text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
25k
|
|---|---|---|
i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.
| 1
| 13,603
|
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.<br /><br />.
| 0
| 1,383
|
If Dick Tracy was in black and white, the pope wouldn't be religious. Giving a new sense to the concept of color in a movie, we are offered an unique experience throughout a comic-strip world, and it's one of the few movies which succeeded in doing so, thanks to a serious script, good direction, great performances (Al Pacino is astonishing) and most importantly a powerful mix of cinematography, art direction and costume design. Using only primary colors, the experience is quite different from anything we have seen before. And there is also a quite successful hommage to all the gangster-movie genre, pratically extinct from modern cinema. Overall, I see this movie as a fresh attempt and a touch of originality to a cinema which relies more and more on the old and already-seen formulas. 7 out of 10.
| 1
| 24,352
|
Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.<br /><br />The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.<br /><br />There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the "daughter" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her "dad".<br /><br />That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent "PokeMon; the First Movie".
| 0
| 5,926
|
I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").<br /><br />The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.<br /><br />In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.
| 1
| 22,685
|
Was lucky enough to be an extra in this great film and loved every minute of the filming. Went to the premier in London and had a great chat to Phil, Peter, Martin, and Jon as did my wife.Fantastic after party too. Then a few weeks later had trip to the cinema with members of our bike club. What a brilliant film, it deserves to be up there with all the great biker films. Now we have the DVD Sue my wife can't get enough of it neither can the kids. Get a bit of stick from the club who seem to think I'm a film star now oh well one can only dream. I think they are just jealous. The only downside of the first part of the filming was the weather, rain, rain and more rain but hey we was in Wales. Hopefully there will be a follow up so keep me posted Jon. Danny Beck
| 1
| 18,620
|
I could not believe the original rating I found when i looked up this film, 9.5? Unfortunately it looks like I am not alone.<br /><br />The film, is slow and boring really, one of the sad things is that if the film had been given a realistic rating of around 5 or 6 then the expectation would not have been so high.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this was not the case, so when watching the film, and seeing the poor story and acting, I am left giving it a 3/10 score.<br /><br />Vinnie Jones is superb in Lock stock, and also Snatch, and he plays a great hard man, however, he should stick to this role. Its a bit like when Stallone and Schwarzenegger have done comedy films, they just don't work.<br /><br />Neither can he play lead actor, he plays better as supporting or otherwise. When he plays lead, his acting talents are too 'in view' and shown up as not really very good. Mean Machine is another good example of this.
| 0
| 5,748
|
I found the storyline in this movie to be very interesting. Best of all it left out the usual sex and violence (they're getting old) inserted in many movies. The movie was well done in its flashbacks to days gone by in that area of the Southwest. The acting was also superb.
| 1
| 19,560
|
There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.<br /><br />It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking "that's it?". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on.
| 0
| 9,039
|
If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction.
| 0
| 9,394
|
I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.<br /><br />Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.<br /><br />And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).<br /><br />And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.<br /><br />1) Joker gasses people.<br /><br />2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.<br /><br />3) Batman saves the day.<br /><br />Pfeh.<br /><br />There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement." <br /><br />I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.
| 0
| 4,904
|
I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.<br /><br />Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.<br /><br />I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
| 0
| 8,415
|
Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.<br /><br />The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.<br /><br />Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.<br /><br />Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.<br /><br />A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.
| 1
| 13,635
|
Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement.
| 1
| 19,353
|
Hitchcock once gave an interview where he said he like to direct screenplays that had an ordinary person minding their own business, who's accidentally caught up in an awful chain of events that they can't get out of until the dastardly plot that's behind their troubles is resolved. That way, the audience can feel more sympathy for the hero. We certainly do in this fine film. Barry Kane is only trying to help his fellow-man out by performing acts of kindness and consideration, like helping Fry pick up the letters he dropped at the factory. Barry even returns a lost $100 bill to Fry later on...that was BIG money in 1943!! It's Barry's acts of Christian kindness that get him into trouble and soon, he's wrongly accused of sabotage and murder and will likely hang if he can't clear himself. Similar to The 39 Steps in plot, the hero travels cross-country where he discovers plans for further acts of terrorism by fascisistic cells, an arch-villain who nobody could believe to be a closet-Nazi, and a beautiful blonde, Patricia Martin, who first suspects and hates then eventually falls in love with Barry Kane. Hitch's trademark touches of humor are here, too. Patricia is a billboard model who's various roadside ads are a help and comfort to Barry as he hitches a ride with the bad guys, all the way from Las Vegas to NYC. We meet a trucker who's a one-man comedy act "Someone convinced my wife it was stylish to eat three meals a day." Field employees of the fascist spy ring grouse about being forgotten or ignored by the "suits" just as if they were working for some legit enterprise. During a chase scene into a cinema, audience members laugh at the action of a schlocky comedy/gangster flick as the saboteur cell shoots it out for real with the good guys and accidentially kills a guffawing movie-patron. Awful for the dead old man, but funny! Hitch liked to use famous monuments in his movies and this is the best instance, with the Statue of Liberty as backdrop and ironic icon! It works even better than the Mt Rushmore scene in NBNW.
| 1
| 21,258
|
Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****
| 0
| 2,635
|
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic
nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it
nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here
I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things
Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine
especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough
HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.
| 0
| 3,762
|
I remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.<br /><br />When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.<br /><br />Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD
| 0
| 6,833
|
I was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a positive review in the New York Times. In addition, I'm also Shanghainese so there was more than just a passing interest in the subject matter. However, after watching it, I was extremely disappointed.<br /><br />The movie's pace was excruciatingly slow and monotonous. The director lingered on certain scenes for much too long. There was no passion or chemistry between the lovers. There was barely any dialogue. Dialogue was sorely needed to compensate for the lack of acting. At the end of the movie, you didn't feel any compassion for the characters. This movie was lacking in everything. The script was weak, the acting was poor, and the editing was non-existent. The director tried to emulate certain noir film styles but failed miserably. A good movie is one in which captures your attention, maintains it and is successful in concluding without you feeling time has passed by. This movie felt as though it would never end. Don't waste your money on this movie.
| 0
| 5,067
|
How can such good actors like Jean Rochefort and Carole Bouquet could have been involved in such a... a... well, such a thing ? I can't get it. It was awful, very baldy played (but some of the few leading roles), the jokes are dumb and absolutely not funny... I won't talk more about this movie, except for one little piece of advice : Do not go see it, it will be a waste of time and money.
| 0
| 6,989
|
Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.<br /><br />The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).<br /><br />No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'.
| 0
| 9,902
|
David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.
| 1
| 22,822
|
A good, but not great film, "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin's first talkie. It's a good effort, and at times a remarkable satire on Hitler, but unfortunately the moments of Chaplin brilliance on offer here are let down by a tendency to use too much unnecessary dialogue. Yes, Chaplin, the silent screen master, just uses too many words in this film, and his tendency towards writing long speeches and extraneous passages of dialogue would carry over into his other talkie films, such as (better) "Limelight". Still, Chaplin was extremely daring in even making this film and his performance in dual roles is certainly memorable. Paulette Goddard doesn't have the glow she did in "Modern Times" (her off-screen affair with Chaplin was cooling at the time), but she is always worth seeing, and Jack Oakie just about steals the show as a rival dictator to Chaplin's famous creation Hynkel.
| 1
| 20,659
|
This Documentary (Now available free on Video.Google.Com) is a fantastic demonstration of the power of ordinary people to overcome injustice. Everyone must see this.<br /><br />Chavez was elected in a landslide vote in 1998. His platform was to divert the fantastic oil wealth from the 20% middle class to the 80% poor. He banned foreign drift net fishing in Venezuelan waters. He sent 10,000 Cuban doctors to the slums to treat the sick for free. He wiped out illiteracy and set up new free Universities. <br /><br />But it was his 30% tax on oil company profits that got him in trouble with the Bush administration. In 2002, while Irish film makers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were interviewing Chavez inside the Presidential Palace about his social programs, a CIA backed coup was launched. With the cameras rolling, Chavez was captured and flown out of the country. It was announced on national TV that he had 'resigned'.<br /><br />But the poor of Venezuela didn't believe the media. They went to the Palace in their millions and demanded that Chavez be returned. In the face of such overwhelming numbers, the military turned on the coup leaders and the plotters fled to the US. Chavez was rescued by military helicopter and returned to jubilation.
