text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
It was poorly shot. Looks Like a rush job, last minute casting is obvious. Writing is very weak. Good for stage, not film. I feel bad for Andrew McCarthy. He's a very good actor who has not been getting good roles lately. This role was not for him. Maybe glad it has been picked up yet. On the festival circuit this film shall stay. | 0 |
I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison. | 0 |
After seeing this film months ago, it keeps jumping back into my consciousness and I feel I must buy it or at least see it again, even though I watched it at least 3 times when I rented it at that point.<br /><br />I fell in love with Hal Hartley's directing many years ago - I found that these films could make me laugh in an place that is rarely entertained. It is a strange feeling, granted, and I assume most people out there really just don't get it, or it makes them feel confused and somewhat uncomfortable - I guess I just really get it - its as if these films were made for me.<br /><br />Although I don't remember if I actually laughed out loud during this film, it remains one of the funniest films I've seen in many years. If you don't see the humor of the grocery bag Fay carries from the street to a church, to her brother's publisher's office, to her son's principal's office you may lack the intelligence to be highly impressed by this film. The bag is a silent character in itself, being dragged around as an icon of motherhood the usually brash, bitchy Parker Posey must carry before the international intrigue of the remainder of the film besets her.<br /><br />I consider "Henry Fool" my least favorite of Hartley's films. I honestly don't remember it very well - I think the character himself was so despicable I found it tedious. Hartley's forte seems to be feminine character development.<br /><br />Aside from Posey's brilliance, it was wonderful to see Elina Lowensohn, one of my favorite actresses, again. Her extravagant naiveté is perfect for Hartley's direction. His ability to make the outrageous seem banal helps define his style as a delicious chronic irony throughout.<br /><br />This film erupts into a highly relevant international intrigue story, explaining political situations in Afganistan. This is never suspected at the beginning. The complexity of this film's development is unparalleled.<br /><br />This is the epitome of a "stand alone" sequel. The less you know about Henry Fool the more mystery is spun around him, the less you expect his appearance toward the end of the film - as an alcoholic chain-smoking complaint machine, hurling insults at his Islamic terrorist caretaker who somehow seems to respect him. Its like finding out Santa Claus is actually a 12-year-old schoolyard bully.<br /><br />Although I was impressed and satisfied with Hartley's other recent films "the Girl from Monday" and "No Such Thing", "Fay Grim" goes far beyond what I expected, with a sense of humor and originality no Oscar winner would ever dare. | 1 |
This is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of "The Sixth Sense" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests. | 0 |
Any movie that offers Bonnie Hunt, Sarah Silverman and Amy Sedaris in the supporting cast has to be well worth watching, and comic actor Jeff Garlin takes advantage of the terrific talent he recruited for his 2007 directorial debut, a sad-sack comedy about an overweight man who feels out of step with the world around him. Familiar as Larry David's manager Jeff on "Curb Your Enthusiasm", Garlin plays James, a still-struggling, 39-year old Chicago actor who still lives with his widowed mother. His self-esteem is so low that he can't meet women, but it's the comical way he views his single status that makes his dilemma involving. If the storyline sounds a bit familiar, that's because the film is partially a tribute to the 1955 Ernest Borgnine classic, "Marty", about a lonely Bronx butcher living with his meddlesome mother. In fact, Garlin uses "Marty" as the play which James is desperate to do since he is so empathetic to the character's situation.<br /><br />Naturally there is a love story of sorts in this new millennium version, and Silverman plays Beth, an off-kilter, sexually voracious ice cream parlor server who takes him on an underwear shopping spree. Their best scene together is in his favorite convenience store where they improvise different characters in different aisles. Hunt plays a lonely elementary school teacher who shares a passion with James for jazz musician Ben Webster. They meet accidentally in a record store and then again at a career day at her school where he hilariously exposes his sexual neuroses in front of a classroom of first-graders, including his best friend Luca's pert daughter Penelope (played by Dakota Fanning's look-alike baby sister Elle). In a wedged-in cameo and looking quite a bit like Jerri Blank, Sedaris plays the school's counselor who speaks to James after his inappropriate monologue. David Pasquesi plays Luca, a retirement home manager, and his scenes with Garlin have an easy rapport that makes their friendship easy to believe. Almost stealing the movie is character actress Mina Kolb, who plays James' pixilated mother with pluck and heart.<br /><br />There are also unexpected cameos from teen idol Aaron Carter and Gina Gershon (don't ask
