, avoid this god awful sequel...
| 0
| 7,083
|
That this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy.
| 1
| 16,640
|
I am surprised that this, well above average 80's comedy scores only a 5.2 from all the IMDB voters. Dan Ackroyd does his usual satirical turn as a con who seizes a great opportunity to steal a contract from his prisons physician. He retreats to California to start his work giving advice on a radio show pretending to be the infamous Dr Lawrence Baird. The only person that knows he's an imposter is the drunken priest (Walter Matthau) who comes along to be pampered by Ackroyd's new found wealth having blakmailed him. Charles Grodin throws in a good supporting performance too. For its genre I think this film deserves the same crediblity as 'Ferris Bueller' or 'Trading Places'. 7.5 / 10
| 1
| 18,803
|
The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov!
| 1
| 13,360
|
"Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" is one of those wonderful old movies about house pets. Deserves a place among the great movies of its genre and even the cinema world in general, together with other animal movies like "Old Yeller", "Napoleon", "Fluke" and "Air Bud". This means it is more than just a movie about pets.<br /><br />Can this possibly be just a "remake"? It is too good to be a "remake"! I know this one by heart, since my early teen years (when I was 12).<br /><br />It's a family movie to treasure. It's emotional, thrilling, adventurous, exciting, entertaining, humorous, charming, sweet, nostalgic, beautiful, heartwarming and sometimes dramatic. It's one of those movies to put a smile on the faces of those who appreciate this kind of films.<br /><br />This movie does not lack qualities. It has a well thought story, enjoyable characters, excellent and relaxing instrumental soundtrack, dazzling sceneries/landscapes of the magnificent Sierra mountains (in Oregon). Speaking of the vistas, it's not all mountains: forests, trees, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets... in conclusion, all of pure nature's wonders - truly a full panorama. <br /><br />The main human characters are nice, well developed and well portrayed by respective actors. Robert Hays is awesome as the kind-hearted dad, Bob Seaver. Kim Greist is good as Laura Burnford. Veronica Lauren is equally good as Hope. Kevin Chevalia is conventional as the youngest and cute brother Jamie (his appearance actually reminds me very much of Kevin Corcoran in "Old Yeller"). Benj Thall is great as Peter Burnford.<br /><br />When it comes to our quadruped pals, Shadow is my favorite. Shadow is the loyal, wise, mature, beautiful, caring and loving old Golden Retriever (brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche). Chance, the American Bulldog, is the opposite of Shadow. He is carefree, silly, impatient, anxious, clumsy, hilarious and loves to play (voiced by the talented Michael J. Fox). Chance just can't stand still. Sassy is the epitome of cats's image: elegant, independent, very confident and self-proud, with a typical cat attitude but with a certain feline charm. Sassy is a Seal Point Himalayan cat, one of the most beautiful cat breeds. Sassy is voiced by Sally Field, who also does a good job.<br /><br />Our four-legged friends are, themselves, great "actors" by nature: Ben as Shadow, Rattler as Chance and Tiki as Sassy.<br /><br />It's an underrated movie, but a classic by its own right. Its sequel is clearly inferior.<br /><br />This should definitely be on Top 250.
| 1
| 20,538
|
Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!
| 0
| 9,596
|
Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...<br /><br />You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.<br /><br />Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.<br /><br />Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it?