| 1
| 17,879
|
This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.<br /><br />This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average.
| 0
| 9,295
|
An example of genius filmaking. The epic story of three major stages of life for a young boy told with eloquence and raw fearlessness. Rarely does a film come along that causes me to out loud say during most of the viewing, "this is a really good film...." again and again. That is exactly what happened when I watched this film. I really do not understand how anyone could not like it. I found myself at moments crying and laughing at the very same moment, unable to control how I felt about the scene. The acting is outstanding. Eric Mabius- why is he not all over movie screens? He was really extraordinary. His seemingly effortless attempt on the screen impacted me in deep visceral ways. I thank him. In my opinion, Eric Schaeffer is one of the best filmakers around, and I hope he continues to rise to the challenges that he faces while trying to give us art in the face of ferocious commercial filmaking.<br /><br />
| 1
| 18,767
|
This film is simply appalling, how the talent involved made this is beyond human belief.Iguess they must have been boozing when they thought of this idea,I feel as if 2 hours of my life have been taken from me.Harvey Kietel will try and distance himself from this rubbish, it should have been a great crime movie but it develops into a gory mess of vampires.I would recommend this film to people who like to sleep through movies ,you wont miss a thing.The humour is set to appeal to the lowest common dominate, movies can uplift us and remind us that life is worth living, this film just depresses you.As DeNiro said in one movie the saddest thing in life is wasted talent this film is a perfect example of this statement.
| 0
| 12,257
|
"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady an aging actress or something who always dresses in black starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.
| 0
| 58
|
It is noteworthy that mine is only the third review of this film, whereas `Patton- Lust for Glory', producer Frank McCarthy's earlier biography of a controversial American general from the Second World War, has to date attracted nearly a hundred comments. Like a previous reviewer, I am intrigued by why one film should have received so much more attention than the other.<br /><br />One difference between the two films is that `Patton' is more focused, concentrating on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the Second World War, whereas `MacArthur' covers not only this war but also its subject's role in the Korean war, as well as his period as American governor of occupied Japan during the interlude.<br /><br />The main difference, however, lies in the way the two leaders are played. Gregory Peck dominates this film even more than George C. Scott dominated `Patton'. Whereas Scott had another major star, Karl Malden, playing opposite him as General Bradley, none of the other actors in `MacArthur' are household names, at least for their film work. Scott, of course, portrayed Patton as aggressive and fiery-tempered, a man who at times was at war with the rest of the human race, not just with the enemy. I suspect that in real life General MacArthur was as volcanic an individual as Patton, but that is not how he appears in this film. Peck's MacArthur is of a more reflective, thoughtful bent, comparable to the liberal intellectuals he played in some of his other films. At times, he even seems to be a man of the political left. Much of his speech on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945 could have been written by a paid-up member of CND, and his policies for reforming Japanese society during the American occupation have a semi-socialist air to them. In an attempt to show something of MacArthur's gift for inspiring leadership, Peck makes him a fine speaker, but his speeches always seem to owe more to the studied tricks of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart. It is as if Atticus Finch from `To Kill a Mockingbird' had put on a general's uniform.<br /><br />Whereas Scott attempted a `warts and all' portrait of Patton, the criticism has been made that `MacArthur' attempts to gloss over some of its subject's less attractive qualities. I think that this criticism is a fair one, particularly as far as the Korean War is concerned. The film gives the impression that MacArthur was a brilliant general who dared stand up to interfering, militarily ignorant politicians who did not know how to fight the war and was sacked for his pains when victory was within his grasp. Many historians, of course, feel that Truman was forced to sack MacArthur because the latter's conduct was becoming a risk to world peace, and had no choice but to accept a stalemate because Stalin would not have allowed his Chinese allies to be humiliated. Even during the Korean scenes, Peck's MacArthur comes across as more idealistic than his real-life original probably was; we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matters. (Truman 's remark `he knows as much about politics as a pig knows about Sunday' was said about Eisenhower, but it could equally well have been applied to MacArthur's approach to international diplomacy). Perhaps the film's attempt to paint out some of MacArthur's warts reflects the period in which it was made. The late seventies, after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, was a difficult time for America, and a public looking for reassurance might have welcomed a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation. Another criticism I would make of the film is that it falls between two stools. If it was intended to be a full biography of MacArthur, something should have been shown of his early life, which is not covered at all. (The first we see of the general is when he is leading the American resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines). One theme that runs throughout the film is the influence of General MacArthur's father, himself a military hero. I would have liked to see what sort of man Arthur MacArthur was, and just why his son considered him to be such a hero and role model. Another interesting way of making the film would have been to concentrate on Korea and on MacArthur's clash with Truman, with equal prominence given to the two men and with actors of similar stature playing them. The way in which the film actually was made seemed to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approaches.<br /><br />It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that I disliked the film altogether. Although I may not have agreed with Peck's interpretation of the main role, there is no denying that he played it with his normal professionalism and seriousness. The film as a whole is a good example of a solid, workmanlike biopic, thoughtful and informative. It is a good film, but one that could have been a better one. 7/10.<br /><br />On a pedantic note, the map which MacArthur is shown using during the Korean War shows the DMZ, the boundary between the two Korean states that did not come into existence until after the war. (The pre-war boundary was the 38th parallel). Also, I think that MacArthur was referring to the `tocsin' of war. War may be toxic, but it is difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin.
| 1
| 15,474
|
I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in "A Bug's Life"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)<br /><br />With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.
| 0
| 9,041
|
A stunning realization occurs when some sort of phenomenon takes place!! Be it, firecrackers going off, witnessing a robbery, a hurricane nonchalantly devastating everything in it's path, or, for that matter, any other spectacular occurrence !! In the case of the Maclean Family, however, reveille was something which was no more complex than their day to day lives..Montana in the early twentieth century was an environment which was rough and tumble...The Maclean family was comprised of four people, the father, a minister, who was ideologically driven to raise his family properly. His wife was God fearing, and dutiful. The two boys were, well...BOYS!!.. What else can you say?...Brad Pitt starred in this film before he was really THE!! Brad Pitt, and his acting performance in this film was, to say the least, remarkable!!!.. His brother, Norman, was the cerebral type, he was touched by emotions that were genuine, and motivated by a set of values that Missoula, Montana concurred with!! Paul (Brad Pitt) was a misfit from the offset, and lived on the edge...You would think that Montana in the 1920's had no such thing, yet somehow, gambling, drinking, and violent confrontations, were as much a part of Paul, as was his fly fishing rod!! Fly fishing!! Did I say that? Parenthetically, this was the core of this movie's theme!! The recreation of fly fishing served as the cohesive bond which homogenized the kindred spirits of the Maclean brothers, and to a lesser degree, the father!! I would describe the acting in this film as incredibly believable, and the cinematography went beyond sensational.. Put it this way, anyone who sees this film will want to live in Montana.. Breathtaking filmography of bluer than blue mountains and streams captured the youth and effervescence that the Maclean brothers had for life...Seldom in a film do you witness whereby feelings immediately invoke a dogged tenacity to accomplish whatever it may be that someone wishes to accomplish..The Maclean brothers lived life to the fullest, and for better or worse, the father knew that this was going to be the only way the two of them could become men!!...Robert Redford directs this film, and tells the story of the Maclean's through the perspective of the older brother, Norman...Norman gets offered a position at the University of Chicago at age 26, and marries the woman he will always be in love with...What this film also points out, is that the younger brother, Paul, has attained an accomplishment of his own by being the epitome of a remarkable fly fisherman!! The seedier side of life prevails in the younger brother's existence, and exerts an insidious form of consternation for the Maclean family!! As most human shortcomings go, the Maclean family made light of turbulent waters, (literally) and thus, established unity as a family, by putting necessary blinders on!!!<br /><br />The end of the movie "River Runs Through It" presents an epigram of life through the eyes of the older brother.. For Norman Maclean, stoicism is a prerequisite to perseverance in his emeritus years!! Such a fate is largely due to the fact that reflecting on his life is tantamount to yearning for people who have passed away! The fond memories of his brother, his wife, his mother, and his father, must now be viewed philosophically!! For Norman, his life has been relegated to stubborn facts that have determined his dubious outlook, and precarious resolve! Something as simple as the statement "This was your life, and that is how you lived it" is a somber recollection of the joy, the sorrow, the regrets, and the love, he gave, as well as was the recipient of!! Best put in the last sermon he heard his father give, his father said "We can completely love someone without completely understanding them".. Whether you agree with what has happened in your life or not, it happened nonetheless! Norman Maclean must come to grips with the fact that his life has been fragmented by misunderstandings! Norman Maclean has become a decrepit octogenarian who is polarized by virtual conclusions to his life!! The murky waters of Montana's picturesque rivers serve as a vicious and desultory finalization to his years on earth!! Without question, the very prolific statement of "what seems complicated is really very simple" purveys a very acrimonious message in this movie...More simply put...The people and places which were important in Norman's life, are now only a bittersweet memory....merely a painfully intellectual rumination of events which are aggravated by the haunted waters of Montana's beautiful streams and rivers...To which, for the entire Maclean family, "all things merge into one and a river runs through it"
| 1
| 13,060
|
Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple of years ago.<br /><br />"Passion's Peak" is the third quality softcore flick I've seen Kelli McCarty in, with "Girl for Girl" and "House of Love" being the others. "Desire and Deception" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in this review, so read only if you want to.<br /><br />The story begins with Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim (uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank.<br /><br />Now the guests start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next, there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one of Eric and Linda's sex scenes.<br /><br />James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date, but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it into her next romance novel. <br /><br />In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on.<br /><br />Now to the sex. There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex scenes.<br /><br />Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the soap opera "Passions"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.)<br /><br />Sex: B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is for the uncut version.)<br /><br />Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a contrived "Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down" subplot toward the end which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice, and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance novels, was a nice touch.)<br /><br />Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like "Girl for Girl" is, but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.)
