text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
25k
|
|---|---|---|
I think we all begin a lot of reviews with, "This could've made a GREAT movie." A demented ex-con freshly sprung, a tidy suburban family his target. Revenge, retribution, manipulation. Marty's usual laying on of the Karo syrup. But unfortunately somewhere in Universal's high-rise a memorandum came down: everyone ham it up.<br /><br />Nolte only speaks with eyebrows raised, Lange bitches her way through cigarettes, Lewis "Ohmagod's!" her way though her scenes, and Bobby D...well, he's on a whole other magic carpet. Affecting some sort of Cajun/Huckleberry Hound accent hybrid, he chomps fat cigars and cackles at random atrocities such as "Problem Child". And I want you to imagine the accent mentioned above. Now imagine it spouting brain-clanging religious rhetoric at top volume like he swallowed six bibles, and you have De Niro's schtick here. Most distracting of all, though, is his most OVERDONE use of the "De Niro face" he's so lampooned for. Eyes squinting, forehead crinkled, lips curled. Crimany, Bob, you looked like Plastic Man.<br /><br />The story apparently began off-screen 14 years earlier, when Nolte was unable to spare De Niro time in the bighouse for various assaults. Upon release, he feels Nolte's misrep of him back then warrants the terrorizing of he and his kin. And we're supposed to give De Niro's character a slight pass because Nolte withheld information that might've shortened his sentence. De Niro being one of these criminals who, despite being guilty of unspeakable acts, feels his lack of freedom justifies continuing such acts on the outside. Mmm-kay.<br /><br />He goes after Notle's near-mistress (in a scene some may want to turn away from), his wife, his daughter, the family dog, ya know. Which is one of the shortcomings of Wesley Strick's screenplay: utter predictability. As each of De Niro's harassments becomes more gruesome, you can pretty much call the rest of the action before it happens. Strick isn't to be totally discredited, as he manages a few compelling dialogue-driven moments (De Niro and Lewis' seedy exchange in an empty theater is the film's best scene), but mostly it's all over-cranked. Scorsese's cartoonish photographic approach comes off as forced, not to mention the HORRIBLY outdated re-worked Bernard Hermann score (I kept waiting for the Wolf Man to show up with a genetically enlarged tarantula).<br /><br />Thus we arrive at the comedic portion of the flick. Unintentionally comedic, that is. You know those scenes where something graphically horrific is happening, but you can't help but snicker out of sight of others? You'll do it here. Nolte and Lange squawking about infidelity, De Niro's thumb-flirting, he cross-dressing, and a kitchen slip on a certain substance that has to be seen to believed. And Bob's infernal, incessant, CONSTANT, mind-damaging, no-end-in sight blowhard ramblings of all the "philosophy" he disovered in prison. I wanted him killed to shut him up more than to save this annoying family.<br /><br />I always hate to borrow thoughts from other reviewers, but here it's necessary. This really *is* Scorsese's version of Freddy Krueger. The manner in which De Niro relishes, speaks, stalks, withstands pain, right down to his one-liners, is vintage Freddy. Upon being scalded by a pot of thrown water: "You trying' to offer sumpin' hot?" Please. And that's just one example.<br /><br />Unless you were a fan of the original 1962 flick and want a thrill out of seeing Balsam, Peck, and Mitchum nearly 30 years later (or want a serious head-shaking film experience), avoid a trip to the Cape.
| 0
| 12,255
|
I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences!
| 1
| 17,734
|
Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!<br /><br />Jur
| 1
| 18,846
|
ANY GUN CAN PLAY (2 outta 5 stars) Totally routine "spaghetti western" starring that guy who used to play "Kookie" on "77 Sunset Strip". The plot is some convoluted nonsense about some stolen gold coins and various gunmen of dubious motivation trying to track it down. This is one of those "lighthearted" westerns... which means lots of labored attempts at "comedy"... and some really atrocious music during most of the action sequences (you can tell this isn't Ennio Morricone's work). George Hilton plays a bounty hunter called "Stranger"... but he doesn't leave much of an impression... he just doesn't have the style of Clint Eastwood or Franco Nero, who are able to do a lot with a sparsely-written character. The ending is a complete homage/parody of the ending of "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly"... though it's barely amusing enough to be considered a "parody". The highlight of the movie is the first 5 minutes... which features actors patterned after Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and someone else (Is he supposed to be Eli Wallach? Franco Nero? It's not very clear...) who are confronted by Stranger. It's an amusing in-joke for fans of Sergio Leone fans and spaghetti western aficionados... but I imagine no one else would see the point.
| 0
| 828
|
This is a case of a bunch of people thinking they are so clever they have a story that fits the time. Remember the all-around political conspiracies caught on camera in the years leading to the Watergate and a little later? Most movies trying to cash in on made-for-TV 'o so powerful, o so mind numbing' conspiracies were in fact caught in their own navel-gazing attitude.<br /><br />I was never a fan of The Conversation which I find as much dated as others conspiracy stints of the time but Coppola was true to his main character and Hackman was a pretty engaging actor to observe. I mean these conspiracy movies are mostly drowning in the character pool of noir heroes. Lots of questions unanswered, lots of dis-communication... Well this takes at least Bergman to build a movie about such un-visual bases.<br /><br />The Next Man is a perfect example of its time: one political soup served with an idealistic character and an horrendous conspiracy tightening its web around him. Neither part is interesting in itself and the whole doesn't get any better. In fact you can tell how much it will be bad from the very first sequences piling up 'watcha that' murders without ever advancing any storyline. Pedestrian directing at its worst as most of the movie is one pompous accumulation of scenes revolving around violence naively brought under the viewer's eyes.
| 0
| 12,172
|
This is the movie that finally pushed me over the line into registering with IMDb so that I could vote for (and comment on) it. I've only recently come to appreciate well-produced "war" movies, and this is one of the most thoughtful I've seen.<br /><br />"Stunning" is the word that comes to mind when I think of this viewing experience. My husband and I watched this film last night for the first time. It is gently moving, yet exciting at the same time (not a contradiction). This story in the hands of Hollywood could have become just another smarmy, action-packed, Top Gun time-waster.<br /><br />The two lead actors playing Frantisek and Karel played off of each other marvelously well; and Krystof Hadek is a very "pretty" boy without seeming to exaggerate or exploit that fact. In terms of Hadek's acting ability and appearance, my husband said (tongue-in-cheek), "Well, he's no Tom Cruise." I replied, "Thank God!" If you appreciate beautiful and understated acting, see this one.
| 1
| 18,761
|
To heighten the drama of this sudsy maternity ward story, it's set in a special ward for "difficult cases." The main story is Loretta Young's; she's on leave from a long prison stretch for murder. Will the doctors save her baby at the cost of her life, or heed her husband's plea for the opposite? Melodrama and sentiment are dominant, and they're not the honest sort, to say the least. For example, just to keep things moving, this hospital has a psycho ward next door to the maternity ward, and lets a woman with a hysterical pregnancy wander about stealing babies.<br /><br />There are just enough laughs and sarcasm for this to be recognizable as a Warners film, mostly from Glenda Farrell, who swigs gin from her hot-water bottle while she waits to have twins that, to her chagrin, she finds there's now a law against selling. An example of her repartee: "Be careful." Farrell: "It's too late to be careful." Aline MacMahon is of course wonderfully authoritative as the chief nurse, but don't expect her to be given a dramatic moment.<br /><br />The main theme of the film is that the sight of a baby turns anyone to mush. Even given the obvious limitations, this film should have been better than it is.
| 0
| 1,607
|
This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something.
| 1
| 18,073
|
Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).<br /><br />Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.
| 0
| 5,438
|
Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable.