| 0
| 10,393
|
There is an awful lot wrong with this picture, beginning with a script that is both obvious and redundant. Courtney Cox plays a comic book artist who escapes to a small desert town after being raped twice in the big city. She immediately is stalked by a local who appears quite unhinged (Craig Sheffer), and who seems to be attempting a third rate Mickey Rourke imitation. D.B. Sweeny is a local cop, who is supposedly there to protect and serve. Meanwhile, the script manipulates the audience as to who's really the good guy? Logic flies out the window after the first ten minutes and never returns, and there are more unanswered questions than there should be. If you think "Blue Desert" might be saved by the wonderful Philip Baker Hall, you will be disappointed. His part is insignificant, just like the entire movie. - MERK
| 0
| 5,219
|
George Cukor is and always will be one of my favorites. The unsung hero of his generation. Nobody mentions Cukor in the same breath as John Ford, Howard Hawks, William Wyler or Billy Wilder and yet, look at his filmography. From sparkling comedies "The Philadelphia Story" "Adam's Rib" "Holiday" Psycho melodramas "Gaslight" "A Double Life" a great semi western "Heller in Pink Tights" not to mention "My Fair Lady" or "Travels with my Aunt" He was at the service of his actors, he never put himself in front of the camera. I feel a certain tenderness watching "Rich and Famous" flashes of the old master still very much in evidence. Candice Bergen gives us for the first time in her career glimpses of the wonderful comedian she was about to become. Jacqueline Bisset is a throwback to the days of Greer Garson and Loretta Young and Hart Bochner steps in, teasing us, promising something spectacular that will eventually materialize in 1989 with "Apartment Zero", Meg Ryan, as Bergen's daughter is already Meg Ryan. As tired as the formula is, it remains a Cukor film and for what I gather one of Almodovar's favorite movies.
| 1
| 15,657
|
You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.
| 0
| 8,502
|
This is surely one of the worst films ever made. Each scene is painful. You will groan at the flimsy attempts at humor, the awkward camera work, the sexism and racism, the ridiculous story line, the wooden acting. Poor Joan Bennett; she is the only one in the movie who is not an embarrassment. In all, dreadful.
| 0
| 5,642
|
This review is based on the Producer's Cut: <br /><br />'Halloween 5' was a major disappointment at the box office way back in '89. Personally, I've always loved it and am proud to have it in my collection. But because of it's failure and also because of rights issues, it would be 6 years before we would see another installment. The film had the makings of being one of the best, if not the best in the series. A hardcore fan writing the script, the return of not only Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis and George Wilbur as Michael Myers, but also the return of the character of Tommy Doyle from the first film, a major studio backing the project, and a Fall release all made the film sound like a hit in the making. So what went wrong? I'll give you two good reasons: Re-shoots and poor editing. Due to a bad test screening and also the unfortunate passing of Donald Pleasence, the film was changed, and not for the better. The film, like parts III and 5, tanked at the box office and earned negative reviews from both critics and most series fans. But then, thanks to the magic of bootlegging, the original cut leaked out and many fans, including my self, were very happy. I will end this portion of my review by saying this: This film is, so far at least, my favorite 'Halloween' film and I'm not afraid to admit that.<br /><br />Pros: The score is simply spellbinding. Has some of the best writing and dialogue of the series. 'Halloween 4' emulated the original in that it was more about suspense and mood instead of blood and guts, and 6 is the same way. Great performances, especially from the late and very missed Donald Pleasence. Moves at a breathtaking pace. An interesting explanation for Michael's evil and why he won't die. Some brutal kills. Some pretty chilling moments, my favorite being the one involving Kim Darby's character. A lot of really cool nods to the previous films. Some good surprises. Like the previous two sequels, this one has an awesome cliffhanger ending.<br /><br />Cons: Though the explanation for Michael's evil is fascinating, it does make him a little less scary. Since when can Michael move around from place to place so fast? <br /><br />Final thoughts: This was the first 'Halloween' that I saw in the theatre. I was so excited because I really had thought 5 would be the last and then I heard this was happening. I enjoyed it at the time, but over time I saw it for what it really was: A great movie trapped in an OK one with a terrible ending. Why did the filmmakers have to listen to the people at the test screenings? If they had released this superior version it may have done much better and the series might not be stuck in the mess it's in right now.<br /><br />My rating: 5/5
| 1
| 22,473
|
I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.<br /><br />Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.<br /><br />First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.<br /><br />Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?<br /><br />And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse. <br /><br />-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.<br /><br />I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.<br /><br />People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.
| 0
| 5,032
|
20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....<br /><br />Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: "Howdy!" when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.
| 0
| 5,333
|
I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd "save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.
| 0
| 9,328
|
Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.<br /><br />You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.<br /><br />Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played (note to the NFL).
| 1
| 24,162
|
At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!<br /><br />And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.<br /><br />You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye!