| 1
| 22,941
|
With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.
| 0
| 11,398
|
This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.<br /><br />This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are "heavy" and inaccessible. <br /><br />
| 1
| 14,586
|
Absolutely corrosive! Director Arthur Hiller and writer Paddy Chayefsky dismantle the American hospital system with this wicked comedy/drama/whodunit. The hospital depicted here is fraught with problems...from protesting neighbors to irate patients to a potential serial killer on the loose. George C. Scott is the top doctor who, on the brink of his own nervous breakdown, gets involved with free-spirited Diana Rigg and her wacky father Barnard Hughes. Alternately depressing and uproarious, THE HOSPITAL features some of the most acid-tinged dialog imaginable (note how Scott describes his love making session with Rigg). It also has a lot of great vignettes: Scott berating head nurse Nancy Marchand after one of here underlings accidentally kills a doctor; daffy administrator Frances Sternhagen trying desperately to collect insurance info from a waiting room full of sick people; Scott getting sobering advice from the hospital psychiatrist after telling him of his woeful home-life. All of the acting is first-rate. Scott and Rigg are dynamite and Hughes is a real surprise. The movie is a masterpiece with Chayefsky's script earning a well-deserved Oscar (over such stiff competition as KLUTE & Sunday, BLOODY Sunday). The opening narration is priceless.
| 1
| 19,958
|
This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; "Go into your loft and you may find this.." or "Go into your back garden tonight and..." - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a "loft", and a "back garden" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and "why don't you" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on "Mama and Papa's" money... you make me sick
| 0
| 10,224
|
If you need a clue as to whether Playmaker is decent or not, look to its star, Colin Firth, who refers to it in an interview as "absolute rubbish -- I sincerely hope no one ever sees it."<br /><br />The script and plot are ludicrous, the female lead is unconvincing. The only thing worthwhile is Colin Firth, and he seems slightly embarrassed throughout.<br /><br />For diehard Firth fans only -- the shower scene alone is worth the $3.99 you might have to shell out, should you find it in a video cutout bin like I did.<br /><br />I'm happy for Mr. Firth that his days of taking projects like this one are over!
| 0
| 1,807
|
The star of this film is the screenplay. Attention to detail for the period in dress, language ,social mores ( we don't hurt women) and the politics are remarkable. It is a reminder of Kosovo to-day. The subtle pieces in the action scenes are there for an attentive viewer and the choreography of these action sequences is superb. Perhaps this film is to close to the bone of reality to earn the support it should have received. It is like a staircase of increasing violence with well paced pauses of peace and serenity between each step. A great film....
| 1
| 16,931
|
I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. I moved to Norway four months ago, and have tried ever since to find the origin of the strange emptiness i felt. When I saw this film I was striken with the brilliant snapshot of this society. Yes, this is all true!!! I too found a great job with a great pay, and I live with my norwegian boyfriend in a nice apartment downtown. But, so far everyone I have met have left me with that tasteless, empty feeling I had never had before - this is what this movie is about. Dinner parties with nothing to say to each other but emotionless comments, long silences, no stress, a creepy calm, and frozen smiles of niceness. This Scandinavian nightmare is perfectly rendered in Den Brysomme mannen. See this movie!!!
| 1
| 21,109
|
The title of this film nearly put me off watching it. Not being a Manchester United fan, the mere mention of Beckham was a bit off putting, however I put my prejudices behind me and I'm glad I did.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting much of a film, but I was pleasantly surprised. The film sped along with me never looking at my watch and I enjoyed every second of the film. If you liked East is East then you'll love this film. OK so the storyline is nothing new, and the classic storylines are contained within the film but it's all done very funnily, and with a breath of fresh air. The film moves very fast and keeps the audiance entertained. The occaisional funny moments are a good chuckle and not some poor attempt at humour, and best of all it's a good british comedy.
| 1
| 15,199
|
This rendition of "Noah's Ark" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in "how not to make a movie"<br /><br />Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:<br /><br />"Ok, boys, let's saddle up." "It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night." "We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths."<br /><br />Lumber for building the Ark with "Georgia Pacific" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.<br /><br />etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.<br /><br />The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.<br /><br />Marvin Cohn<br /><br />
| 0
| 9,645
|
I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.
| 0
| 4,765
|
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth.
| 0
| 5,221
|
This film is bone chilling in a way that is hard to describe. While it is fairly accurate in its description of the events leading up to and the subsequent investigation regarding the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, seen now post 9/11, it is almost unbearable.<br /><br />It would be a mistake to call this film prophetic, but it certainly makes the common playground wisdom of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" come alive.<br /><br />Our government learned nothing from the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center and subsequent readings of the 9/11 Report show that many of the mistakes that led to the bombing in 1993 were repeated.<br /><br />Some people have criticized the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution as being partly responsible for the Islamic terrorists being able to carry out their evil plans, but that is wrong headed in every possible way.<br /><br />Surely the people making this argument are not supporting a ban on Free Speech, a free press or freedom of religion? I certainly hope they are not supporting our government officials being able to break into any person's home or office to search without cause or without a warrant.<br /><br />The fact is, the FBI, the INS and even the local police could have gotten warrants based on the information they had in their possession, but they chose not to for a variety of reasons. Besides, no matter how distasteful or ignorant it is, it is not illegal to speak badly about America or its leaders. Likewise, it is not illegal to either own guns or to pray toward Mecca.<br /><br />Consider this, until Lee Harvey Oswald actually fired his rifle at President John Kennedy, he wasn't really breaking any laws. Living in a free society has its drawbacks.<br /><br />Still, Path To Paradise is a must see film that I am afraid will never be seen by that many people. As far as I know, it is not on DVD and 2007 is its tenth anniversary and there are no known revivals of it.<br /><br />I'm not really surprised, people don't like to document their failures and this film certainly shows that the various agencies that were supposed to protect us did not do their jobs right and for the pettiest of reasons, like jurisdictional squabbles and a refusal to share information.<br /><br />This is a shame as Path To Paradise is well done and gripping and as many have stated before, the final scene where Ramzi Yousef (played by Art Malik), the bomber who built the truck bomb that was used in the first attempt at destroying the two towers is flying past the World Trade Center after his capture and extradition simply says "Next time we will bring them both down", is a film moment that froze me in place for several minutes.