| 1
| 22,876
|
Many of these other viewers complain that the story line has already been attempted. That may be so, but the addition of the narrator and Dr.Suess like scenery makes this show a must watch. With adult innuendo throughout the series and a touch of childhood through the set, the show is both reminiscent and invigorating. The investigative portion of the show is not what drags viewers in. The twisted plot and love lines scattered throughout this seeming paradise are what keep loyal viewers coming back for more. This is a success that ABC should never let go of. Bravo ABC. LOST was getting old, way to revitalize prime time. 9 episodes prior to the writers strike left audiences wanting more.
| 1
| 14,897
|
Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.<br /><br />I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.<br /><br />LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time.
| 0
| 4,714
|
It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...<br /><br />Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).<br /><br />Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.<br /><br />Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!
| 0
| 2,360
|
I found it highly interesting that the film actually managed to bridge the gap between my own american culture and that of the originators, i.e. chinese. It becomes a story about values, and causes the watcher to reevaluate their own choices in life, and loyalties toward institutions. Amazingly enough, it managed to do this in a gentle, mildly humorous manner, which only in retrospect seens threatening to one's status quo. I enjoyed the movie, and would watch it again if I could.
| 1
| 19,818
|
I saw the German version of the movie in German television and I was really amazed. I generally like to see documentaries, but I can't remember to have seen one that is better than 'Earth'. I knew some of the scenes from Youtube videos that I found by random browsing. I also remember to have seen parts of the film on multimedia stores, running on the displayed high definition TVs. After seeing the movie it's obvious to me why the footage is so popular among Youtube users and multimedia retail managers: It's just so awesome and spectacular that you can't help but stare on the screen, no matter if you're generally interested in nature documentaries or not.<br /><br />Without hesitating a 10 out of 10. For sure, there are more thrilling movies, but in regard of documentaries, 'Earth' is definitely one of the best of it's genre.
| 1
| 14,028
|
I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.<br /><br />Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.<br /><br />I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.<br /><br />If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.
| 0
| 1,530
|
I absolutely love Promised Land. The first episode that I saw, was while I was on my mission from 2003-2005. I really loved the rich family background portrayed in the show. Here was a family with struggles of their own, but instead of dwelling on them; they would reach out with love to others who may have had the same problems, in an effort to forget themselves, and go to work. This is what caused me to fall in love with the show. All of the actors; especially Gerald McRaney; had demonstrated the true meaning of "Family" which has left an indelible mark on my life. I have been down the same road they have, but It has taken allot of time for me to develop that kind of character. I love this show so much, that I have wanted to share it with friends; but I was really stunned when I had heard that it was taken off the air. I thought and still think they should BRING IT BACK! So many lives can benefit from heaven inspired media. i honestly believe that this show was divinely inspired; because it brings the spirit every time I see just one episode. This show really (in my book) has truly defined what a "Promised Land" is. It is the Love that you hold in your heart for others; which brings you to a higher destination. The spirit of Love, is one of the most potent messages in this series, and all I can say is, Bring it back. -Robert
| 1
| 19,307
|
I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.<br /><br />Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.<br /><br />Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.
| 0
| 7,395
|
This film holds 7.0 rating on IMDb, so even I sensed something rotten in it's synopsis I decided to try it out. What a waste of 100 minutes. First of all, the 80's were not a good decade for crime and thriller genre. Most of these, in those days were badly done with silly plot (if they had any), so there are very few that can stand out, and even if they were good they are still not very good. The Hit, however suffers from everything that made silly crime pictures silly. It has poor character development, improbable plot and wasn't written or directed in a decent manner, and when you have such shortcomings the acting doesn't help. Stephen Frears often tried to emulate French new wave in English style film making and the two don't match.<br /><br />First of all Terence Stamp is 10 years in hiding because he testified against some of his former partners in crime. He hides in Spain, of all places. He is finally caught up with, and than first kidnapped by a group of silly looking Spanish thugs, just do be driven away some distance to the two hit man that are supposed to deal with him. These two are John Hurt, who is supposed to be hard boiled, stone cold killer, and Tim Roth (in his first role) as the devil's apprentice. They don't kill Stamp right away, they first dispose of the "three Amigos", they shouldn't have hired in the first place, and then, they are driving Stamp to Paris, because one of the buddies he testified against wants to confront him. OK that's possible. But even with Stamp being such a dangerous figure that they had to hire four guys to overpower him, they don't tie him down, don't incapacitate him in any way, and drive around with him, like he's one of the buddies. Stamp doesn't object and is happily going to Paris to be shot, not using any of a half a dozen chances, these "professionals" offer for him to escape. Than it appears that Tim Roth is just a school boy bully, making the idea of big crime boss teaming him up with a hard core hit man like John Hurt, even more improbable, especially on an important job like that. But than John Hurt is not so hard core himself, he spends twenty minutes of the movie, killing or not killing the totally surplus Australian, played by Bill Hunter, whose only purpose in this film is to introduce the lovely Laura Del Sol, his mistress (who he says is 15, but she looks more like 25), and whose role in the story and acting capabilities suggest that she was offered the role, solely on the basis of being the director's or producer's mistress at the time. After much deliberation, Hurt kills the Australian but takes along his mistress for no apparent reason. Than he wants to kill her but Roth with his "subtle ways" convince him not to, so even she kicks him, bites him and scratches him through the entire movie, he stays true to that deeply buried human side of him.<br /><br />Than you have plain idiotic scenes, like when Hurt and Roth lock the car from the outside, trying to prevent the people inside from getting out?!?! Anyway the movie drags on. Tim Roth falls asleep, guarding Terence Stamp with his gun on his chest, and Stamp just waits there watching the waterfall. Than the whole shamble of a plot comes to the point where everything we've seen in the last hour and 20 minutes just goes out through the window. Let's recapitulate, the whole point in not killing Stamp right away (except for having a movie) is to take him to Paris, so his former partner is to have a last word with him. And the whole point in him not running away is that he is prepared to die, saying "It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?" But my friends, here is where the plot twists, Hurt kills the man while still in Spain, and we ask why bother and drive around for days, he could have done it in the first 15 minutes, and than contrary to his philosophy Stamp is very afraid of being killed, so we ask again why didn't he run, and he had plenty chance. Roth gets killed too, but he shouldn't be in the movie at all, and Del Sol, well she's promised a role in this film purely for romantic (read sexual) reasons, so she stays alive again, even she attacked Hurt for the 15th time in the movie. He killed all the others, but not her, she must have maximum screen appearance. The movie was made on a shoe string budget and it shows, but when you have no story and card board characterizations, it shows even more.And yes Fernando Ray appears and goes through the movie as the guest star, having a single audible line of dialog. Awful
| 0
| 9,479
|
The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.<br /><br />Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.<br /><br />Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.<br /><br />The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.<br /><br />I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.
| 0
| 10,509
|
I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.<br /><br />I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.<br /><br />Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.<br /><br />Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.<br /><br />Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's "Audition" and "Suicide Club" fame?<br /><br />Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.<br /><br />10/10
| 1
| 14,988
|
This film is a very good movie.The way how the everybody portrayed their roles was great.The story is nice.It tells us about Raj who is in love with Priya.They get married.She later becomes pregnant.But shortly their is a problem.Sadly they wont get the child.Raj later meets Madhu.He bribes her.She later becomes pregnant but she is not married to him.The movie is very good.The dialogues are wonderful.The songs are melodious to listen.The picturisations are good.The wedding song is very colourful.Salman,Rani,Preity were excellent. .The cinematography is excellent.The film is beautifully pictured in Swiztertland.The cast makes the movie great to watch.Worth the money and time.. Rating-8/10
| 1
| 13,853
|
Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.