| 1
| 20,798
|
Two movies: "the fifth element", "armageddon". The same subject: to save the world. The same main actor: Bruce Willis. One difference: "Armageddon" is very inferior to Luc Besson's film. Some spectacular special effects don't succeed in hiding a labored and globally conventional screenplay. Several parts of the movie are showing it. I think about the president's speech and especially Willis' relationship with his daughter, "Grace". At the beginning of the movie, he tends to neglect and overprotect her and this makes her weary. Then, at the end of the movie, it's true love and understanding that shine in him. On another hand, the movie falls in the following trap: Michael Bay takes his subject too seriously. Of course, the movie tries to be funny but the result doesn't work as the humor introduced in the movie is often crude and pretty low-level whereas in the "fifth element", the humor was zany, involuntary and enabled to overlook the serious side of the action. The movie suffers from two other handicaps: it often falls into the ridiculous (the Russian astronaut) and almost all the actors are bad used. Bruce Willis is all the contrary of his "fifth element"'s character. He plays the he-man, he hams it up and sometimes, he's unbearable. The other actors are barely credible in their own roles, particularly, Willis' sinking crew. It seems that this crew is here just for having fun. One of them is taken for being very qualified but he looks like a fool. And poor Liv Tyler! She's at the NASA just to be decorative.<br /><br />When the movie was released in France in August 1998, Bruce Willis expressed is weariness of saving the world. His weariness was probably justified by this spectacular but poor movie.
| 0
| 4,679
|
This picture was released in May of 1979 starring Playboy Playmate Susan Kiger as Honey Shayne, Playboy Playmate Lisa London as O'Hara and Playboy Playmate Pamela Jean Bryant as Terri Lynn. In one of the most delicious sec comedies in drive-in history a bevy of bouncing young lovelies all come together in a tale of battling bikinied sorority sisters who will stop at nothing to bare everything. So what does H.O.T.S really stand for? You're going to have to watch the movie to get the answer. You see, the girls are having there problems with the society girls on campus that make them out to be nothing but sex craved maniacs. Therefore, the girls set out to discredit the society girls no matter what they have to do to get the job done. In addition, cut up in this mess is the Dean of the college who wants to dismantle the group of girls before they grow out of control. I loved this movie especially Lisa London. I thought her acting was fantastic and I'm disappointed that she didn't get other acting jobs. Based on the three playmates alone I give this movie 10 weasel stars.
| 1
| 20,960
|
Joe (Wes) & Jim (Adam) re-acquaint us with the beauty, isolation (psychological as well as physical) and utter terror of "murder most fowl" in the Navaho Southwest. Characterizations, settings and plot continually build .. . even if at times the personal asides leave us wanting "more" .. . with some interesting alternative choices as to "who done it?" Flashbacks (e.g. Peter Fonda . .. good to see him) provide clues but they don't go where you might think. Comic asides (e.g. the Preacher) are mild and appropriate. Where "Skinwalkers" and "Coyote Waits" start to drag .. . "Thief" engages the clutch and four-wheels you around the next corner, never quite sure what's there. Disagree with Joe Leaphorn's manic comment to Jim Chee to "slow down" for the potholes. Wrong ... there are no potholes in the plot, just tracks to follow. On to the next episode! Great photography (as always), appealing characters and more to explore!
| 1
| 24,336
|
wow! i watched the trailer for this one and though 'nah, this one is not for me'. i watched my husband and our friend's faces during the trailer, and knew this was a 'boy movie'. i mean, hallo! a bunch of chick barmaids that dance - another striptease?<br /><br />then, i started watching it, it didn't look all that bad. so i carried on watching. i watched it right to the end. what an awesome movie. if anything, this is a chick-flick. these girls have attitude. it is really a feel-good movie, and a bit of a love story. really leaves you with a nice feeling.<br /><br />basically, the story of a small-town girl making it big in the city, after going through the usual big-city c**p. there have been a couple of these, it is almost a new urban legend. but it also makes you think of your life, and what you have achieved. well, me anyway. i think it is because the whole working in a bar scenario is very familiar, not just for me, but for many people i know. Don't trust the trailers for this one - it is aimed at bringing the men in.