but the set-up is funny), as well as sharply played bits by director Paul Mazursky (as the snaky director of a candid-camera-type show, "Smear Job"), Tim Kazurinsky (as the unsuspecting victim of that show) and Dan Castellaneta (as the tough-love convenience store owner). With his rueful bouts of insecurity and self-loathing, Garlin's comic sensibilities resemble those of Albert Brooks, and the casual dialogue at its best reminds me of "Modern Romance" and "Defending Your Life". The one persistent problem I had with the film is pacing as some scenes dragged out longer than necessary. The problem is more evident in the first half when Garlin is trying to establish the right tempo, and the lack of real conflict adds to the sluggishness. Regardless, what he does well is capture that gnawing sense of desperation one feels upon the revelation that life is not what it is supposed to be, that a significant other may be out of reach, and that a steady diet of junk food eaten on a car hood is the only sure thing when it comes to gratification. | 1 |
It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it. | 0 |
I really do not have any clue as to why some people find the power rangers television show even remotely interesting at all. The costumes are completely ridiculous and the people playing in them also look completely foolish at the same time. There is absolutely anything remotely interesting about the power rangers. This is just a higher priced television commercial designed to sell extremely cheesy plastic garbage to the unsuspecting children around the world. From the notes, I can see that it's been banned in the country of New Zealand and from what I have seen, I can agree with their decision. Avoid this show at all costs, it's terrible and ridiculous. | 0 |
Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.<br /><br />Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.<br /><br />One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.<br /><br />Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.<br /><br />So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.<br /><br />Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.<br /><br />This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.<br /><br />The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.<br /><br />By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN. | 1 |
Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show. | 1 |
The inspiration for the "Naked Gun" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always having to solve an absurd case. Like "Airplane!" and the movies based on the series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely the "yes it is" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something keeps moving.<br /><br />It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny.<br /><br />*Before "Airplane!", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like "Forbidden Planet", "Harlow" and "The Poseidon Adventure". As late as 1987 he co-starred in "Nuts" alongside Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first "Naked Gun" movie it's been all comedy all the time. | 1 |
This movie was terrible not only was the plot weak, but the acting was unbelievable bad, and at times pathetic. Very unrealistic dialogs people in real life don't talk like this and there is no emotion or feeling in anything said very monotone except for the almost indistinguishable whispering that constantly occurs. Even the editing is bad the cuts are terrible. The camera work was sloppy and shaky on close ups even sways back and forth during conversations. There is nothing positive about this movie and George Katts needs to be working on heavy machinery or anything where he doesn't have to converse with other humans because he clearly doesn't know how to. How did this movie win/ get nominated for awards oh my god!! | 0 |
One of, if not THE most visually beautiful film I have ever seen in my life...there is so much to learn here in how to play with the camera, color, costumes and set up a shot. The work that went into the official film web sites in English and French also give you a good idea of the sheer beauty contained in the film. | 1 |
I purchased this movie at a car boot sale, so I was not expecting it to be a horror movie on the same level as A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or The Hills Have Eyes (1977) but I thought that it would still be fairly enjoyable to watch. However, it proved to be not at all enjoyable, but instead the acting and the general movie was mock-able, such as the ways the the 'unsees killer' murders his victims and how all of the people killed just happen to be young blonde women. It was a stereotypical horror film. I say this because of the following reasons:<br /><br />1) Three blonde women in danger, the majority get killed. 2) One survives by crawling around in the dark while being chased by the killer. 3) Surprise surprise, help arrives in the form of a shotgun!<br /><br />By using three simple points, I have saved you two odd hours by summarising this poor excuse of a horror movie, so you are now lucky enough to not have to watch it. | 0 |
A 2006 online poll of Japan's top 100 favorite animated television series of all time, conducted by TV Asahi, placed this series in fourth place. That tells you everything you need to know. So go and watch it.;) I won't comment on the story, simply because I don't want to ruin anything. I only urge you to keep watching after you saw the first episode. The Animation is really good and above TV average. The best thing about this series is, that there is finally something new. I mean it's not groundbreaking but still it offers a fresh new idea and likable characters. You won't regret entering Suzumiya Haruhi's world.<br /><br />and the best thing a movie is coming soon | 1 |
I went to the movie as a Sneak Preview in Austria. So didn't have an idea what I am going to see. The story is very normal. The movie is very long , I believe it could have cut to 1/2 without causing any problems to the story. Its the type of movie you can see in a boring night which you want to get bored more ! Ashton Kutcher was very good . Kevin Costner is OK. The movie is speaking about the US Coast Guards, how they are trained , their life style and the problems they face. As there aren't much effects in the movie. So if you want to watch it , then no need to waste your money and time going to the Cinema. Would be more effective to watch it at home when it gets on DVDs. | 0 |
Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !! <br /><br />One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s ! <br /><br />There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!<br /><br />The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs. | 0 |
This is a copy of the 1948 Doris Day classic, Romance on the High Seas.<br /><br />The story line is more or less same but is contemporary. Govinda plays a sharp witted fellow who replaces the husband on the trip. While Rani plays the college friend of the wife who does her the same favour. They ostensibly try to catch each other out while the actual husband and wife tries to trip each other in Bombay.<br /><br />On the trip, Govinda mistakes another girl for Sanjiv's wife and spies on her while falling in love with the ravishing Rani.<br /><br />Lever plays a dual role of father and son both lawyers specialising in divorce proceedings. They are pitted against each other for the warring couple.<br /><br />It is a poor attempt at copying the original classics and the songs are quite appalling. The comedy is slap-stick and will not make one laugh too much. | 0 |
In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.<br /><br />One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.<br /><br />The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too. | 1 |
As long as you can suffer it! If you like watching people waking up, getting up, getting dressed, having a shower, preparing dinner, watching each other, having sex in the dark, then going back to bed to sleep... if you like tacky flats, narrow bedrooms and kitchens, long minutes of silence.... if you like getting bored for two hours, feeling the thrill of "real intimate false art", then you will like it. But if you don't, just try to see a good movie, there are thousands. "As long as you are here", but do we want to stay? This German movie got the award of the Torino gay film festival: Italian journalists still don't understand why the jury took such a bad decision, as the festival presented lot of talented movies. Maybe to be nice with a German, as they don't often get awards? Well, "The Lives of Others" did... but this one is excellent but not gay. So maybe it is a question of fashion. Germans are they "in" again? No matter what? Or maybe only for a hustler's glance of some directors? | 0 |
This is a truly classic movie in its story, acting, and film presentation. Wonderful actors are replete throughout the whole movie, Miss Sullivan, and Jimmy Stewart being the foremost characters. In real life she greatly admired, and liked Jimmy, and indeed gave him his basically first acting roles, and helped him be more calm with his appearance on the set. The "chemistry" between the two was always apparent, and so warm and enjoyable to behold. She was such a beautiful, young woman, and so sweet in her personality portrayals. The story of these two young people, and how they eventually come together in the end is charming to watch, and pure magical entertainment. Heart warming presentations are also given by the other supporting actors in this marvelous story/movie. I whole heartily give Miss Sullivan a perfect 10 in this Golden Age Cinema Classic, that has a special appeal for all generations. A must see for all! | 1 |
What a trip down memory lane.<br /><br />Do not look for great acting, believable plot lines, or anything resembling a quality movie.<br /><br />This is pure blaxploitation at it's finest. Outrageous outfits, unrepeatable dialog, objectification of women, and the sleaziest cops you can imagine.<br /><br />This vanity piece by the "Godfather of Rap," Rudy Ray Moore, who left us for good last week is the standard by which all blaxploitation is measured.<br /><br />You not only see blaxploitation at it's finest, but get glimpses of his comedy genius, and see why his records were kept under the counter. | 1 |
While the "date doctor" concept is the one thing that saves this film from being an otherwise average romantic comedy with a standard plot for the genre, I found it enjoyable enough to elevate my opinion of it so I ended up liking it a lot more than if it'd had just a mediocre plot without many twists. Will Smith does a great job, as always, acting as Hitch, the man who devotes his life to advising men how and how not to win over women...ever since his failed attempt to keep his college girlfriend. There're plenty of laughs as he tries to help his latest patient, overweight, gawky asthmatic Albert Brennman (Kevin James) successfully court beautiful co-worker Allegra Cole (Amber Valetta). Also, when he decides to rid a woman he meets in a bar of the turkey who just doesn't seem to get she doesn't want him around, he finds himself attracted to Sara (Eva Mendes) - it appears to be a big deal for him, so I guess since college he never actually practiced his own rules on himself. Unfortunately, Sara is a gossip columnist who is interested in "the date doctor" who got a seemingly dorky guy like Albert together with Allegra - especially AFTER player/jerk Vance Munson (Jeffrey Donovan) breaks her best friend's (Julie Ann Emery) heart and hints the date doctor he saw disgusted him, when she doesn't realize that he refused to see him. Still, trouble follows and Hitch is stuck left wondering about what to do with his own relationship, while not being any great help to Albert when he tries to figure out what more to do in his. The acting is good, there's a great deal of humor and some other fine points with meaning. Hitch's character is witty and wise, sometimes managing to be both at once. True, the misunderstanding where the woman is affronted at something the man hasn't truly done (why do they always show that?) as common and irritating - guess it wouldn't have been if it was the 1st, not 5th, time I've seen IT - but the rest of them were completely new. I only wish this movie was longer - I remember being able to watch 3/5 of it while it was playing on a restaurant's TV once - but I still approve. It's definitely worth the money to pay for its brevity. | 1 |