| 0
| 3,918
|
Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing "Apocalypse Now" that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie? <br /><br />You have to wonder what the director of "The Godfather" and "The Conversation" was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.<br /><br />It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.<br /><br />Grade: C-
| 0
| 11,614
|
I think Crewes did her evil part very well she should have won an award. Anything that Dunne is in. is salvageable because Dunne is a great actress and can pull anything off, even a weak script. Therefore I WOULD recommend it for this reason alone. This movie may have been a little ahead of it's time, the plot might be more acceptable these days.<br /><br />During the golden age of Hollywood movies were meant to entertain or teach, mostly to make us feel good or cope with the times. This plot seem to deviate from that profile. Yet, again I must say what ever Irene Dunne was in, at least, was "good" because she made things so believable! The only other actress I can say made me think this way was maybe, Deborah Kerr. Watch Silver Cord if you get the chance for the "acting" if nothing else.
| 1
| 18,046
|
I love all his work but this looks like nothing.. sorry.. This looks more like a "David Lynch copycat". I think people like it only because "it's from David Lynch".
| 0
| 3,804
|
Schlocky '70s horror films...ya gotta love 'em. In contrast to today's boring slasher flicks, these K-tel specials actually do something scary and do not resort to a tired formula.<br /><br />This is a B movie about the making of a B movie...that went horribly wrong. Faith Domergue (This Island Earth) stars as an over-the-hill, B movie queen making a movie about a series of grisly murders that befell a family in their home. Her boyfriend/director, who looks and acts like Gordon Jump with an attitude, is filming on location and on a tight schedule. The Ken doll co-star discovers a book of Tibetian chants that they work into the script to add "realism". Unfortunately, "realism" is something they could have done without.<br /><br />John Carradine, having long since given up looking for the 17th gland (The Unearthly), now eeks out a humble existence as the caretaker for the estate. He goes about his daily work, but always seems to run afoul of the director.<br /><br />The horror builds slowly; a dead cat here, John Carradine entering a grave there, finally culminating in seven, yes seven murders. (At least there's truth in advertising.) It's just sad that the ghoul didn't understand that there was a movie being made above him. How was poor Faith to know that those darn Tibetian chants would actually work? Face it, you just can't go around tugging on Satan's coat and expect him to take it lying down.<br /><br />Sterno says perform an autopsy on The House of Seven Corpses.
| 0
| 8,369
|
Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.
| 0
| 8,398
|
Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.<br /><br />*1/2 (of four)
| 0
| 10,729
|
There are too many new styles of the sitcom but the one that works best is the old fashioned way with an audience and indoor set. That 70's Show is a great example. When the show came on the air, nobody really heard of Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp much less the adolescents played wonderfully by Topher Grace and Ashton Kushton (both of them are leaving the show this year to pursue other interests) I wish Topher would stay around because the show began about his character, Eric, and his close circle of friends. Ashton is already the John Travolta of our time. Remember when John was in love with Diana Hyland from Eight Is Enough, think of Ashton with Demi Moore. The cast of actors were never known to us which is a good thing because a celebrity cast member can spoil it. I miss Mo Gaffney who played Don's girlfriend Joanne. I miss Lisa Robin Kelly as the original Laurie, the replacement could not match her and I am sorry about that. I liked the casting of Tommy Chong as the wasted but beloved father figure to Steven Hyde. I loved watching Tanya Roberts besides Charlie's Angels. I loved Brooke Shields playing Jackie's mom. She really showed her acting talent before heading to Broadway. This show has been a delight with many surprises. I hope this show lasts longer even though 2 of their cast members are leaving but I hope they don't stay too far away too long. I wish the show's creators, Bonnie and Terry Turner, who also created my other favorite show, Third Rock from The Sun, is more successful on Fox than they were on NBC which sabotaged their show. The Turners are not dummies and I hope they create more shows like this in the future.
| 1
| 15,613
|
OK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone "Godzilla"-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda liked it.
| 0
| 1,639
|
This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.
| 0
| 7,169
|
Watching "Cold Mountain" gave me the impression that its director, Anthony Minghella, was deliberately trying to outdo himself and the own film of his' that he was trying to beat was the virtually impeccable "The English Patient" from 1996. Comparing the two movies, the premise is quite similar. We have a passionate love affair between two people set in a turbulent time of war and they end up treating the war more or less as a disturbance in the background while trying to find themselves back in each other's arms again. The primary plot differences are that Nicole Kidman's character is not married, Jude Law's is a deserter, and the conflict is the American Civil War.<br /><br />"Cold Mountain" is, story-wise, more watered down and mellow than say "The English Patient" and it's more on the level for people who want a simple love story with some kind of an exterior turbulence causing a problem. It is a shorter film, which is a plus for people with less patience. However, it's not as spectacular or original or genuinely gripping as "The English Patient." My *only* big complaint about "Cold Mountain" is, astonishingly, the love affair between the characters of Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman). Amazingly, their love was the least interesting thing in the picture. They don't have a real relationship; we don't feel any real passion coming from them and the passion that we do see is more physical than emotional. I was more fascinated by the friendship between Nicole Kidman and Oscar-winner Renee Zellwegger and also Jude Law's travels across country dodging vigilantes and enemy soldiers. If Minghella had strengthened the importance of the love story, then he would have had, I feel, a better picture.<br /><br />Of course, the movie is entertaining even if the love story is uninteresting. The Civil War sequences are absolutely great; they are of the modern tradition that show war as horrible and dehumanizing. The re-enactment of the Petersburg campaign, in which tons of explosives was detonated from underground and then followed by a hand-to-hand battle is horrifying. Minghella does not shy from showing blood and gore in an artistic and sensible manner, and he's not afraid to show casualties of innocence and life in these scenes. There are moments where women as well as men are killed, oftentimes by crossfire. And there's more to it. Just the sound design of the movie generates tension. There's a scene where Inman and another deserter make themselves a meal by sawing off the head of a dead cow. We don't see the slicing, but the sound effects of blade going through bone are sickening.<br /><br />Lastly, I must congratulate the cast for the performances. Jude Law was terrific in the movie and deserved the Academy Award nomination he received. I feel that Nicole Kidman deserved one as well, even though her character was a bit shallow. Renee Zellwegger had the most personality and screen-stealing atmosphere. And then there's just the bit parts that also really work to complete this stylistic world recreating a horrible time in America's past.<br /><br />Maybe "Cold Mountain" would have been better as a war picture, but it most certainly would have been spectacular like "The English Patient" if its love story had been powered up and made more passionate by the screenwriters and director Anthony Minghella. As it is, it's a most enjoyable picture, I wasn't bored by it, and I recommend it. I just say that its love story - though a central plot point - is a little more mellow than it needs to be and all the stuff around it was what really worked.
| 1
| 19,030
|
This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.
| 0
| 1,162
|
This movie was obscenely obvious and predictable. The scenes were poorly written and acted even worse. Following the horrible scenes was the terrible script filled with pointless and poorly thought out lines. I would never suggest this movie to anyone who would have any sense in watching decent movies. This movie was not only with the same ideas as the show the Bachelor and Bachelorette but also contained many parts in which you would know what the next move and line was going to be without ever having to watched the movie before. The casting was fine but the actors played there characters horribly with more drama then should have been used and said lines in was that wanted you to change the channel quickly. As a note please don't watch this movie.
| 0
| 8,745
|
Jeff Lowell has written & directed 'Over Her Dead Body' poorly. The idea is first of all, is as stale as my jokes and the execution is just a cherry on the cake.<br /><br />Minus Eva Longoria Parker there is hardly anything appealing in this film. Eva looks great as ever and delivers a likable performance.<br /><br />Paul Rudd looks jaded and least interested. Lake Bell is a complete miscast. She looks manly and delivers a strictly average performance. Jason Biggs is wasted, so is Lindsay Sloane.<br /><br />I expected entertainment more from this film. Sadly, I didn't get entertained.