| 1
| 17,266
|
I guess there are some out there that remember Nicole Eggert from her little girl days on such TV shows as T.J. Hooker, Charles in Charge, and Who's the Boss? You perverts, you! Maybe you remember her from Baywatch when she grew up and got breast implants. No matter, you will certainly forget her in this supposed comedy about man-eating aliens.<br /><br />There are so many things that do not make sense and are never explained. How did she recognize the alien? Why was the alien hot for paprika and cinnamon? Why didn't the alien eat her? You get the picture.<br /><br />Before the alien eats her boyfriend and assumes his identity, you get to see her in the body of Alex Meneses. This Mexican/Ukranian beauty is the only reason to watch this trash. Stay for the shower scene and the boyfriend, and go on about your business.
| 0
| 5,006
|
I must admit I'm a little surprised and disappointed at some of the very negative comments this film seems to provoke. I think its a great horror/sci fi film. Colonel Steve West (Alex Rebar) returns to Earth after an historical space flight to Saturn. While in space he contracted some bizarre and unknown disease. He wakes up in a hospital bed, he looks in a mirror and before his very eyes his face is melting! Escaping the hospitals supervision, he hides out in some local woods surrounding a small town. Unfortunately he starts to develop a rapidly growing hunger that can only be satisfied by eating other people. He must feed on human flesh and drink the blood of others to survive! Stalking human prey he begins his reign of terror! Its up to his old friend Dr Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning) to find him and try and help him. He has to work alone as his boss General Perry (Myron Healey) wants it kept ultra quiet. Nelson can't even tell his wife Judy (Ann Sweeny). However, Sheriff Blake (Micheal Alldredge) becomes suspicious as General Perry turns up just as some of the local townspeople start turning up half eaten. I don't really understand why this film gets such negative reviews, what do people expect? Anyway, I really like this film. The star of the film are unquestionably Rick Bakers Special Make-up and gore effects which for the most part are excellent, and the fact their all prosthetic effects and no rubbish horrible CGI makes them even better. Writer and Director William Sachs isn't afraid to use them either, we get some nice long lingering close up shots of the incredible melting man and they hold up very well, even now. Photography, music and direction are a little bit dull, but professional enough. The script manages to create some sympathy for the the monster, shots of him looking longingly into Ted Nelsons house, or when he sees his own reflection in some water and reacts violently. The ending, set in a large factory of some sort, is pretty downbeat so don't expect any happy ending. Which surprised me. Also, the script doesn't really do anything with the premise, he just walks around melting and killing, with his friend trying to stop him, maybe a bit too simple. Personally I think the worst bit of the film is near the start when the fat nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion, her screams are also portrayed in slow motion too, it looks and sounds totally ridiculous! You need to see it to believe it! I like this film a lot and recommend it to 70's and 80's horror/sci fi fans. A bit of a favourite of mine.
| 1
| 24,719
|
i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :)
| 1
| 20,141
|
Wow !! I didn't even know about this movie until I was searching for the name of another Mark Hamill classic (Time Runner). Some things are better left unknown. Mark Hamill's role is quite ... limited. I would compare his appearance in this movie to all those appearances of Vincent Price and Christopher Lee in those bad horror b-movies of the 60's and 70's. In those movies, they appeared in the the first and last 5 minutes of the movie. Memorable acting by Mark with such great lines as "Don't try to run. You're under arrest." Did I mention he says that EXACT thing more than once. Bill Paxton fell into an Uzumaki type spiral of drugs and booze after Aliens, because he ended up in this movie after waking up on the set after a binge session. The HAIR .. the HAIR !!! .. Priceless Bill. Truly should have been "GAME OVER" for Bill .. but somehow .. he got treatment .. and went on to better??? movies. This movie blows. It is more dull and boring than The Crazies. At least that movie was crazy... this is just boring. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE SOBER.
| 0
| 6,262
|
I thought it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.
| 0
| 1,713
|
this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)
| 0
| 2,548
|
This third installment in the Scarecrow series is by far the best of the lot. I know, I know...but how good is it? Well, let's not be silly. It's still pretty bad, but by comparison to the first two, it's a fine film. Again shot on digital, with decent lighting and good camera work. <br /><br />****SPOILER****<br /><br />When a college baseball team hazes new members, one is left in a diabetic coma. Of course, they abandon him in a cornfield, tied to a scarecrow. In keeping with the legend, the boy's soul is transferred into the body of the scarecrow, which comes to life and wreaks terrible vengeance on, well, pretty much everyone. The co-eds drive to the beach, which is somehow very close to the cornfield. On the sunny beach, they are killed one by one by the whistling scarecrow. <br /><br />Writer/director Brian Katkin does a credible job of bringing some much-needed drama to the film. Unfortunately, the drama leaps over good and lands in common cheese. Much of the acting was fair, but there were some really terrible bits, including an awful piece of poorly done lip-synching. Some plot points were left mostly unresolved, and most were used to get someone alone so they could be slaughtered. Again, better than the previous installments, but still lacking.
| 0
| 11,971
|
I took my 19 year old daughter with me to see this interesting exercise in movie making. I always find it intriguing to get views and opinions from a different generation on movies, especially as I'm such a cynic myself. It's good to get an unjaded opinion from someone who hasn't yet reached the "been there, done that" approach to every movie she sees. I'm pleased to say that we both really enjoyed it and regarded it as a successful mother / daughter evening out. Far, far better than going to see some brain dead "chick flick", which I gather is what we are supposed to enjoy, according to the demographics? <br /><br />Eighteen directors were asked to produce a short piece about each of the arrondissements of Paris, a city I haven't visited in 20 years. But I wish I had. They are loosely linked by joining shots, and represent different approaches to love in the city regarded in popular culture as the quintessential romantic capital of the world. Some of the films work better than others but, as other reviewers have said, it never descends too far into kitsch. Some are funny, some are sad, some intriguing and some just plain puzzling (I'm still trying to discern some deep inner truth to the "Flying Tiger, Hidden Dragon" hairdressing salon.) Some are just fun and perhaps shouldn't be assigned too much meaning (the vampire and the tourist for example.) Possibly my only criticism of the whole film, is that it makes Paris look too good. It can also be cold, wet, foggy, indifferent and miserable, or, in summer, baking hot and packed with so many tourists that you feel like a sardine in a can queuing up for hours to see every attraction. But I'm nit picking. <br /><br />My personal favourite by far was the Coen brothers film shot on the Tuileries Metro station, and starring a perfectly cast Steve Buscemi as a confused tourist who inadvertently finds himself caught up in a lovers' tiff. Absolutely perfect, and very, very funny, without Buscemi having to say a word. I also perversely enjoyed the piece about the two mime artists, which was probably the closest the movie got to being cutesy - that certainly teetered on the edge of kitsch, but it just stayed on the right side. Rufus Sewell and Emily Mortimer gaining insight from an encounter with Oscar Wilde's tomb left me pretty indifferent, and Juliette Binoche trying to cope with the death of her small son made me very, very uncomfortable. I thought both the Bob Hoskins / Fanny Ardent piece, and Ben Gazzara / Gena Rowlands fell a bit flat, but Maggie Gyllenhaal was good (has she cornered the market in junkies? I watched Sherry Baby last week.) <br /><br />But I felt the two "social justice" pieces (for want of a better way of putting it), worked very well. By that, I mean first of all the film about the young mother leaving her own child in a day care to go and look after someone else's baby across town. And then the film about the African migrant, struggling to exist on the margins of an indifferent society, who is stabbed and dies in the street in front of a young, new paramedic. Yet another murder statistic, in a world which sees thousands of migrants dying in the struggle to reach what they see as a better life, every year. I thought both pieces very well observed.<br /><br />The final film, 14th Arrondissement, in which Margo Martindale plays a postal worker from Colorado recounting the story of her first trip to Paris in very badly accented French to her night school French class, moved me. A perfect ending, to a good, intriguing if not quite great, movie. <br /><br />Paris je t'aime was an ambitious idea, but it works pretty well.