| 0
| 5,937
|
Don`t be fooled into thinking that this is a remake as in this years remake of THE TIME MACHINE is based on an earlier film . It`s not because this is a pointless re- film . That is the director has used the original camera script shot for shot similar to the " remake " of THE GET AWAY from a few years ago . The scenes are identical to the original , the dialogue is identical to the original , the camera angles are identical , no attempt whatsoever is made to embellish or restructure the original script ,( But with a director like Van Sant at the helm we should be thankful . He sure ain`t no Hitchcock ) in fact I might even be correct in saying the costumes might be the same because the private eye wears a pork pie hat. Didn`t they go out of fashion in the late 1960s ? <br /><br />Bottom line:Avoid
| 0
| 11,676
|
Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything.
| 0
| 7,584
|
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.
| 0
| 4,266
|
The Night Listener held my attention, with Robin Williams shining as a New York City radio host who becomes enamored with his friendship with a 14 year old boy (Rory Culkin) who is very ill. Williams has never met the boy in person, as they have only been in contact by talking on the telephone. However, Williams' ex-boyfriend (nice job from Bobby Cannavale) raises doubt about the boy, which prompts Williams to arrange a meeting with him in person. What follows makes a permanent impact on Williams in a way he does not expect. I will leave it at that. Toni Collette also stars.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film, with Toni Collette giving a memorable portrayal of Culkin's adoptive mother. Sandra Oh also starred as Williams' friend. The Night Listener is inspired by actual events, and it has a somber, almost creepy silence throughout. At times it is predictable, no thanks to some of the reviews I read before seeing the movie and just due to logic, but I liked it anyway. I enjoy Williams in roles like this, more so than his comedic characters so that was an added bonus for me. Recommended. 8/10
| 1
| 22,581
|
Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.<br /><br />There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.<br /><br />The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
| 0
| 2,111
|
drss1942 really took the words right out of my mouth. I loved Segal's early films and feel like the only one who is still faithful to him. I just saw this movie (ok, fell asleep about 90% through, so I didn't see the end). When I woke up and saw I was at the DVD menu, I was thankful I didn't subject myself to any more of that movie and didn't dare find out what happened at the end. There was something strange about the voice of Segal and others. Kinda reminded me of the original Mad Max where the voice were dubbed, but in the same language (Australlian is English, right? :) Anyway, if I had 10 thumbs, they'd all point down right now for this Segal injustice.
| 0
| 7,331
|
I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.<br /><br />Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.
| 0
| 10,279
|
Dark Rising is your typical bad, obviously quickly produced horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie. It has a strange, unexplained plot with holes so big you could fit an elephant through them. Most of the time I didn't know what the hell was going on but it didn't really matter, it was a simple demon hunter returns from hell dimension to save campers story with confusing stuff added on about witches and a book of evil with plot elements and characters who make no sense or disappear totally for no reason. The acting is bad but there honestly is not much they can do with this script I am guessing. There is a couple topless scenes which is probably the only reason this bad movie got made (like so many other bad movies). Give this one a pass unless there is nothing else on T.V.
| 0
| 8,879
|
The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.<br /><br />To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's "The Real World: Tudor England!" <br /><br />Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was "that girl" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY! <br /><br />Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product. <br /><br />The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.<br /><br />*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage.
| 0
| 11,716
|
This movie was pretty good. The acting was great, and there were some really great actors in it like, Buchholz and Roger Moore. This film is full of surprises. Confusing at times...yes, but the twists and turns of the plot always keeps you in suspense. The only thing that this movie had too much of was exploding cars.
| 1
| 16,049
|
This movie was absolutely terrible. I can't believe I paid to see it in the theatre. I wouldn't watch it on free cable t.v. I'm surprised that Joe Magtena even made it. Do not waste your time with this movie.