This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time. | 0 |
I am a dumber person for renting the DVD REDLINE. Chicago Pictures who made this stupid movie never paid Palisades Media Group to buy web ads on various automotive sites including mine which has an ALEXA rating of 16K. They ripped me off on the deal and now I am out $16,000 and they wasted much of my personal time (peter rapport of Palisades Media) you know who you are!<br /><br />Please don't rent or buy this movie!!! It sucks and the people behind it are ripoff artists.<br /><br />REDLINE has a cast of losers and poor actors!<br /><br />This movie is a Joke | 0 |
Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10) | 1 |
He is very good in this role as a disaffected and bored husband, a decorated air force officer, who becomes bored with his predictable suburban life and decides to make a radical change.<br /><br />One evening he meets Karen Sillas, an attractive woman younger than his current wife. A relationship develops, and Cole decides to take it to the next level.<br /><br />Not only does he have an affair, he fakes his death to escape his family obligations. Lies become increasingly more of a pattern as he begins to rob banks to keep his new wife (Sillas) happy, and to project the image that he is a success. A fictional delusion, apparently.<br /><br />This was also based on a true story which makes it all the more intriguing. Cole is believable and excellent in these roles. Recommended. 8/10. | 1 |
I saw this film numerous times in the late 60's/early 70's whenever it reared it's head like a reindeer with rabies every November-December as a Saturday matinée kiddie show.It was always stiff competition for THE CHRSTMAS THAT ALMOST WASN'T (oops-can I SAY "Christmas"?), perhaps the greatest,most iconic Christmas-season film of all time.But that's another review.<br /><br />At the time,I marveled that the on-screen tint of SANTA CLAUS was almost "pink and white", so much had the color of the sprocket-torn prints changed color.<br /><br />The film is kinda creepy! I thought so then--and still do, actually. I was highly entertained then, as I still am! It's amusing in a "retarted-elf" sort of way. By the way,the image quality looks much better on the DVD I have now than it did in the theater, circa 1969-74.<br /><br />If you are expecting maybe "the lost RANKIN-BASS Christmas special-forget it! If you want FELLINI DOES Christmas--read on...<br /><br />By nature, the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in Spanish)always makes them seem "surreal". This adds to the films inherent oddness. It is also pretty scary in that a "mishevious demon" (as described in the original US trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids "evil". One particularly nightmarish scene has a young "latch-key" boy wishing he had parents for Christmas-suddenly the "port-a-family" emerges out of giant "Christmas presents-of-the-mind" until he realizes he's just daydreaming! See this,Christmas lovers--and if you're a stoner, save your stash--this film will make you think you're hallucinating...without drugs! | 0 |
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them. | 0 |
This film is a variation of a theme we've all seen over and over again - the Posiedan adventure in Space. The characters are all stock characters - feisty heroine, Judas, coward, etc. etc. The only question really is who's next to snuff it. Sometimes this tried and tested formula works - like in this case - but more often not - like the truly mind-numbing "Red Planet." <br /><br />So why does this one work? Because it's stylish. The acting is above average. And above all it isn't predictable. The conclusion isn't sign-posted. I really had no idea how it would all end and was surprised at how it did end. That alone deserves top marks in my book.<br /><br />It's an intriguing and entertaining movie. And though it was never likely to change the face of cinema as we know it, it doesn't disappoint. | 1 |
I think it was François Truffaut who said that the best movies either involve the joy of making movies, or the agony of making movies. This flick is definitely of the first type. Tromeo and Juliet is a pleasure to watch from start to finish. The zany zeal fuelling this Shakespearian shenanigan is infective. I don't think I've laughed so hard since I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's that good! | 1 |
Boris Karloff is Matthias Morteval, a dying, lonely old nut who lives in Morhenge Mansion with some servants and tells his doctor friend, "Don't try to doctor me, doctor! I'm disgustingly healthy!" He invites his nieces and nephews to his home and warns them they may have inherited a genetic disease that causes madness by "shrinking the brain" (?)<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Morteval/Karloff ends up dying, and murderous "toys" (designed by his dead brother) start killing off the relatives. A mini cannon fires real bullets into a guys face, a life-sized knight in armor attacks with an axe and a dancing Sheik stabs people with a knife. One guy getting strangled makes some hilarious faces. At the end, Julissa and her boyfriend find Karloff is still alive and hiding out in the dungeon where steel gates seal off the room. He plays the recurring organ theme music (sort of a death rattle used for the killings), the brother's spirit starts talking ("The whole house will go with me!") and the mansion goes up in flames.<br /><br />This senseless mess is too dark, boring and the stupid dialogue never matches the lips. | 0 |