| 1
| 16,119
|
"Pitch Black" was a complete shock to me when I first saw it back in 2000. In the previous years, I was repeatedly disappointed by all the lame sci-fi movies (Ex: STARSHIP TROOPERS) and thought that this movie wouldn't be any different. But to plainly put it: This movie freaked me out... in a good way. I wasn't aware that I was still afraid of the dark till I watched this movie; I must have buried my fear in the back of my subconscious when I was a kid and it rightfully deserves to stay there.<br /><br />The alien creatures sent shivers up my spine; the individual(s) who designed them have a twisted but brilliant and creative imagination to come up with something so impressive and grotesque. <br /><br />I loved how the writers gave each main character a history and showed their flaws and strengths without much confusion.<br /><br />Riddick's (Vin Diesel) gift for escaping out of any impossible situation and putting up a hell of a fight was jaw dropping. At first, you figure him out to be a coldly intelligent villain but in some brief moments, you can see something humane behind his animal side. But as soon you discover it, he does something maliciously devious. He certainly keeps you guessing right up to the very end. I didn't know whether to despise or admire him... he's definitely a love/hate type of character.<br /><br />Johns (Cole Hauser) was a perfect example of a character that puts up a good front but through a need for greed, shows his real intentions and what he's willing to do to survive. John's knack for knowing what buttons to push and the right words to say makes him as devious as Riddick.<br /><br />Fry (Radha Mitchell) is a character who, as Johns so nicely expressed, looked to her thine own ass first before considering the consequences. But what's endearing about her is that she quickly realizes the errors of her ways and tries desperately to pay penance, even while endangering her life when others discarded all human values and went for the dark hills running.<br /><br />Jack (Rhiana Griffith) simply wanted to have a hero and was the first one out of the whole group to look for that hero in Riddick; through a child's eye, good can be seen through the thick clouds of evil. I thought it was absolutely priceless when Jack shaves his head in ode to Riddick; you know what they say: Imitation is the best form of flattery.<br /><br />Imam (Keith David), like Jack, has the ability to see good in any evil. He uses philosophy to carry him through the hardships that he meets and when time permits, he rationally grieves his losses and then soldiers on. In a way, he served as a morale booster for the survivors even though most of the characters acted as though they weren't listening.<br /><br />The casting for this movie was positively perfect. Each actor shined brightly in their role and their talents blended wonderfully on-screen.<br /><br />This movie may have had a small budget but the director's leadership and the actor's performances made the movie work and allowed the audience to use their imagination instead of letting some outrageously expensive Special Effects do all the work for them. This movie is a definite Sci-Fi classic. Watch it and judge (with an open mind) for yourself. It will be well worth it.
| 1
| 19,452
|
It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.<br /><br />I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.<br /><br />Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.<br /><br />That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.<br /><br />And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.
| 0
| 10,959
|
This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......<br /><br />Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.<br /><br />There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.<br /><br />The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.<br /><br />The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.<br /><br />I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.<br /><br />Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.<br /><br />This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.
| 0
| 2,604
|
I first saw this film when I was about 6 ish - my grandma thought it'd be a nice kiddies film to entertain me and keep me occupied....however, every time I watched it I had nightmares the same night. Yes it masquerades as a kids' film, but even now I find it really dark in places, particularly the haunting music that is played each time the guardian angel woman is on the screen, and her rather hypnotic eyes and voice. The actual "baddies" of the film, ie the sharks, Mr Grimes etc didn't scare me at all, I just always found the whole film rather creepy and dark. This is obviously something I can appreciate now that I'm 21 years old, but speaking from experience there is no way I would show it to my kids!
| 1
| 18,990
|
Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.<br /><br />It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.<br /><br />Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.
| 0
| 6,803
|
"Female Convict Scorpion - Beast Stable", the third in the series, is a magnificent piece of pulp sleaze. Closer in tone and subject to a Nikkatsu violent pinker than other Scorpion entries, it is stunningly photographed, directed with lurid enthusiasm, and populated with a rogue's gallery of villains and degenerates. Shinya Ito, the director of the first installment, returns for this surreal fable which begins with Scorpion (Meiko Kaji) cutting the arm off a cop she is handcuffed to and fleeing into the Tokyo subway with said arm still swinging from her wrist. She takes refuge in a red light district where she befriends a prostitute, who is first seen seen having incestuous intercourse with her brother (who ends up impregnating her). Scorpion's desire to protect this unfortunate woman eventually exposes her identity and all hell breaks loose. She is beaten, sexually assaulted, and locked inside a bizarre bird cage in the villain's lair. I loved everything about this hypnotic, nihilistic, and emotionally touching movie. It is the superior of the three first Scorpion films and features one great scene after another. I can't recommend it highly enough.
| 1
| 13,322
|
One of low budget horror schlockmeister actor, John Carradine's more animated roles as a implied Nazi scientist, who is turning humans into zombies to serve the Reich. Mindless scuffling brain dead, only able to obey the most simple of orders....bit like staff in McDonalds.<br /><br />Hitler isn't mentioned by name, since America wasn't at war at the time they was filmed, but it's pretty obvious who the bad guys are working for!<br /><br />There seems to be two types of zombies in film, the traditional voodoo type popular in the old black & white films of the 1930's and '40's. Blank eyed and just following the commands of someone else as they stumble along. And then there is the type we know from later films like 'The Night of the Living Dead' and 'The Evil Dead.' Still roaming about but with only the intention to kill and eat the flesh and brains of their victims. Both have their moments in various movies over the years. <br /><br />'Revenge' features the former zombie type, although, these are particularly goofy looking and would look more at home in an old time freak shows as geeks as they bite the heads off chickens. One black zombie named Lazarus with his wild hair, looks like a young Don King.<br /><br />As to the plot, the evil doctor decides to make his wife a zombie along with the others and that's where he makes his mistake. Even though he lets her keep her strappy heels as a nice womanly touch as he turns her into one of the living dead, she's not happy about it.<br /><br />It all goes horribly wrong and ends in tears, and the moral of the tale must be, never, ever, turn your wife into a zombie, it's just asking for trouble....<br /><br />The film is interesting enough and it quickly rolls along to a finish, but never rises above it's poverty row origins. Not a patch on any true zombie classics but fun just the same.
| 0
| 8,772
|
Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!<br /><br />Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique.
| 0
| 2,965
|
Just the fact that the cover is a drawing, like those old B-movies should give you a warning about the quality of this movie. This is, however not a B-movie. It is a D-movie! <br /><br />There are no known actors, and the animals - WOW - it is the worst data-animation ever made during the last two decades. <br /><br />You hardly ever see the SCAAARY sabretooth shown on the front cover. You just hear people scream, bleed and die and you occasionally see a teeth or a tiger-paw. It's so amateur! Maybee worth seeing, just because it's so bad. Give it to a friend and say: "This is the best movie I have ever seen, and wait for their reaction" He, he. <br /><br />The movie is to weak to give it a Spoiler Alert! THIS IS A SPOILER.
| 0
| 7,740
|
I first saw this movie when it originally came out. I was about 9 yrs. old and found this movie both highly entertaining and very frightening and unlike any other movie I had seen up until that time.<br /><br />BASIC PLOT: An expedition is sent out from Earth to the fourth planet of Altair, a great mainsequence star in constellation Aquilae to find out what happened to a colony of settlers which landed twenty years before and had not been heard from since.<br /><br />THEME: An inferior civilization (namely ours) comes into contact with the remains of a greatly advanced alien civilization, the Krell-200,000 years removed. The "seed" of destruction from one civilization is being passed on to another, unknowingly at first. The theme of this movie is very much Good vs. Evil.<br /><br />I first saw this movie with my brother when it came out originally. I was just a boy and the tiger scenes really did scare me as did the battle scenes with the unseen Creature-force. I was also amazed at just how real things looked in the movie.<br /><br />What really captures my attention as an adult though is the truth of the movie "forbidden knowledge" and how relevant this will be when we do (if ever) come into contact with an advanced (alien) civilization far more developed than we ourselves are presently. Advanced technology and responsibility seem go hand in hand. We must do the work for ourselves to acquire the knowledge along with the wisdom of how to use advanced technology. This is, in my opinion, the great moral of the movie.<br /><br />I learned in graduate school that "knowledge is power" is at best, in fact, not correct! Knowledge is "potential" power depending upon how it is applied (... if it is applied at all.) [It's not what you know, but how you use what you know!]<br /><br />The overall impact of this movie may well be realized sometime in Mankind's own future. That is knowledge in and of itself is not enough, we must, MUST have the wisdom that knowledge depends on to truly control our own destiny OR we will end up like the Krell in the movie-just winked-out.<br /><br />Many thanks to those who responded to earlier versions of this article with comments and corrections, they are all very much appreciated!! I hope you are as entertained by this story as much as I have been over the past 40+ years ....<br /><br />Rating: 10 out 10 stars
| 1
| 20,262
|
If you are expecting to see a lot in the bath of Altıoklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Altıoklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Altıoklar was unsuccessfully to "try something new" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Altıoklar had fallen for the famous saying which is "sex sells." I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Altıoklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism work.