| 0
| 3,097
|
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. *
| 0
| 1,052
|
Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.<br /><br />The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this, <br /><br />On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.<br /><br />But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.<br /><br />Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back.
| 0
| 9,409
|
The only saving grace of this movie is that it serves as the 0 end of the movie rating scale. Now if I see a movie that really stinks I say this movie was a real Pecker. I believe this movie is a perfect example of Christina Ricci's one dimensional acting. Horrible
| 0
| 1,637
|
First one has to take into account the time period this film was made in. 1995. Rappers were in it, and that added to the flair of it.<br /><br />Remy was a socially awkward teen trying to find his way and couldn't, until he met and was befriended by Nazis. They took him in. Nazi's aren't all this awkward, but like most gangs, they fill a void that is missing be it economic, social, emotional, whatever. Michael Rappaport played the part perfectly.<br /><br />Omar Epps was the hot shot track star, with a questionable work ethic and a chip on his shoulder. He kept trying to feel sorry for himself and his plight, and had his girlfriend and professor to straighten him out on it.<br /><br />Kristen was a young white girl trying to find herself and trying to fit in, until she was date raped. She then found her self experiment with her sexuality, and getting involved politically.<br /><br />This film deals with racism and like most things that deal with racism, people's own perspectives come into play.<br /><br />I read so many comments about how there were no 'evil' black characters but there were evil white one (Nazis). So what? Remy wasn't portrayed as evil at all, he was trying to find his way, and kept failing until some skinheads accepted him. He was scared, it was sad to see him devolve how he did. He even says right before he kills himself, I didn't mean it, I wanted to be an engineer.<br /><br />Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes were angry black men, Ice Cube was somewhat of an intellectual, and Busta Rhymes was just portrayed as a dumb thug. They both showed no consideration at all for their roommates, and generally appear to not like white people very much. They were angry like the Nazis but not on the level of Nazis in terms of overall badness. Sorry if this makes it seem unfair, but are there really black groups like the Nazis? No.<br /><br />People say it shows white=-bad black=good. Not true, the only bad white characters were the Nazis and the police, which is more or less true in real life. Kristen was a good girl, her boyfriend (omar epps roommate) was a good guy, and even Remy was a good guy, he was just misguided.<br /><br />Omar Epps, Ice Cube and Busta were seriously flawed characters, angry and inconsiderate. Although their constant harassment by police seemed to justify some of their anger. Remy's inability to fit in seemed to justify his anger as well.<br /><br />Good movie, well done. Like all movies that deal with racism, its a great piece to get a discussion going.<br /><br />I don't think Cube and Busta coulda beat those Nazis though.
| 1
| 21,410
|
Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.
| 0
| 10,624
|
I think my summary says it all. This MTV-ish answer to the classic Candid Camera TV show features a Gen X (or is that Gen Y) type putting in false choppers and wearing various hats and wigs and glasses, and setting people up in fairly outlandish although often not very interesting situations. Example: Kennedy has a guy invite his parents to his "wedding." Kennedy is the bride, done up in a full bridal gown and long wig. The "joke" is that the parents immediately understand their son is marrying a man who claims to no longer have his "bits and pieces." Problem is, this schtick goes on way too long, obviously to fill out time. And Kennedy is about as funny as a dead cod lying in the sun. Candid Camera would have run three or four scenarios in the time it took Kennedy to get through this one, running around, constantly asking "Do I look fat?" I recognize the show was not made for me. It was made for 12-year-old pinheads who think JACKASS is the height of comedy today. So let them laugh. Thank God the show was short-lived.
| 0
| 10,118
|
After a decade of turbulent unrest, American movies began to switch gears and turn their cameras away from war-torn battlefields, political corruption, and general social unease to the more intimate world of family dysfunction. The toll the selfish Baby Boomers began to take on the American family as they grew up and had kids of their own was making itself felt.<br /><br />"Kramer vs. Kramer" is one of the first of these dysfunctional family dramas that would continue to be so popular throughout the 1980s, and it's one of the best. It gets a rather bum rap now, because it's known as the film that beat "Apocalypse Now" for the 1979 Best Picture Academy Award, but comparing these two films is like comparing a banana to a marinated chicken breast: they're not remotely the same, but can't we enjoy them both? Director/writer Robert Benton doesn't try to do anything fancy with his movie; its strength lies in its performances, those of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep particularly, playing a divorced couple fighting childishly and selfishly over their son. The courtroom scene in which they duke it out for custody, and in which each is forced to hurt the other in terrible ways, is devastating, and feels authentic. The movie doesn't present Hoffman's solid dad as a hero, or Streep's straying mom as a villain. They're neither good or bad as people -- they're simply bad at being married.<br /><br />The film is tear-jerky at the finale, but not in a manipulative way. It earns its right to elicit sobs.<br /><br />Grade: A
| 1
| 23,137
|
Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable.<br /><br />Then comes Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel). Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all (especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability/inexperience to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which paradoxically lessened the drama.<br /><br />Of course, this is a crude film at least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film, Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is excellent.<br /><br />
| 1
| 23,250
|
Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.
| 0
| 2,473
|
Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.<br /><br />It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with "it sucked". (And when asked "Why?", they respond, "Just because." Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, "There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!".<br /><br />This movie is absolutely appalling.<br /><br />While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible "special effects". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.<br /><br />This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good "check your brain at the door" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even "Hard Ticket To Hawaii" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.<br /><br />NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.<br /><br />I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10!
| 0
| 1,742
|
This is a made-for-TV and rather needless Sci-fi Channel retelling of the Beowulf story, especially after the recent 2005 film "Beowulf and Grendel". This movie doesn't really get into Beowulf's story, but just takes us through his battle against the ravenous beast known as Grendel as it leaves a kingdom in absolute fear and turmoil while the powerful viking warrior, Beowulf is called upon to rid them of the monster's rampage. If this is successfully accomplished, the king will no longer have to sacrifice the children to keep it at bay. After a few failed attempts, the creature is slain, but it's angry and vengeful mother soon attacks, leaving it up to Beowulf to, again, lend his mighty acts of bravery and strength to defeat it. "Grendel" looks like it was shot on a tiny budget and the CG effects are terrible. Like I said, this movie is absolutely needless.
| 0
| 4,878
|
Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.<br /><br />I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.
| 0
| 749
|
I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!
| 0
| 11,940
|
I'm not going to comb over TLPS's obvious peterbogdanovichian flaws. Instead, I shall take a look at the positive aspects of this overrated celluloid pygmy of a film.<br /><br />1. Peter Bogdanovich managed to make a movie that can be endured in its entirety. This fact alone places the movie high up above and all the way up to the top of his lame filmography.<br /><br />2. Bogdanovich had shown how amazingly generous some lucky boyfriends can be, by sharing Cybill Shepherd's (his then-gal) fabulous body and breasts with his male audience - and not just on one but on two occasions. Brava! The unquestionable highlights of this cinematic festa del siesta.<br /><br />3. TLPS has barely a scene without stereotypical country music doodling in the background. (Peter tried to make the obvious point that the movie is set in America's Deep South (as if it weren't bleedin' obvious) so he hammered that point on and on and on...) How is this an advantage, you might ask? Well, when the movie finally ends and the monotonous country music finally ceases massaging your tired ear-drums, you start experiencing a strange exhilaration: "The movie's finally over!" It's pure joy.<br /><br />4. The movie gives all women who look like Cloris Leachman hope. Hope that they, too, may one day snatch a much younger and maybe even good-looking boyfriend.<br /><br />5. Cloris Leachman's biography (which I realize isn't technically a part of TLPS) gives hope to all women that look like that, that they too may one day win a Miss Chicago beauty pageant. (Provided they have enough money to bribe the jury with.)<br /><br />(You think I'm joking abut Cloris having won a beauty pageant, huh? Well, check out her bio and then we'll see who laughs last...) <br /><br />6. The movie was shot in black and white which spared us the sight of Cloris Leachman's face in its original, natural non-glory.