Wow, this film had a huge impact on me, it moved me,. It is an amazing story about a girl in Cambodia who is sold into the sex trade. I can not stop thinking about the fate of the little girl named Holly. The setting of the film is realistic, The film was an eye opener, I can not imagine anyone walking away from it with out wanting to help make a change with this horrifying problem that exsists.<br /><br />The content of the film was very very moving. It was one of the best films that I have seen this year. The<br /><br />girl who plays Holly does a fantastic job with her character. Ron Livinston gives a fantastic performance. The film moved me to tears, It tells an important message that needs to be heard worldwide. Everyone should go see this film. I think this film will make a difference, I loved it! | 1 |
This movie truly captures the feeling of freedom.......and what the freedom of your own integrity is worth....in the most delightful, light-hearted way. Not a serious, but hilarious adventure.<br /><br />The story mirrors life. We don't always get what we want right away but we find out we get what we need to to understand why we didn't get what we wanted....which results in us getting more than we thought we would get! You will get this once you see the movie. <br /><br />And this movie is truly about finding love and knowing one has found it and that it totally changed one's life.<br /><br />It is one of my all time favorites......not easy to find but worth the hunt.........I guarantee you will watch it more than once! | 1 |
The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917. Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently, Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with government agencies insisting on "socialist realism." Influenced by the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a "collision" of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content, lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied sequence in world cinema history - is the "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin.<br /><br />In structure Potemkin is a "five reeler" divided into five narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of Western drama. In "Men and Maggots," Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper class officers/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in perhaps the first deliberate "jump cut" in cinema history).<br /><br />Identified by inter-titles as "Drama on the Quarterdeck" and "An Appeal from the Dead," Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge "Death to the oppressors." Shots of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary consciousness.<br /><br />The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Christian church.<br /><br />Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach (the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened rage.<br /><br />Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power. | 1 |
"Driving Lessons" sees two middle class quintessential British families meet head on, when Grint's character comes into contact with Evee, (Walters), a slightly deranged out-of-touch actress with an ego. Grint betrays his overpowering, and over-Christian mother, (Linney), and goes off travelling with Evee to Scotland, to accompany her on a trip to participate in a Poetry reading, something she claims could be her last, due to an illness.<br /><br />Grint's portrayal of a caged youngster, brainwashed by an overbearing, and even hypocritical mother, is the masterpiece of this film. His portrayal of a downtrodden teen in search of his true morals, and happiness, is captivating to watch unfold throughout. The film is sharply shot, and well paced, with very few moments leaving you tired, an achievement, particularly considering the nature of the plot. Walters really grabs hold of her character with both hands, and successfully brings the audience to her side of things, emphasising Linney's ironic immorality throughout. Her role in "Driving Lessons" is enjoyable and memorable in every sense.<br /><br />The plot develops nicely, leaving the audience cheering on Grint as he chases back to Evee's place during his lunch break during his stint at a local bookshop to apologise for his wrongdoings. The values in the piece are continued and brought out thoroughly up until the final drag, in a very consistent way. The overbearing, (and relieving), main idea being that religion doesn't lead to happiness, and certainly doesn't lead to morality.<br /><br />The audience are left sympathising with the radical but lovable Evee, with her and Grint making an irresistible partnership on the big screen, transferred directly from their debut in the "Harry Potter" series. Charismatic and beautiful acting together with a tight and fact paced script make this a must-see this Christmas. | 1 |
Like all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.<br /><br />The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.<br /><br />The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it. | 0 |