| 0
| 10,842
|
This movie was made 20 years before my time. Its introduction of John Garfield in the supporting role of Mickey Borden makes it a classic. He slumps onto the screen and your eyes are glued. Garfield was an original and his portrayal of fate's whipping boy is a must see.
| 1
| 17,454
|
While not as famous as some of their other collaborations (such as THE BLACK CAT and THE BODY SNATCHER), this is a dandy little horror film even though the casting decisions were a bit odd. Boris Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a weird scientist who lives in the Carpathian mountains--near where the Dracula character's home town. Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Benet--whose nationality was never discussed though the name certainly sounds French. I really think it would have made sense to have the two switch roles, as the Carpathian role seems tailor made for Lugosi--especially with his accent. However, despite this unusual twist, the two still did excellent jobs. Karloff's was definitely the lead role, but Lugosi acquitted himself well as a relatively normal person--something he didn't play very often in films!! It seems that Dr. Rukh is a bit of a pariah, as other scientists (especially Benet) think his theories are bizarre and nonsensical. However, over the course of the film, Rukh turns out to be right and Benet is especially generous in his new praise for Rukh. But, unfortunately, the wonderful new element that Rukh discovered has the nasty side effect of turning him into a crazy killing machine (don't you hate it when that happens?). While this could have just been a simple nice scientist turned mad story, the plot was well constructed, the characters nicely developed and the mad Rukh was NOT a one-dimensional killer, but complex and interesting.<br /><br />This film is bound to be enjoyed by anyone except for people who hate old horror films. You can really tell that Universal Pictures pulled out all the stops and made a bigger-budget film instead of the cheap quickies both Lugosi and Karloff unfortunately gravitated in later years. Good stuff.
| 1
| 14,951
|
Two Hands is a highly enjoyable Aussie crime caper, which ultimately succeeds by the way the film easily combines tense dramatic moments, with very funny characters and situations, to give the film the right balance and feel. The comedy of the film occurs naturally, and the laughs haven't been set up too elaborately & haven't been too worked at. It really is very funny, thanks to the fact that each character in the movie is excellently cast, and that each actor/actress recognises and can relate to the Aussie humor. They portray it very well and very realistically. Of course, they're helped out immensely by a fantastic script by writer/director Gregor Jordan. I was reading another review of this film by an American who had seen it, and he heavily criticised it, basically passing it off as a Pulp Fiction clone. I think that that's just rubbish. This film isn't trying to be Pulp Fiction, the feel and style of each of this excellent films are totally opposite. Without wanting to sound superior or arrogant, I think to fully understand this film; the humor, the sincerity, the characters, etc....you have to be Australian, or at least understand the culture, which the other guy obviously didn't have the faintest clue about. Some Americans, whose reviews of certain non-American films, seem ignorant to (and have trouble comprehending) anything that isn't an American product. It's a real shame, because this is a really great film. The love story featured between the main character and the girl is also portrayed in a very real, sincere and sweet way. I'm very proud to have this film in my collection. 4.5 out of 5.
| 1
| 15,774
|
First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.<br /><br />Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.<br /><br />Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.<br /><br />What a sad waste.
| 0
| 1,133
|
A pretty transparent attempt to wring cash out of the thriving British club scene, Sorted is a film that shows promise in certain departments, but does very little else. A perfunctory thriller plot (which is there merely to string the club sequences together), variable acting and a pretty ludicrous script, all stop Sorted from being the showcase that director Jovy obviously intended.<br /><br />However, although Jovy is sometimes over indulgent (especially when using the often ill-fitting dance music) he does show potential, and the lack of an anti drugs message is enormously refreshing. Overall however, the film is a wasted opportunity, and the prospects for a great clubbing movie remain out there somewhere. Watchable nevertheless.
| 0
| 1,994
|
A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).<br /><br />Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.<br /><br />Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'
| 0
| 3,500
|
"Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl. <br /><br />It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives. <br /><br />He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once. <br /><br />Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that. <br /><br />The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in. <br /><br />This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed.
| 1
| 14,245
|
Suffice to say that - despite the odd ludicrous panegyric to his soi disant "abilities" posted here - the director of this inept, odious tosh hasn't made a film since. Well that is excellent news as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Dead Babies has all of the bile of its creator, but lacks the wit and technical proficiency that make Martin Amis the novelist readable.<br /><br />When will the British film industry wake up and realise that if it wants to regain the status it once had it should stop producing rubbish like this and make something real people will actually want to watch?<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.
| 0
| 6,376
|
I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it. <br /><br />If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent "The Bible" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called "Noah's Ark" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/<br /><br />I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.<br /><br />Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good. <br /><br />Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.<br /><br />Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.<br /><br />In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.<br /><br />People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie "The Ten Commandments" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.<br /><br />God works in mysterious ways.
| 0
| 9,631
|
This movie has a "big production" feel that I was not expecting from an independent film. The characters are each developed and dealt with in a way that not only helps to tell the story, but left me with a satisfied viewing experience.
| 1
| 17,597
|
`Skenbart' is one of the funniest movies to not only to come from Peter Dalle but from the Swedish cinema industry itself. It is a movie made in black and white to get something of the atmosphere from the days before Christmas in December 1945, which it does very well. Almost the whole plot takes place on a train, non-stop to Berlin. On the train is a mix of homosexuals, nuns, deported refugees, murderers, alcoholics and the failure literature critic 'Gunnar' played by the, in Sweden, famous actor Gustav Hammarsten. The leading role 'Gunnar' is the type of person that, although his intentions are for the best, seems to drag everyone near him, in a extremely funny way, into disaster and to a living hell, especially for a from the Finnish war, homecoming, wounded soldier played by the extremely funny comedian Robert Gustafsson. On the train is also a doctor, who cheats on his wife, with his mistress. They have together planned to murder the doctors wife that is also travelling with the same train without any knowledge about her husbands intentions. Will the wife of the doctor elude the plans to murder her and will everyone else survive the unlucky fellow 'Gunnar'?
| 1
| 15,848
|
They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.
| 0
| 6,546
|
I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!
| 0
| 770
|
Don't get me wrong, the guy's a success dynamo, but he got to the top by selling overpriced plastic toys to impulsive brats. So I get a little peeved when he looks at comic book fans as an extension of that same market.<br /><br />See, "The Invincible Iron Man" wouldn't be bad if it were slotted on a Saturday morning and geared exclusively toward undiscerning children. But it's not directed exclusively at children. Periphery characters are killed every five minutes and there's enough bloodshed and semi-nude bodies to make network censors squirm, so it isn't quite cut out for children's television.<br /><br />So what audience is this video aiming for then? It's the audience that enjoys nigh intelligible story lines about reviving a tyrannical Chinese emperor with 5 arcane rings, that's who. And I think that audience is restrictively small.<br /><br />A lot of great writers have passed through Marvel's leathery yoni over the decades. So it's a shame that Marvel would risk their pricey animation investments on so many questionable storytellers and scribes who, like Mr. Arad, are better accustomed to peddling action figures during Saturday morning cartoons. How many lukewarm receptions do Marvel have to endure before they come up with a better strategy? <br /><br />***<br /><br />Animation: just passable cels, some segments are better than others, a low budget look all throughout -- this ain't no Bakshi (Ralph) and it ain't no Bluth (Don)! CG animation's okay, but far from impressive.<br /><br />Story: a litany of clichés, all over the place, convoluted, contrived, and uninspired.<br /><br />Characters: so why is Rhodes even here if all he does is add to Stark's sexual ambiguity? Hmmm... her Dad's in a wheelchair... Tony misses his mom... Asian chicks are hot and, apparently, little else; the female lead is thoroughly objectified by the feature's end.<br /><br />Performances: can't blame competent voice actors for a bad script.<br /><br />Art: very Western musculature, very clean lines, faces are very derivative of Eastern art, very boring mattes, very bland CG.<br /><br />Conclusion: Not great, but worth a watch for the fans and those who enjoy superhero myths. A 'must-buy' for collectors. A valuable "what not to do" course for junior animators.