| 0
| 7,600
|
I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.<br /><br />I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.<br /><br />The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.<br /><br />Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.<br /><br />By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.<br /><br />
| 0
| 1,652
|
Unfortunately, in cases such as these, there are so many conflicting stories as everyone tries to cast blame on to others that it is a near impossibility to get a clear picture of what really happened. This movie is a victim of such circumstances. The writers (too many of them) have decided to take ALL of the stories and give them to the audience to let them decide which version of the truth they like the best. As in the real life case, there is no clear answer, no conclusion, and the audience is left with a general felling of being unfulfilled (like coffee without the caffeine, or sex without the climax). Whodunnits with no whodunnit are generally frustrating and makes you wonder why someone didn't do research before they put it out there. At least tout your movie as a fiction if that is what it amounts to (and this does).<br /><br />That is not to say there are not some great performances here. Kilmer (as Holmes) does an outstanding role bringing some humanity to what is otherwise an unsavory character. Kilmer, and the real life lovers and friends who consulted on the film, let the audience see a selfish, troubled human being who, though his faults were many and large, was loved and cared for by many people (except himself). Kudrow as Holmes's wife, only gives a glimmer of the dramatic actress she can be, but it is very noticeable and unforgettable glimmer. Bosworth's character was not as emotionally complex as she could have been and needed to show more inner conflict to give credence to what ultimately happened between Dawn and Holmes (she turned him in 6 months after they fled to Florida). Bosworth's apple-cheeked performance is at time annoying, at times touching, but shows none of the backbone the real Schiller must have possessed. The other characters fade in to the woodwork which is a pity. Lucas is a great performer who could have sunk his teeth in to this role had it been fleshed out for him. Even Dylan McDermott was surprisingly capable in his role of drug dealing biker. <br /><br />The fault of this movie does not lie with this cast, but with the writing. Too many cooks spoil the soup, and this kettle, filled with so much promise, ultimately leaves you hungry. The story and characters may have been less than sympathetic, but in what movie of this ilk are they not so? Other movies such as 1989's drugstore cowboy starring Matt Dillon (who was reportedly asked to take this role and refused) worked with similar subject matter and mastered it to such a degree that you felt a kinship with the main character by the end of the movie despite what he had done. Van Sandt could have given James Cox and his crew a few lessons. Had someone bothered to try and find the truth, this would have been an intriguing story. As it is, you will find the accompanying WADD documentary more palatable (in the 2 disc DVD)and much more informative. You will realize from the DVD that Holmes was not a bad guy, but not a very good one either..as are most people.
| 1
| 18,204
|
This is a great little movie, full of interesting characters and situations. While not in the same class as some of the better-known movies of its time, it is still extremely watchable and memorable. The scene where Zachary Scott, sitting on a bus, casually steals the airman pin from the lapel of a coat thrown over the seat next to him, is terrific. It defines his character beautifully -- a guy who's so low, he'll purloin something of inestimable value to a war veteran, to use as a prop in his various charades. He lies easily as the situation calls for, and captivates the women in the Fenchurch household with his irresistible charm and that killer smile.<br /><br />I couldn't help wondering if this movie was made to capitalize on the success of Mildred Pierce. Scott and Bruce Bennett were teamed again, and Faye Emerson bears some resemblance to Joan Crawford, with her facial bone structure and large eyes. Also, the Mona Freeman character is not unlike the odious Veda in Mildred Pierce.<br /><br />I agree with a previous comment that the ending to the movie was too pat, with the convenient tumble over a cliff for "Ronnie Mason", Zachary Scott's character. Also, in one of the final scenes, we see bratty Mona Freeman reunited with the boyfriend she had previously scorned in favor of the older, smoother Zachary Scott. I think the script should've called for her to be chastened for her behavior and for her cruelty toward her sister, instead of treating it as just a typical adolescent episode. But these are minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable and well-made movie.
| 1
| 14,641
|
Please do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.<br /><br />There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.<br /><br />I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful.
| 0
| 9,413
|
Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, László Kovács) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fiancée), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in "Repulsion". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel "Go To Thy Deathbed", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1/2 from ****
| 0
| 10,384
|
The concept: show 4 families of diverse ethnicities in the Fairfax District of L.A. preparing for the family get-together at Thanksgiving. I loved Soul Food and How to Make an American Quilt {I think there's a law that Alfre Woodard has to be in all these movies) which similarly offered a pastiche of family traditions, and was prepared for a treat. Instead, I felt tricked. They trot out about 40+ characters, and all but two are one-note cliches with no finesse whatsoever. The writers and director should spend a few more years learning about life and learn how loving people of different generations actually do relate. Instead, you have a bunch of a**holes getting together on Turkey Day to act like extra-obnoxious a**holes. Now, to an extent, this is what Thanksgiving is all about. But, not this misguidedly. And why bother having Julianne Marguiles, then giving her absolutely nothing to do. This was a chore to get through, and Mercedes Ruehl is a standout, but I give it a 4/10.
| 0
| 10,938
|
Koen Wouters is a flemish singer and presenter. In the early ninety's he tried his hand on movies as well. But this unbelievable piece of junk ended his acting career once and for all. It also ended the acting career of dutch actress Nada van Nie who went on being a football-wife a TV presenter and program-maker. I actually did see this in an ( almost empty) theatre because I used to be a fan of the band of Koen Wouters, Clouseau. I so regret spending money on it. It looks cheap, it is a terrible story and it is executed bad in every possible way. Some people think it's so bad it's funny. I am not one of them. I just found it an incredible waste of time and money.
| 0
| 2,551
|
I don't what that other review was talking about. This definitely isn't a bimbo movie, in fact, I don't think there was one decent looking girl in it. No, it's just cheesy, poorly-done, Ed Wood-style science fiction schlock. And it's bad. I can't even begin to tell you how bad it is. I saw it late at night on cable, and I was in shock. The fact that this movie was ever released is an insult to us all. The actors were either friends of the producer or mentally retarded, the special effects are a joke, and the pace is insanely slow. To me though, the music tops it all. A monkey could write a better theme with a toy xylophone. Do not rent this thing, but if you ever see it on cable, watch it. You'll be amazed at how bad a movie can be.
| 0
| 5,313
|
A very strong movie. Bruce is good and Brad also.<br /><br />As I think there are two cities missed in the receptionist list from the list Bruce remembered.<br /><br />That means the woman was a real insurance and she did her job.<br /><br />Well, Novikov property seems to me work in this movie. However, I do believe in Back to the future theory of worlds' multiplicity.<br /><br />So Bruce could save the world, but not his world.<br /><br />In the theory of parallel worlds the man can meet himself.<br /><br />And I do believe there is no problem in that. Here I disagree with Dr. Brown from Back...<br /><br />But the story pf 12 Monkeys has its own beauty. Inspite of all these theories of one world or many or continuum one can believe that he is really insane and the doctor - his girlfriend was just lost.<br /><br />A sequence of events which may lead her to believe that he is from the future. The bullet - well it might be some mistake, some falsification.<br /><br />Well I like this movie - has to buy a DVD.<br /><br />Best.