French film directors continue to amaze with their extraordinary ability to simulate the sights and sounds of ordinary, everyday suburban life. This was readily apparent with the release early in 2002 of L'Emploi du temps ( Time Out ) , a brilliant character study of of a white collar worker's descent into melancholy after having been fired from his job. As is the penchant of French filmmakers , many scenes were shot on real streets and in public places, giving a cinema verite feel to the story , yet L'Emploi du temps also possessed an elegant look thanks to excellent camera work and some stunning location footage ( most notably a Swiss mountain retreat ). Running fairly on the heels of that masterful movie comes another impressive French production, Jacques Audiard's gritty crime caper, Sur mes levres ( Read My Lips ). Actually, to tag this film a crime caper does it a disservice because it is so much more than that. As with the earlier French release, it is an incisive character study of marginal people using their wits to get ahead in a society that has turned its back on them. In a Paris construction firm Carla, a shy, diminutive young woman sits at her desk, sequestered to an area of the office that is a major pathway to the xerox machines and restrooms.<br /><br />Obnoxious coworkers use the front of Carla's desk to chat and drop off their half-finished Styrofoam cups of coffee. Partially deaf, Carla turns her hearing aids on and off at will if noise becomes bothersome, be it the drone of the paper copiers or the shrill crying of a friend's baby. When her boss calls her into the office to suggest that she hire a secretarial assistant to help her with the work load, Carla fears she may lose her job. At the employment office Carla lists the specifications she wants for her assistant (preferably male) as if she were at a Personals Agency. He should be 25 years old and clean -cut , with extensive computer and filing skills. When the agency sends over an unkempt , menacing looking young man, Carla is both shocked and intrigued. They leave the office and have lunch at a local eatery, where Carla interviews her prospective assistant. When she finds out that he has just gotten out of prison , Carla initially wants nothing to do with Paul, but has a change of heart and hires him on. Although she is basically kind toward her helper, Carla now finds herself in a position of authority and possessing a newfound sense of power. Paul learns quickly and becomes an able worker. Carla helps Paul find a temporary place to live and even covers for him when his parole officer shows up one day at the office wondering why Paul missed his appointment. During one of their lunch breaks Carla informs Paul of her hearing deficiency and reveals her ability to read lips. Later, when an avaricious coworker blatantly takes over a project Carla has been working on, a furious Carla asks Paul's help in seeking revenge on the man. From here on in Sur mes levres becomes an increasingly intense crime drama escalating into some of the most violently graphic scenes that have been shown on the screen in recent years. The screenplay borrows elements from Hitchcock, most notably REAR WINDOW, where Carla's lip-reading talent comes into full play using a pair of binoculars. There is a teasing, on-again, off-again sexual attraction between the two protagonists that culminates in a rather strange homage to NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but it works because of the considerable sexual heat that builds slowly between the two stars. That being said, what one carries away from this movie isn't so much the similarities to classic Hitchcock thrillers, although those elements are definitely there, but the pervasive view a of a modern day city (in this case Paris) where life runs the gamut from mundane workdays to a boozy, garish nightlife where sex, drugs and laundered money infiltrate the lives of several characters. Unlike Hollywood productions, this is a psychological suspense yarn where the people look like the everyday man and woman on the street, where a punch in the face or groin sounds like a sickening thud and where the office is a place to be feared. It's Hitchcock with the gloves off. | 1 |
I have to say this movie is absolutely amazing. I don't understand why it got such a low rating. It has romance, music, darkness and vampires. Also Stuart Townsend did a great job of being Lestat, the acting was great. Also, normally I am not into that music, well sometimes. But I have to say in this movie the music fit it perfectly. If you like dark movies about vampires this is definitely for you or even if you don't there is a love story to this.But,all I can say is one word: Amazing! My Rating is defiantly: 10 out of 10. Anyway, I seriously suggest you watch it. I remember not seeing this for years, I watched it again about a year ago and im addicted to it again. lol. Great movie!!! | 1 |
A really good Australian film .Beautifully recreates the look and feel of Sydney as it was in the 1950s. This movie greatly impressed me when I first saw it during it's initial cinema release and it still stands up very well. Fine directing job by Phil Noyce, wonderful camera work , thoughtful lighting and some fine performances across the board. An absolute "Must See" for any students of 70's Australian cinema.One out of the box ! | 1 |
We rented the DVD hoping for a good western. The film was pretty and the scenes reasonable, but the ideas were very bad. Here are my problems with the film.<br /><br />In the first part, why exactly did the bad guy kill the mine owner? Not really connected to the movie except to establish how bad he was and to have a hideout.<br /><br />The bank employee gone bad just acts too poorly to convincingly decide to hire killers to off his employers. At least keep us guessing. No character developed at all for the bank owners or the bank employee.<br /><br />Very long delay in much of anything happening.<br /><br />Absurd premise that Martin still needed to see the judge after the gang confessed to killing the in-laws. Even more absurd that he confesses to judge and judge will not listen to the sheriff guy. even more ridiculous that Martin his hung and rope breaks then the sheriff takes him at gunpoint to finally head back to his town and save his wife from the bad bank employee. Wouldn't he just return after the quick dispatch of the gang to save wife and arrest bad bank guy? Just send the judge a note that gang confessed before being killed on trail????!!! Overall, very sad acting and no point to movie. | 0 |