| 0
| 11,731
|
Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from "Scarface". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled "American Dream".<br /><br />Anybody complaining about the "cheesiness" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.<br /><br />This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.<br /><br />The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.<br /><br />Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. "Scarface" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10
| 1
| 24,298
|
In this satire of the commercialization and 'lightheartedness' of war, John Cusack plays Brand Hauser, an assassin sent to to 'Turaqistan' to take out Omar Sharif, who is doing some oil business that will spell trouble for the former Vice President of the US's own company. In addition to this, Hauser must juggle his fake position as a trade show producer, a wedding for pop princess Yonica (Hillary Duff), and a nosy Liberal journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei).<br /><br />Assessing the technical aspects: <br /><br />- The acting (by the main characters,at least) was good, as was to be expected. Some of John Cusack's dialogue was quite obviously not written for him as he often seemed uncomfortable saying it. . . maybe unrealistic is more accurate. Joan put forth a great, and often hilarious, performance. Marisa Tomei, while I've never been a big fan of hers, was more than suitable for the role and worked well. Hillary Duff, however, was pretty terrible. They needed an attractive Middle Eastern (or Russian, or whatever that accent was supposed to be) pop-star. Unfortunately, they went 0 for 3 with her.<br /><br />- Like I said above, the writing seemed a little stiff and mismatched at points, especially John Cusack's dialogue. Not much of it, mind, but some. The story also got a bit ludicrous at points, which is fine for a satire to a point, but it took it to a whole new level here. Luckily, the Cusacks and Tomei keep a relatively cool, calm demeanor throughout, and that makes a nice even mix of the craziness of the film and the levelheadedness of the actors.<br /><br />- Joshua Seftel, who previously had a drought of real credits to his name, did a fine job with a rather wide-spectrum film. He handled the small ($10 million) budget very well, stretching it to make it appear to be much more. Seftel also managed to nicely blend the humour of the story. . . with the painful and hard-to-watch parts of the real war (including slaughter of civilians, etc.).<br /><br />- As far as the general satire goes, its exaggerated look on the commercializing of war is very well done, especially the 'Golden Palace Poker' ads on the U.S. tanks. At points, it becomes a little too much, but, in the end, it still accurate portrays what it's going for an a young 'Mel Brooks'-type of style.<br /><br />Overall, the film is very well made for the meager budget and it's definitely worthy of a look. It won't go down as one of the great satires of cinema, but it's certainly not the worst.<br /><br />7/10.
| 1
| 19,658
|
This was a character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag. <br /><br />My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me... <br /><br />There was a "poem" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball.
| 0
| 1,283
|
I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed.
| 1
| 22,516
|
are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of "fisher folk." My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective.
| 1
| 18,085
|
Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003... <br /><br />To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.<br /><br />No stars.
| 0
| 5,445
|
Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)
| 0
| 3,724
|
A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line "I really appreciate it." is now iconic to me.
| 1
| 24,781
|
This film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid
| 0
| 7,795
|
I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait.
| 0
| 7,910
|
This show is actually pretty good. Like all shows on TV, it has its good episodes and its bad ones.<br /><br />I have read where people compare this show to Married with Children, and I suppose it is a similar show for the new generation. However, because of what was expected and allowed on TV in the days of Married with Children, that show was taken to great extremes to show that it was in fact, a television show, and not meant to be take seriously.<br /><br />The War at Home has the luxury of being a bit more realistic. The parents talk to each other like real life parents often do, telling their children one thing, when they will turn around and do the opposite.<br /><br />Sure, some of the content can be considered controversial. But I find this show really tries to maintain a sense of honesty. Like it or not, there are a lot of families out there just like this one.<br /><br />Every episode does teach a 'valuable lesson'. Its just that sometimes the lesson is that you will not find a perfect solution for every problem that a family may encounter, and sometimes the solution is to pick the lesser of two evils. We all know that in some cases, as a parent, the only goal you can have is to keep your kids out of really big trouble, and hope that they learn right from wrong.<br /><br />I respect the writers for attempting to keep the show true to life, instead of having some magical ending like the Cleaver family always had.