| 1
| 19,631
|
Wow, where to begin with this one. Well, if you enjoy laughing at the utter failures of filmmakers, then this one is for you. I bought this movie for 5 bucks because I never pass up an opportunity to laugh at B-movie God Casper Van Dien's blunders, and boy was this one of them. It may have been enough that this movie contains the single most lame movie monster ever. This thing, which is supposed to be an Indian ghost, looks more like a plastic candy bowl skeleton that you put on your front porch on Halloween. He dons a cape that is clearly a garbage bag, complete with what appears to be a bucket-shaped bonnet over his head. At some points this is a man in costume, at others it is clearly a plastic prop placed on top of a horse. This monster has the uncanny ability to see with "predator" vision, a clear rip-off, and can miraculously appear after throwing his spear. Sometimes the spear cuts people, sometimes it doesn't. This thing also manages to down a helicopter with a single arrow. Wow, this makes a much sense as when the kid blows up a spaceship with a firecracker at the end of "Critters." This creature is impervious to bullets, but somehow dies at the end of the movie. At the end of his killing spree, which we never really find out why he is on, he gets blown up. This is an incredible feat, for we had already seen this thing blow up 3 times in the film. But, I guess this last time was the charm. <br /><br />And don't even get me started on the lameness of the other characters. First of all, what Delta Force unit employs women? Last I checked the military still disallows women into combat situations. Also, this unit is "undercover." Why? What possible reason would they have to be undercover? And they're not even good at it, I guess no one would realize that they were military if they didn't have on uniforms, BUT THEY WERE ALL CARRYING MACHINE GUNS (which incidentally change sound effects throughout the film, at some points sounding like air rifle BB guns, and at others, canons). There is one part when the Skeleton Man throws some construction workers from a catwalk, and you can clearly see the pad that they fall onto. At another point. Michael Rooker falls down a hill that is clearly flat ground. They tilted the camera slightly to give the appearance of an incline, but he is clearly pushing himself along in this looooooonnnnnggggggg fall scene. Then when he is helped back up the hill, the rope is flat, and when it shows the woman at the "top" of the "hill" the rope goes upward from her grip, not the way it would look if she was pulling someone up a hill. Rooker actually has a line that says, "I'm not going after him, I going after it." What? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I watch these bad movies as a hobby. The saddest part about this quote is that you can tell that everyone involved in the writing/production of this film thought that it was so bad-ass. Believe it or not, compared to the rest of the dialog, this is good. <br /><br />The acting, bad. The makeup, really bad. These characters either had scars or wounds that liked to change sides of their face. Maybe these are alien scars that like to run around on your face. Yeah, I think I'll make a movie about that, "Attack of the Alien Scars that Move Around on Your Face." That villain would be more intimidating than the Skeleton Man, and the film would probably be scarier.
| 0
| 5,466
|
Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from ****
| 0
| 6,332
|
A complete zero out of four. One worst sums up Ajooba: awful. Actually, more words come to mind: ridiculous, third-rate, and terrible. This is one of Amitabh's worst movies ever, he prances around in a cheap leather jacket and equally cheap tinsel foil Zorro-style mask with what appears to be wings on the sides.<br /><br />The movie is set in ancient Persia or Arabia and is characteristically un-historical for an Indian movie. As stated above, a leather jacket from K-Mart with velcro straps did not exist 400 years ago, unless all my history teachers were wrong.<br /><br />Rishi also does his patented cross-dressing in this movie. Far from being funny, it is very embarassing to watch. What could possess the son of the legendary Raj Kapoor to flay the memory of his house like this on screen?<br /><br />On the plus side, if you want a real laugh, go ahead and watch this film. The glaring inconsistencies in the plot and costumes are no match for the awful dialogues and shoddy acting.
| 0
| 4,180
|
Plenty has been written about Mamet's "The House of Games"; most of it good. I decided to revisit the flick to see how it held up after 17 years and was surprised at how much I enjoyed viewing it again. The film's success and durability probably has much to do with two principal ingredients which are always fun on film; a good story and a good scam. Mamet manages to bring his signature moodiness and obvious histrionics to the film while scamming us, the audience, and the mark simultaneously. Then he explains the art of conning only to do it again, etc. all the while building the story. "The House of Games", now a freebie on cable, is worth a look for first timers and an okay rerun for Mamet fans. (B+)
| 1
| 22,840
|
This is one of the worst movies i have seen to date, the best part was Christian J. Meoli "Leonard" attempting to act jumping up and down outside the bar, kind-of like i wanted to do on the DVD, to spare the rest of humanity the agony of watching this shitty film. It has a great cast so you keep watching waiting for it to get good, i mean with Sean Astin "Andrew" (played his part perfectly, did a great job, too bad it was in this film), Kyra Sedgwick "Bevan", Ron Livingston "Chad", Renée Zellweger "Poet" (they put her name on the cover she has a total of 1 line and less then 4 seconds in the whole movie...<br /><br />If the cast had any dignity, they would go out and buy all the copies of this film and burn them along with Writer / Director George Hickenlooper and Writer John Enbom
| 0
| 6,619
|
I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.<br /><br />But now on to the movie...<br /><br />I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a "MOVIE" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.<br /><br />That's my two cents.
| 1
| 15,020
|
Dan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing. <br /><br />** from ****
| 0
| 9,907
|
What a sucky movie. This is without a doubt a low-class B movie. The German elite StormTroopers assault Russian bunkers en masse like an old WW1 battle. The acting is mediocre, the plot thin and threadlike. It's hard sometimes to follow where it's going. The action sequences are pretty worthless (when it shows any), except for the fact that they do use authentic equipment/vehicles from WW2. This is in NO WAY on the same level as "Saving Pvt. Ryan" or "Platoon". Lots of worthless attempts at character development, which lead nowhere. Old theme good officer/bad officer that's highly predictable. Even the action sequences look like a 12yr old kid set them up. I could have directed better. Too bad this is the same guy that did "Das Boot (The Boat)", because that was a dang good movie. He must have partied too much after that success because he sure lost his touch when it came to this film. I bought it on DVD, better to rent it instead.
| 0
| 1,365
|
i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.<br /><br />Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.<br /><br />the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!<br /><br />i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!
| 1
| 12,742
|
What an awesome mini-series. The original TRAFFIK completely stole me away from anything else that was on. Far more engaging than the American remake, the original TRAFFIK boasts an amazing cast formed of lesser known actors to North American audiences. Juliette Binoche being the mainly recognizable actress who plays a drug addicted teenaged daughter of a government official. But it's not star power that carries this film (though I enjoyed the American version, I felt it was dimmed by the famous Americans in the picture). <br /><br />Unfortunately, I saw the American version before I found the original BBC mini-series. Of course there were no picture filters, lush locales, and the big name stars/director. However, the grit and grime of Europe (through the drugworld) perfectly compliments the impending sense of danger, which permeates throughout this film. The problems, such as getting addicts off of drugs by giving them more, poor anti-drug campaigning, and the resistance of foreign governments to assist with destroying their drug cultivators from within, all make TRAFFIK bold, immersive, and horrific all at the same time!<br /><br />The truly incredible portions of the movie all come from Pakistan. My God, I never knew how bad the problem really was over in Europe...even all over! For a real education on the problems of drugs, beyond how they affect the human body you must watch both this and the American version. Each show one very clear and undeniable fact. Those countries, which are leaders in the eyes of the world, have a culture that has led to the death and suffering for many. <br /><br />Drugs are worse than war. They work in the shadows, the dark secrets of any "successful" society.
| 1
| 21,285
|
The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.
| 0
| 10,911
|
This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable. <br /><br />The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?<br /><br />A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.<br /><br />And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.<br /><br />The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.<br /><br />Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)<br /><br />The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.<br /><br />Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night. <br /><br />And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to "strangers on a train."