Words are seriously not enough convey the emotional power of this film; it's one of the most wrenching you'll ever see, yet the ending is one of the most loving, tender, and emotionally fulfilling you could hope for. Every actor in every role is terrific, especially a wise and understated Jamie Lee Curtis, a tightly wound and anguished Ray Liotta, and a heart-stopping turn from Tom Hulce that should have had him up for every award in the book. (He's the #1 pick for 1988's Best Actor in Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars.") The last half hour borders on melodrama, but the film earns every one of its tears--and unless you're made of stone, there will be plenty of them. | 1 |
I have lost count of just how many times I have seen this movie - I probably know the entire dialog backwards - yet I am drawn to it time and again.<br /><br />Set in Hungary, a young Jimmy Stewart plays the eligible bachelor "Kralik" who becomes the secret admirer of Margaret Sullavan's innocent "Klara". Kralik secretly becomes Klara's pen-friend, and at work together Klara confides in Kralik about the content of his (Kralik's) letters. Clearly Kralik is besotted with Klara - but is unable to make his feelings known whilst he is in competition with the "pen-friend". Confused? Well you wont be - this story has a sweet, almost sugary ending - but we all know it is the ending we all want.<br /><br />Other characters worth mentioning are Frank Morgan playing his usual role, this time as the shop's owner "Hugo Matuschek", Felix Bressart as "Pirovitch", Kralik's confidant. Joseph Schildkraut as the womanising arrogant "Vadas" - so well played that you cannot help but hate him right from the beginning.<br /><br />Finally William Tracy who manages to endear himself to us all with his over-confident upstart of a shop junior "Pepi Katona".<br /><br />Recently re-made as "You've Got Mail" starring Tom Hanks & Meg Ryan for me is not as good as the original - although I suspect younger audiences would disagree.<br /><br />If this film is on in your area over Christmas, I suggest you pour yourself a nice glass of wine, put a log on the fire and have a box of Kleenex handy. | 1 |
On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life
<br /><br />"Mr. Imperium" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of "South Pacific" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden "Some Enchanted Evening" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.<br /><br />*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan | 0 |
Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left. | 0 |
I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised. | 0 |
Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away! | 0 |
I had an uncle who committed suicide after serving in Vietnam because of mental problems he experienced after coming back. So when I saw part of this movie one night on a pay-for-view channel I was intrigued. I wanted to know what my uncle went through and felt as he got ready for Vietnam. I went out and rented this movie and I have to say it is the most heart-wrenching film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD immediately after renting it. The way it pulls you in so many different directions emotionally is something I've never experienced with any other film. As far as Vietnam subject films go, I think it is the best one, although Platoon runs a close second. Besides all of that, I think it is also Colin Farrell's best performance as an actor. I like him in most of his movies but in this one he was incredible. I gave this a 10 rating because it is one of my top five favorite movies. | 1 |
Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.<br /><br />The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.<br /><br />There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.<br /><br />Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.<br /><br />Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.<br /><br />At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul. | 1 |
I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.<br /><br />I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.<br /><br />I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed. | 1 |
Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as "What's it like to be a mother?" followed by the usual answer along the lines of "Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring". | 0 |
Look at the all the positive user comments of this movie, then check to see how often each one posts user comments. They post once. It seems companies are probably paying for services which post junk pro-movie comments on IMDb.<br /><br />This movie was awful. The plot was stupid. The acting was poor. The jokes weren't even funny. The movie included minor nudity from what looked like porn actresses but none of the other characters.<br /><br />It was clear from the first 15 minutes that movie wasn't funny. There was some slapstick here and there but most of humor was supposed to be derived from the characters talking behind each other's back and spreading rumors. This isn't even done well. Every joke is obvious and you see it coming.<br /><br />The movie is worthy of fast forwarding or better yet not watching.<br /><br />I regret watching this movie and if I could charge the studio and distributor for 1.5 hrs they stole from me I would. | 0 |