| 1
| 24,623
|
This movie was extremely depressing. <br /><br />The characters were so cold. The mother, who is he main character, is everything but "motherly". OK, she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. Her husband dies. She then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. Until this part, the movie is all right. Not excellent, but it can be watched. The guy is charming and who can blame her? OK it's not very motherly to sleep with your daughter's lover but let's blame that on the shock of losing her husband. <br /><br />She becomes totally obsessed with the guy. I think this is the part where I started to dislike the movie. She's always there wanting to please him in an "old fashioned way" with snacks while he is working on her son's house (I guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do), as if it was the only way she could get his attention. The guy obviously is not very interested (actually, it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that, she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. "I want to please you", she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly. <br /><br />What outraged me in this movie, is the utter lack of self-respect the mother has for herself. She tells Craig something like "I am just a shapeless lump" the first time they sleep together. <br /><br />This movie is an insult to women kind. If it had been me, I would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain... :)
| 0
| 1,024
|
I'm surprised no-one has thought of doing a movie like this before. Horror is often most effective when it uses real life unpleasantness as a theme. And nobody (except for Steve Martin in The Little Shop of Horrors) likes going to the dentist. Tooth torture has been done before (see The Marathan Man for example), but this brings the terror into suburbia.<br /><br />The plot revolves around a dentist, Dr. Alan Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen), who descends into madness. Now our dear doctor wasn't playing with a full deck to begin with, but driven by jealousy and an obsessive-compulsive disorder he begins to reek havoc on those around him. The doctors spiraling mental condition is kinda close to what we see in Micheal Douglas's character in Falling Down, but with a horror edge.<br /><br />Written and directed by horror stalwarts Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna, its witty and has a great flow. Also featured playing a cop, is the ever welcome Ken Foree.<br /><br />Now I believe this movie would not work without the absolutely fantastic performance from Corbin Bernsen. Having really only seen him in LA Law before, I was blown away by his acting.<br /><br />The sequel The Dentist 2 is also worth watching, but slightly under par compared to the original.<br /><br />TTKK's Bottomline - A fun movie with some scenes that will make you cringe, capped (pun intended) by a great performance from Bernsen
| 1
| 20,578
|
I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.<br /><br />First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.<br /><br />Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).<br /><br />The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more! <br /><br />In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word "superfluous" covers it all.
| 0
| 9,451
|
Nevsky is one of the great epic war films. Sure, others, such as Birth of a Nation and Napoleon had come before, but this one is just as influential. The acting is stock, but anyone who knows the first thing about Eisenstein would know that that was part of his theory of film. This film, unlike many of his silent works, is about the heroic individual as much as it is about the group. This reflects the Stalinist philosophy that had risen to the fore by 1938. Still, his film shows us the power that can be generated by people coming together to fight something they perceive as evil. Nevsky is just one of many men. He is prince because he is strongest, but not because he is somehow different than the rest. The film's romantic angles provide more of a personal story than Eisenstein had previously allowed. Not all of the elements work and the film is probably a bit too long, but it still resonates.
| 1
| 20,309
|
I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.<br /><br />What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.<br /><br />Where to start? Okay..<br /><br />1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.<br /><br />2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.<br /><br />3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.<br /><br />5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.<br /><br />6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.<br /><br />8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.<br /><br />9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.<br /><br />My two cents on this movie.
| 0
| 10,288
|
Sometimes, when seeking a movie nothing will do except a good thriller. Dead Line certainly fits the bill. <br /><br />A little warning however: if you are going to watch this film you are better off not knowing too much specifics about the plot. <br /><br />The plot thickens as the film goes by. A really remarkably well built tension mounts. <br /><br />It is deep and horrifying. It goes all the way to the darkest places in human mind.<br /><br />The plot also has some very surprising shifts. <br /><br />Just wait till nightfall, turn off the light and watch this film.
| 1
| 19,679
|
"Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel). <br /><br />Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.<br /><br />The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.<br /><br />Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie. <br /><br />The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film.
| 0
| 4,668
|
...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.<br /><br />Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.<br /><br />However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.<br /><br />And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.<br /><br />Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.<br /><br />IMDb votes concur!