| 0
| 6,296
|
Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.<br /><br />The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.<br /><br />Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.<br /><br />Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.<br /><br />Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.<br /><br />The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background. <br /><br />His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.<br /><br />Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.<br /><br />Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.<br /><br />Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca. <br /><br />Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely.
| 1
| 13,634
|
In celebration of Earth Day Disney has released the film "Earth". Stopping far short of any strident message of gloom and doom, we are treated to some excellent footage of animals in their habitats without feeling too bad about ourselves.<br /><br />The stars of the show are a herd of elephants, a family of polar bears and a whale and its calf. The narrative begins at the North Pole and proceeds south until we reach the tropics, all the while being introduced to denizens of the various climatic zones traversed.<br /><br />Global warming is mentioned in while we view the wanderings of polar bear; note is made of the shrinking sea ice islands in more recent years. We never see the bears catch any seals, but the father's desperate search for food leads him to a dangerous solution.<br /><br />The aerial shots of caribou migrating across the tundra is one of the most spectacular wildlife shots I ever saw; it and another of migrating wildfowl are enough to reward the price of admission to see them on the big screen.<br /><br />One of the disappointments I felt was that otherwise terrific shots of great white sharks taking seals were filmed in slow motion. Never do you get the sense of one characteristic of wild animals; their incredible speed. The idea of slowing down the film to convey great quickness I think began with (or at least it's the first I recall seeing) the television show "Kung Fu" during the early Seventies.<br /><br />An interesting sidelight is that as the credits roll during the end some demonstrations of the cinematographic techniques employed are revealed. There are enough dramatic, humorous and instructive moments in this movie to make it a solid choice for nature buffs. Perhaps because of some selective editing (sparing us, as it were, from the grisly end of a prey-predator moment) and the fact that this footage had been released in 2007 and is available on DVD it is a solid film in its own right. And you can take your kids!<br /><br />Three stars.
| 1
| 14,023
|
I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).<br /><br />If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.<br /><br />I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.<br /><br />It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.<br /><br />Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.
| 0
| 1,867
|
The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.<br /><br />The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.<br /><br />Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...<br /><br />Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.<br /><br />Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.<br /><br />To be continued...
| 1
| 23,262
|
Sogo Ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions, but Gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival, a scion of the Genji clan. The film-making has the main hallmarks of a low-budget production, including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under-produced dorama). The monk Benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards Gojoe bridge at night, but he doesn't realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time - but which could earn him enlightenment. <br /><br />There's no absence of ambitiousness, however, in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. Artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film-making style. <br /><br />A disappointment.
| 0
| 1,389
|
My Take: A funny take on THE LION KING, posing as a sequel. Surprisingly amusing. <br /><br />Surprisingly, "Lion King 1 1/2" is actually another funny straight-to-video, that's worth a theatrical treatment. I don't see why Disney released this straight to video, and release crappy movies like "Chicken Little" and "Return to Neverland" theatrically. Those movies are better off seen in the video stores (in the "new releases" area), rather than seeing their theatrical posters outside the theaters.<br /><br />This one is merely a spoof of the first film (although the events in "Simba's Pride" hasn't taken place yet), on Timon (voiced by Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa's (voiced by Ernie Sabella) point of view. We get to see them make fun of the events in the first film. Original voices from the first film, like Matthew Broderick, Woopie Goldberg, Cheeche Martin and Robert Guillaume, return to their voicing roles from the first film, while Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller give some hilarious comedy relief as Timon's mom and grumpy uncle.<br /><br />So doesn't this sound fun. Maybe not now, but go watch it for yourself. The fact that it's not that serious in its plot makes it the more enjoyable. It's kinda like MST3000 with Timon and Pumbaa.<br /><br />Video movie rating: ***1/2 out of 5.
| 1
| 15,112
|
I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her.
| 1
| 22,797
|
I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:<br /><br />"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window)."<br /><br />Please there is nothing to say anymore...<br /><br />Sorry for some bad English.
| 0
| 3,717
|
Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.<br /><br />Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.<br /><br />Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.<br /><br />The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.<br /><br />The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.
| 0
| 6,446
|
This movie was talked about in Fangoria where I heard about this, it was interesting to me mostly becuase it was direct-to-video and I recognized two of the stars on the cover, James Marsden of Disturbing Behavior and Christine Taylor from The Craft. And to my surprise on Valentine's Day when I was searching through the horror aisle to find it on the shelf! I immediately had to grab it. Me and my brother and our girlfriends watched it and to my surprise it was pretty good, the tales were interesting and for once they were actually SCARY, unlike a lot of other horror movies being made recently. Some of the plot I do not understand but once I watch it again I bet I'll get it. And to even more of my surprise there were other stars I recognized including one of the girls from the TV show My So-Called Life and Jacinda from The Real World, I'm not sure why this movie was only direct-to-video, with a little advertising this movie could have at least made up for how much money was spent on making it. The only problem I have is that since it wasn't released in theatres I guess I'll never be able to view it in widescreen. You should definitely take a chance and rent this one.<br /><br />
| 1
| 19,863
|
Mr Michael Jackson is an artistic phenomenon. His short movies, i.e. music videos, are simply the best. I do not care if I get a sane sci-fi feature from this man, but I do care to get a medley of his crazy dancing, shriek yells, cool crowd choreography, and some bits of CGI and animation. There also should be a few uninterrupted videos. Everything I've mentioned is here. Stupid plot and over-the-top "vanity fair" are not a problem when I witness Mr Michael Jackson in action. To me he will always be the ultimate king of music videos (not "king of pop" which sounds moronic, especially for us, Russians, because "pop" sounds like the Russian word for "arses" and MJ is definitely not "king of arses"). I can re-watch his best music videos (which are artistically beautiful) and I never get tired of them.<br /><br />My first impression of this film was "What is this...?" (bits of different videos, some drawn images, unsettling jumps from one theme to another, absence of any cohesive plot line, some kids fooling around, etc.) but as I watched it till the end, I could tell that it was great and really nothing like anything else shown on TV nowadays. What I like here too is that it never shows any shameful material and can be watched by kids easily.<br /><br />Without Mr Michael Jackson the universe of music videos would be rather poor. Even the best classic videos of other artists cannot come very close to the energetic hyperbole of MJ musical insanity and artistic quality. He knew how to get the audience of different ages and he knew how to remain a man with moral principles.<br /><br />When I see a proper DVD release with Mr Michael Jackson videos I know that it deserves to be purchased even if some clips have already appeared in some other previous release. "HIStory I", "HIStory II", and "Moonwalker" are all great, though only "Moonwalker" is more like one movie (with a solid "Smooth Criminal" theme, "paparazzi" topic, and a few weird spoofs and twists).<br /><br />Being no fan of MJ I can still give this "film... like no other" a solid 9 out of 10 (I've been hit by "Smooth Criminal" for sure and my major complains are the following: initial segments of the movie could have been dropped while the main "MJ anti-drug campaign" should have been given more "sky-rocketing insanity and stress" and there should have been more "moonwalking" itself of course). Thanks for attention.
| 1
| 18,337
|
OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.
| 0
| 3,279
|
After sitting through this film, I have decided that it is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I knew it the moment I was subjected to three teenage girls screaming and overacting when they (OMG!) meet again, and then watching the same thing, only done by women old enough to be my mom. And that was only the first few minutes. Yeesh. So here are my comments...<br /><br />1. Middle aged women + ridiculous dance moves complete with hip thrusts and over the top costumes = not a good idea.<br /><br />2. Pierce Brosnan could not sing his way out of a paper bag. Nor could practically anyone else in this pile of excrement, for that matter.<br /><br />3. The songs were so random. It was obvious to me that they were thrown, willy nilly, into the incredibly contrived and STUPID plot.<br /><br />4. My three year old nephew could have written a better script.<br /><br />I was either cringing or laughing derisively during the movie. And I normally really like movie musicals. Of course they are bound to be a bit corny...but this was ridiculous. What a waste of talent. I mean, you have great actors and actresses in this movie...I am embarrassed for them that this is now a part of their career. I regret wasting my money and time on this piece of crap.