| 1
| 12,756
|
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.
| 0
| 2,597
|
this movie, i won't call it a "film," was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.<br /><br />but let's have something with a bit more substance.<br /><br />loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.<br /><br />but one cameo after another gets old fast.<br /><br />i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the "greatest generation," as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...<br /><br />movie.
| 0
| 9,073
|
I just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased. <br /><br />Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13. <br /><br />That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster! <br /><br />Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay!
| 0
| 5,922
|
I won't say the show is all bad, because there are some funny parts, like Spencer, and a few random incidents. But other than that, let's face it, it's just another dry sitcom that kids are buying into.<br /><br />Miranda Cosgrove was cute and funny as Megan on Drake and Josh. Honestly, she is mediocre in ICarly and is just not as funny as she tries to be. The actress who plays Sam seems to be half-asleep most of the time, and her antics are so clichéd that I would think of them. They're not funny, just annoying. And Freddie is okay, but not that interesting.<br /><br />Of course, the situations are unrealistic, but it's not all bad. Some are bothersome, though. Here are a few: <br /><br />1. The girls are 14, and have a web show that gives away too much personal information, with a weekly audience of 27,000(WTF), with little to no advertising, and they can still go on about their lives not being attacked by crazy people <br /><br />2.Their web show gets too much praise ($100,000 yearly to advertise sneakers, a free trip to Japan, Plain White Ts performance, and so on). Honestly, anyone over the age of 6 would not find their "comedy" entertaining.<br /><br />3. How is it that they are so "average", yet they own a three story loft, Spencer does hardly anything and can still afford many basic luxuries, and they have all the equipment for a web show? 4. All of the adults are idiots. ALL OF THEM.<br /><br />5. No 5 foot high girl, no matter how obnoxious and tenacious, can take down trained cops, unless she's muscular. Sam is skinny and petite.<br /><br />6. No one can fall down 9 stories in an elevator and live.<br /><br />7. Kids can handle finding out about criminals better than cops.<br /><br />The show is stupid. Really, it seems harmless, but making kids think that they can be obnoxious to their elders, live alone in Seattle when they're only 14 with an irresponsible moron, and give out personal information is just wrong.<br /><br />I'm disappointed to say that my cousin, who is 3, enjoys the show. What happened to the cartoons when I was her age?
| 0
| 5,720
|
This is one of the few comedies I can watch again and again and still laugh out loud. In other places, I have read complaints about racism and sexism from sanctimonious, politically correct prigs. There is neither here, unless you define sexism as a woman as housewife and racism as a family employing a colored maid.<br /><br />The lines are hilarious, and all the leads have never been better. Melvin Douglas is especially brilliant.<br /><br />If you've ever thought of or tried to build a new house, you will be relieved to know that no matter how infuriating the process, no matter how much a lamb among wolves you may feel, you are not alone!
| 1
| 13,581
|
For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one.
| 1
| 22,555
|
Yes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?<br /><br />Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!<br /><br />And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad.
| 0
| 7,285
|
Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.<br /><br />By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.<br /><br />Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that.
| 0
| 8,037
|
Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film. <br /><br />Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.<br /><br />Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.<br /><br />From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.
| 0
| 5,141
|
So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension.
| 0
| 6,210
|
It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.<br /><br />It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.<br /><br />To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.<br /><br />It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.<br /><br />The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat "obvious", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.<br /><br />If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.<br /><br />So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference.
| 1
| 20,325
|
'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed "Lubitsch touch" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'<br /><br />At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States perhaps in the blustery streets of New York but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.<br /><br />Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best.
| 1
| 14,612
|
An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.<br /><br />A pointless "Exorcist" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy "special" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.
| 0
| 1,927
|
A very strange, disturbing but intriguing film. I don't think I ever needed to see what a human being can do with his butt, and I doubt if I'll ever want to see it again. That said, there is much to be amused by, like Divine's take on Jayne Mansfield's classic walk in "The Girl Can't Help It" and putting slabs of meat between her legs in a grocery store. A gritty feel very much like a Russ Meyer film. Generally poor acting, with the notable exception of Divine.
| 1
| 18,532
|
Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down.
| 1
| 18,353
|
One should not be too critical about the director's second feature.<br /><br />I really like the camera work of Madiba. As Mr. Shawn pointed out, he had a unique way of looking at things.<br /><br />However, howcome a 14 year old boy shoot such beautiful images? Remember he has not got any education of any sort. I don't think english is the common tongue in Cape Town ghettos. Worse still, Madiba looks even smaller than his supposed age of 14.<br /><br />Any way, if you overcome above-mentioned peculiarities, you can watch the film and still enjoy it because of nice camera work.
| 1
| 13,581
|
At 20 years old, Francis Ouimet (Shia Lebouf) as his whole life ahead of him - in a way. The son of an immigrant family living in the late-19th to early-20th Century-era United States, class was a very limiting fact of life. If one is born poor, one stays poor; if one is born into the bourgeoisie, one has a tiny bit of opportunity; if one is born into the wealthy class, they essentially have it made in the shade. British gold champion Harry Vardon and Francis' golf idol (played by the criminally underrated Stephen Dillane) is the exception that proves the rule. Born and raised in a poor British family, his accomplished skill at golf allowed him to rise from the dirty mess of the poorest slums to the lush greens of the English country clubs. He has not forgotten this life lesson. Francis wishes to follow in Vardon's footsteps and similarly uses his great skill at golf to get into the 1913 US Open at age 20. But a tough course and formidable opponents (including Francis' idol Harry Vardon) are not all that Francis must deal with as a less-than-understanding father and cruel societal framework stand in his way of living his own dream.<br /><br />I know what you are thinking - I thought it too - a Walt Disney produced film about the 1913 US Open starring the irritable Shia LaBeouf holds the possibility of being entertaining but it cannot possibly be a great film. Well, I am here to encourage you to think again. Despite what it may look to some on paper, The Greatest Game Ever Played is one of the best sport films in creation.<br /><br />As with every great sport film, The Greatest Game Ever Played includes many exciting sport scenes but it is not a film *about* golf - it is a character centered film about using one's talents, following one's dreams, and breaking out of class barriers. Where The Greatest Game Ever Played works excellently as a themed sport film it also works just as well as a period film - the film's featured costumes and sets being the next best thing to actual time travel. The film also simply *looks* great and virtually unknown music composer Brian Tyler set the film to a wonderful piece of music. The cast is great as well with a subtle but powerful Stephen Dillane as British golfing champion Harry Vardon, a hilarious Stephen Marcus as man's man golfer Ted Ray, a hammy Josh Flitter as Francis' pre-teenaged caddy Eddie, and a surprisingly good Shia LaBeouf in the lead role as Francis. Actor Bill Paxton (Apollo 13, Titanic) turns director here for the second time (directing a full-length feature) in The Greatest Game Ever Played. He produces a fine product - incorporating plenty of heart, ingenuity, and an attention to detail in the making of the film.