| 1
| 24,575
|
A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, "Saving Grace" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.<br /><br />Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage. <br /><br />Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in "Saturday Night Fever" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb. <br /><br />Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in "La Femme Nikita", is memorable. <br /><br />Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10.
| 1
| 22,882
|
I actually found this movie 'interesting'; finally one worth my time to watch and rent. It is true... some scenes were over the top on emotionalism, shouting, etc., but what movie doesn't stress its agenda, genre or 'ax to grind'? Almost None! What surprised me is that I read a review elsewhere done by a S.Fran reviewer on another review site, but found his negative review instead a more accurate description of his "own" review of the movie; not of the movie at all. Anyone that watches this movie will realize that it is great to recommend to family and friends; no car chases, Yea!! Being "in" an Italian family myself, I can fully relate to the environment portrayed on the screen. The movie has its tear jerking parts as well. It is what real life can be in such an environment. Nice movie.
| 1
| 12,650
|
Given how corny these movies are, you gotta figure that they must have had fun making them. The movie focuses on a house that strangely accommodates whomever lives there. The inhabitants were: author Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott (with hair!)), who gets haunted by one of his own creations; Philip Grayson (Peter Cushing), who gets a little too close to a wax statue; John Reid (Christopher Lee), whose daughter's cuteness is apparently a facade; and actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee), on the verge of getting a little too much into character.<br /><br />"The House That Dripped Blood" is actually worth seeing (well duh; it stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee). Aside from just being neat, there might be some undertones: it might be calling into question the issue of real horror vs. assumed horror. Like in "The Shining", we might ask whether the house/hotel itself holds some memory of past events. And if absolutely nothing else, Ingrid Pitt (as Paul's co-star) is HOT HOT HOT! Around the time that this came out, she also starred in "Countess Dracula" and "The Vampire Lovers" (also with Peter Cushing). Maybe she - like Barbara Steele - will remain known only as a scream queen, but mark my words: SHE IS A HOT SCREAM QUEEN! I'd like to see Ingrid Pitt and Barbara Steele co-star in something.<br /><br />I guess that the only weird scene (so to speak) is where Denholm Elliott is wearing a pink shirt and fluffy jacket. You read that right. What kind of a name is "Denholm" anyway? Oh well. A very cool movie.
| 1
| 13,924
|
Absolutely one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it at least a hundred times and I can't go through it without crying. I defy anyone to watch the reunion of Celie and Nettie, or Shug and father and not feel your eyes getting misty. Whoopie Goldberg should have one an award for amazing portrayal. And for the person who said you can't love the movie if you loved the book, wrong! Im a testament to that.
| 1
| 12,770
|
First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.<br /><br />One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.<br /><br />I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.<br /><br />So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.
| 0
| 11,206
|
I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.<br /><br />Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when "significant" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.<br /><br />Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film.
| 0
| 4,131
|
Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.<br /><br />I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)
| 0
| 11,079
|
Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.<br /><br />background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.<br /><br />Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.<br /><br />After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure. <br /><br />Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this.
| 0
| 10,060
|
I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.<br /><br />The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...)
| 0
| 8,068
|
Normally I'm quite disposed to like low budget gonzo films, but Darkman III is so appallingly unengaging that I feel nothing but contempt for it.<br /><br />It looks and feels like a TV show, and a particularly shoddy one at that. The sets are sparse, the lighting flat, the score and effects disjointed, and the camerawork is film school 101. There's no plot to speak of, the characters are one dimensional, and the actors are sleepwalking. Most of the cast look like they should be doing soft core porn..... In fact, the only reward that I got from this mess was spotting the startling squint faced Roxann Biggs-Dawson (B'Elanna from Star Trek: Voyager) without her Klingon bumpy head makeup on. Her skin tone is about two shades lighter than it is in Voyager; either she's been bleached down for this role, or blacked up for Voyager. Very strange either way.
| 0
| 5,580
|
I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter, Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving holiday film, this is a true gem.
| 1
| 24,893
|
I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.<br /><br />nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.
| 0
| 10,855
|
I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.
| 0
| 8,139
|
OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.<br /><br />And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil.
| 0
| 8,440
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.