| 0
| 6,195
|
A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.<br /><br />The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7.
| 1
| 17,750
|
If you've ever wondered why they don't make porn with a plot, watch Dream Quest. On the one hand, you have to give the Armstrong credit both for making the effort to capitalize on this idea and for using such a strong adult cast to put some name power behind it. On the other hand, it also quickly becomes apparent why most porns never have more than 15 or 20 seconds of dialog connecting sex scenes together. These people simply cannot act (and the story is, unfortunately, lame to a ridiculous degree).<br /><br />Still, I gave it a 7 because it was a nice try and there didn't seem to be much of an effort to cut corners. Also, I'd like to see more attempts like this one. Maybe someday I will see the perfect combination of porn and plot.
| 1
| 22,388
|
Wow! Where to start?<br /><br />This adaptation of Sarah Waters' third novel is one of my all-time favorite movies!!!!!<br /><br />I'm not to big on fiction novels (seriously I NEVER read fiction), but the book is just as FABULOUS as the film! Or should I say the film is just as FABULOUS as the book?! I JUST LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!<br /><br />Anyway, I put off watching this three hour long film (2 part series on DVD, 3 part series on TV/book) for about a year and half. It simply did not look that interesting...BOY WAS I SO WRONG! <br /><br />I became immediately immersed into the rich and suspenseful plot...utterly enthralled! Just like the book, you cannot stop watching/reading. It grasps your attention for the entire 3 hours...and when it does end...you wish it hadn't.<br /><br />The story just flows so beautifully and you'll be wondering where the time went.<br /><br />The lesbian subplot was just icing on the cake! The parts I love most are the subtle facial expressions and glances/eye contact between the two characters. You really feel their desire for one another and yet they cannot act upon it.....until they must. <br /><br />May I point out that the "lesbian theme" is an important part of the film, obviously, at the heart of the film is a genuine unexpected love story, but it is most certainly not what the whole movie is about. For me that's what makes this story so unique and intriguing. I've never read or heard of anything like it. Sarah Waters is pure genius!<br /><br />The twists and turns it takes leaves you hanging on the edge of your seat. Seriously! My hands were clasped on to my couch with every surprising plot twist and I even yelled out several times ("OH MY GOD! NO WAY! THAT DID NOT JUST HAPPEN! DID IT?")...I NEVER do that!<br /><br />The only negative thing I have to say about this film is that I wish they'd added more from the book. But obviously having the adaptation be restricted by time they couldn't add everything that I would've liked. How awful it is though...I think I'm just being brutally selfish now...forgive me. <br /><br />The last 20 minutes does seem a little rushed. However, they put all the important bits in where even if you only watch the film and choose not to read the book you will be most satisfied with the outcome. <br /><br />The actors are just SUPERB! BRILLIANT even! Sally Hawkins (Sue) and Elaine Cassidy (Maud) have such great on screen chemistry they steam up your television set. Simply electric! The emotions...the desperation...the struggle each of them feel is expressed seemingly effortless by these wonderfully talented actresses. Rupert Evans plays such a good bad guy as Gentleman. I found myself seething every time he came on screen, but loving it because he's just so damn cute and somehow still charming even though you want to wring his neck. Imelda Staunton gives yet another fantastic performance as Mrs. Sucksby. She's such a warmhearted actress you cannot help but love her...even when the character she's playing isn't as delightful. Everyone else in the cast were perfect! They really represented the characters well and were just as I imagined them to be after reading the book.<br /><br />This is a must see for any film buff! Actually, ANYONE and EVERYONE should see this movie AND read the book! Chances are you won't be disappointed!<br /><br />10/10 stars from me! There are only four other films I have given that same rating too. Its very rare for me to actually enjoy a film so much that I give it 10/10. This is one of those films. Fingersmith is truly a masterpiece!
| 1
| 23,054
|
I didn't hate this movie as much as some on my all time black list, but I consider it a total wast of film. Jeremy Irons, Iron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy. Think about it. Scene one is very good, all the rest are crap.
| 0
| 4,752
|
What-ho! This one is jolly good. I say jolly good, ol' chap. Or should I say "ol' bean"? My mastery of British terminology is a little dusty. Anyway, my biker boots and I walked into this screening with no prior viewing experience of Wallace and Gromit. I'm happy to say that my boots and I walked out pleased to have made their acquaintance.<br /><br />While not as adult-accessible as Toy Story, W & G still manages to be clever enough to provide the grown ups with a little humor that will most definitely soar over the heads of the young 'uns who are too busy guffawing at the Were-rabbit's belches to have any clue that something is amiss. I highly suggest that you pay close attention any time you see books or words on the screen because there are quick glimpses of puns that you'll miss if you aren't paying attention. My favorite is a book of monsters that refers to the Loch Ness Monster as "tourist trappus." If you've ever been known to say, "I can really relate to Kevin Federline," or if you're just illiterate then not only will you miss out on these jokes, but you probably should be spending your time learning to read instead of going to movies. Consider this a public service announcement.<br /><br />The most impressive aspect about W & G is its clay animation. Thanks to the tedious process, it took FIVE YEARS to finish the film! According to the press notes, there were some days when the optimum goal was to merely accomplish 10 seconds of completed film. Folks, I sometimes have trouble finding the motivation to finish responding to a handful of emails or adding captions to pictures for my reviews (a point that is proved by a lack of pictures in this review); so I can't even imagine having the required patience for that.<br /><br />I really like the rough, hands-on quality of the claymation figures. The fact that you can see fingerprints in the clay is a nice, personal touch. How can you not be impressed with clay characters that show more expression and emotion than Paul Walker and Keanu Reeves combined? The Curse of the Were-rabbit is, as director Nick Park calls it, the world's first vegetarian horror movie that should entertain both kids and adults alike. Relying on (and as a male who prides himself in his shaggy-haired, cool-bearded masculinity I hesitate to use this word) cute and (oh man, I probably shouldn't use this word either) lovable characters rather than outdated M.C. Hammer references, W & G is proof that DreamWorks can create entertaining animation when it chooses cleverness over the cheap joke.
| 1
| 17,767
|
exquisite!! in simple words... both Aparna Sen and Konkona Sen seem to understand each other quite well or maybe they both are just too good.this might just be her best performance as an actor and Aparna's best as a director. yeah maybe better than Mr and Mrs Iyer. Konkona plays the role of a schizophrenic. Shabana Azmi plays the role of Anjali,Mithi's(Konkona Sen's) elder sister. Shabana Azmi made the best out of Anjali's character for she had to play a strong,responsible,arrogant role of an elder sister who had the full responsibility of her family. Aparna Sen has beautifully crafted Anjali's character,a strong woman who had to sacrifice her personal life,her love for her family.<br /><br />Mithi's behavior was'not juvenile at all,for you can expect this from most of Indian directors for this role.looks like a lot of research has been done to understand the role of Mithi,a schizophrenic. When at times Mithi is a normal,sweet college going girl,she also scares you when she is shown ill..both the sides have been beautifully judged and played..believe me it at times reminds you of the girl in Exorcist..not that scary though.. Overall..Marvellous piece of work by Aparna Sen,Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi...
| 1
| 15,283
|
In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.<br /><br />The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.<br /><br />It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.
| 1
| 15,375
|
Stop me if you hard this one before, some cheerleaders, their coach and a couple guys are trapped within a cabin in the woods when an unseen killer kills them off one by one. Shame on me, after I totally wrote off Jim Wynorski after the horrid "Busty Cops" (it was a long time coming as his last truly good film was 1990's "Hard to Die"), I still for some reason got my hopes up for a supposed sequel to "Slumber Party Massacre". Sadly even my mediocre expectations were not met. This outing is not nearly as fun as even the three previous films in the franchise (and yes I'm including SPM 2, that should tell you something) Furthermore how can you have a slasher film with this little gore??? I mean Come on now!! <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Ricky Ray gets topless; April Flowers and Charity Rahmer show boobs and buns in a shower scene (April gets nude again later in the film), and Tamie Sheffield gets topless and bares buns
| 0
| 6,150
|
Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem.<br /><br />Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranksor that the most recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar, who feeds off the life force of scared young women.<br /><br />Admittedly, this isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add immensely to the chilling atmosphere.
| 1
| 24,875
|
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.
| 0
| 3,544
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.