| 1
| 22,604
|
This is a great movie. It has a captivating story, an awesome main character, very good acting and killer action. This takes place mostly in the year 2036 but shows scenes that take place in past years to explain the story.<br /><br />The story is very well done and there are no holes. Kurt Russell is a solider named Todd who is trained from birth to kill and like all of the other soldiers have never had normal lives. Eventually the military introduces newer, younger, faster and stronger soldiers. Jason Scott Lee being one of them. As a result they don't have any need for the old soldiers like Todd. They test out the new soldiers by having them fight some of the old soldiers, in the battle Russell is injured and assumed to be dead. The military dumps his body as well as a fewer others assuming they are all dead but what they don't realize is that Russell is alive.<br /><br />Todd finds a camp filled with civilization on this planet that the military dumped him on. For a while he lives there but can't adjust to normal life. He rarely says a word and he is at times very aggressive towards the other people. When they feel he is a danger to them they send him off to the desert.<br /><br />Just as Russell's leaving the planet is attacked by the new soldiers. What the military forgot was to train the soldiers to be smart like Todd and the other old soldiers. So while these new soldiers are faster and stronger than Todd, Todd easily outsmarts them. The military starts realizing this and Todd kills all of their men but one. That one is Jason Scott Lee and in the end you see a classic fight scene between Russell and Scott Lee. Russell obviously comes out on top.<br /><br />This is one of the best action films I've ever seen and I've seen a lot. This has everything you could ask for in a film including some great lines. The writer also didn't forget that Russell had never seen a woman before as he calls even women "sir". There are no holes in this film, every minute has a purpose and it's very entertaining.<br /><br />An awesome one man army action film for fans of Rambo, Commando and Missing In Action. This is highly recommended for all Kurt Russell fans and action/sci-fi fans.
| 1
| 15,808
|
God! Where do I begin? From start to finish, I could not help to hate this movie. Vines? Vines that make cell-phone noises?! Oh yeah, I'm so scared - I'm going to rid the weeds of earth! Come on people! The plot went nowhere, When the group discovered the ruin, and the village people (no pun intended) came to warn them and brandished weapons in front of their faces, don't worry, Amy (Jena Malone) was there to take pictures! That whole scene really had me wondering why she didn't take pictures of her beau, Jeff (Johnathon Tucker), sawing off Mathias (Joe Anderson) legs. When the idiots first threw down the rope after Mathias, how the rope was at least ten feet from the ground, but how it eventually was able to be a mere two to four feet from the ground. I cannot begin to cover everything that was wrong about this movie, there is just too much to cover. I will say the graphics as far as the gore were terrific, but it amounted to nothing since the acting and script were so terrifically bad.
| 0
| 4,817
|
Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide.<br /><br />
| 0
| 5,886
|
I have seen this film three times now, and each time I see it, it becomes more personal and more emotional to watch.<br /><br />The acting is amazing, which is not hard to believe since it is Daniel Day Lewis, who is an amazing actor. Brenda Fricker is the surprise wonder in it, though. She captures your heart as the mother of a physically disabled boy, who is not able to walk, or speak until he is in his late teens.<br /><br />I can't say enough good things about the movie, but I will stop here. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys movies that are based on actual events, or just enjoy good dramas in general.
| 1
| 17,026
|
I didn't expect much from this film, but oh brother, what a stinker.<br /><br />I found this gem in a giant crate of awful $5 DVD's at Walmart (where else)? As cheap as this disc was, I feel ripped off. The special effects had a high school look to them, the camera work marred by wobbly tripods and sketchy lighting and the acting was a perfect example of the 'Christian School'. One can imagine the long and exhausting 'prayer meetings' by the production company after seeing the rushes come back - the people who bankrolled this thing must have had seriously anti-biblical feelings towards the inept production company that cranked this thing out. Think of their anguish as they saw their $914.86 investment go up in smoke.<br /><br />Someone asked why Christian movies are so bad - perhaps the Xian film-makers need to look at GOOD movies and attempt to copy some of the things that make them so good. Believable stories and characters, less hysterical arm-waving and fanaticism, oh, and a story that appeals to -everyone-, not just true believers. I.e. Stop The Sermon, Save It For Church. Take the Omen or Prophesy series, for example. Excellent films with compelling story lines, great cinematography and intense music. No hysterical arm-waving. No preaching.<br /><br />If this film had a laugh track it would have been MUCH better.
| 0
| 5,892
|
I have not read the novel, though I understand that this is somewhat different from it; the fact that I rather enjoyed this, coupled with the fact that this really is not my genre, leads me to the decision of not pursuing reading the book. Having not read a single word of Austen's writing, I really can't compare this to any of her work. What I can say is that almost every line of dialog in this is clever, witty, and well-delivered, as well as the biggest source of comedy in this. This made me laugh out loud a lot, with perfect British and verbal material. Every acting performance is spot-on, and Paltrow completely nails the role of a kind matchmaker. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. I did find a couple of them extremely irritating, however, and while I think that at least some of that was meant to be funny, it tended to get repeated excessively, and it honestly wasn't amusing the first time they appeared. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and everything looks utterly gorgeous. Plot and pacing are great, you're never bored. It does end in a *really* obvious manner, but maybe that's what the audience of these prefer. I can't claim that this did not entertain me, it did from start to finish, and I'd watch it again. There is brief language in this. I recommend this to any fan of romance stories. 7/10
| 1
| 23,110
|
In the early 1990's "Step-by-Step" came as a tedious combination of the ultra-cheesy "Full House" and the long-defunct loopy classic hit "The Brady Bunch". The differences between "Step-by-Step" and the two aforementioned shows was of course better writing, excellent comedic timing from almost all of it's actors, and a great deal funnier situations that weren't quite as sugar-coated as it's extremely popular predecessors. Admittedly though, even with the big boosts in the show's basic dynamics and all it still wasn't exactly spectacular, nor was it really even that memorable in the long line of corny family programming! It was just a much better time-passer, you might say, in comparison to the cutesy migraine-inducing "Full House", which coincidentally, ran neck-and-neck with "Step-by-Step" during that time period in terms of overall popularity. The show, now in syndication obviously, is certainly suitable family-fare but be sure to not expect much beyond that when watching it.
| 0
| 2,062
|
The plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless
| 0
| 10,839
|
Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.<br /><br />Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.<br /><br />I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-
| 0
| 11,842
|
Talk about your wild life. Barely a B-movie, but what the hay...corny Sci-Fi and lesbian sex. From the mind of writer and director Cody Jarrett, a cheesy slice of fun. A chemical company is dumping waste that is causing mutants in a fish farm. The hot Kristi Russell stars as Dr. Barbara Michaels, an EPA agent sent to investigate this environmental dilemma. She just happens to enter a lesbian relationship with bartender Trixie(Ariadne Shaffer)and their love scenes are about as good as this film gets. A man-size frog incites chaos; causing a car crash, raping the chemical company boss's daughter, raping a girl under the bleachers at a football game, stiff-arm tackling a runner in the football game, raping a nun...all before being shot twice in the chest after an antidote was found all ready. The special effects...well, not special; a guy in a rubber frog costume without the genitalia to prove himself. Tough tadpoles, do you still want to watch it? Go ahead, but bribe any witness to secrecy.
| 0
| 4,355
|
At the time of this writing (January 25, 2006), I am saddened to hear of the passing within the past few hours of Chris Penn. Other than Footloose, The Wild Life is the film that I remember Chris most from.<br /><br />I still remember in the film, with slight fondness, of Chris' wrestling character and teammates sitting in their favourite restaurant with a huge plate of french fries in front of them, drowned in an entire bottle of ketchup.<br /><br />Anyhow, my comment is in regards to the title track sung by Bananarama. After these many years, I still remember the rumour (Canadian spelling -- lol) that Bananarama was called in at the very VERY LAST moment to compose the track for the film and that they wrote the song on the plane bound to the recording studio to record the song and just after they recorded the song they went to shoot the low cost video for their title track. I heard that this entire process (from start to finish) took 4 hours to do! If this is true, then they truly are worthy of being the most successful female band of all time.<br /><br />Anyhow this is just a rumour I had heard back in the day and still remember a generation later. Perhaps anyone who reads this can comment and clarify. Thanks.
| 1
| 15,111
|
JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!<br /><br />A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.<br /><br />Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.<br /><br />The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.<br /><br />Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!<br /><br />The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.<br /><br />I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!
| 0
| 3,985
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.