An extremely gentle retelling of the Shakespeare play (and much more overt about it than Forbidden Planet). Cassavetes is always a joy to watch, and even more so with Gena Rowlands sharing the spotlight. His take on the Prospero role is well suited for the sort of craggy all-knowing expression he brings to the story. This especially comes to the forefront in a scene when, upon spotting his estranged wife and her lover in a speedboat, he conjures up a storm (accompanied on the soundtrack by an appropriate selection from Stomu Yamashta's "Go"). This is only one of the moments throughout the film where the line between reality and fantasy becomes nicely blurred, and the viewer is left with the feeling that magic is more possible than one might believe. Add to this an excellent performance by Raul Julia, plus good work by Susan Sarandon, Vittorio Gassman and Molly Ringwald, and the film becomes a nice little treat to occupy the space behind your eyes. | 1 |
<br /><br />Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV/TV Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film. | 1 |
Godard once said a way to criticize a movie is to just make one, and probably the strongest kind that could be made about Ralph Bakshi's take on Tolkien's magnum opus the Lord of the Rings, has actually been made by Peter Jackson. The recent trilogy, to me, aren't even total masterpieces, but they are given enough room with each book to breath in all the post-modern techniques crossed with classical storytelling to make them very good, sweeping entertainments. <br /><br />But as one who has not read the books, I end up now looking upon the two versions, live-action (albeit partly animated in its big visual effects way) and animated (albeit partly done with actual live action as the framework) in relation to just the basic story, not even complete faithfulness to the books. And with Bakshi's version, it's almost not fair in a way, as what we do see is really not the complete vision, not what Jackson really had (probably final cut). Robbed of Return of the King's big climactic rush of the story, and with the other two parts becoming rushed, I ended up liking it more for what it did within its limitations, though as such those same limitations make it disappointing.<br /><br />What's interesting too, after seeing the Jackson films first- which I also slightly regret being that I might've reacted to this differently when I was younger and prior to five years ago- is that the basic elements of the story never get messed up with. Everything that is really needed to tell the Fellowship of the Ring story is actually pretty much intact, and if anything what was probably even more gigantic and epic in Tolkien's book is given some clarity in this section. The actors playing the parts of the hobbits and the other heroes, are more or less adequate for the parts, with a few parts standing out (John Hurt as Aragorn and William Squire as Gandalf). <br /><br />The lack of extra characterization does end up making things seem a little face-value for those who've not even seen the other films or read the books and can't put them into context. But there is some level of interest always with the characters, and here there's a more old-fashioned sensibility amid the large aura of it being more. This is not a garden variety Disney adaptation- warts and all, this is a Bakshi film, with his underground animation roots colliding with the mythical world of Middle Earth.<br /><br />And what Bakshi and his animation team bring to the film is one that ends up giving what is on screen, in all its abbreviated form, its hit or miss appeal. Along with being not totally complete as a film, or as stories, the form of the film is an experiment, to see if something can be entirely rotoscoped. The results end up bringing what seems now to be retro, but at the time of course was something that was a rough, crazy inspiration on the part of the filmmakers. Might it have been better with more traditional drawn animation? In some parts, yeah; it does become a little noticeable, as was also the case in Bakshi's American Pop, that the main characters move in such ways that are a little shaky, like some kind of comic-book form done in a different way. Still, there's much I admired in what was done. <br /><br />The orcs, for example, I found to be really amazing in they're surreal surroundings. They're maybe the best part of the combination of the animation on top of the live-action, especially during parts where there isn't battle footage (that's really the real hit-or-miss section, as there isn't continuity from the good and bad rotoscoping), and the chiaroscuro comes through with big shapes on top of horseback. It's creepy in a good way. And the backgrounds, while also very rough and sometimes too sketchy, are beautiful with the mixtures and blasts of colors together. It's almost something for art-film buffs as much as for the ring-nuts.<br /><br />So, how would I recommend this animated take on the Lord of the Rings? I don't know, to tell the truth. It's certainly a good notch above the other Tolkien animated film I've seen, the Hobbit (and I've yet to see the animated ROTK), and there is some real artistry going on. There's also some stilted dialog, an all-too-rushed Two Towers segment with the most intriguing character Gollum being reduced to maybe two scenes in all. And seeing something as fragmented like this ends up only reinforcing the completeness of the more recent films. <br /><br />If you're a fan of the books contemplating checking this out, I would say it's worth a chance, even if it's one of those chances where you watch for forty minutes and then decide whether to stop it or not. As for it fitting into Bakshi's other films I've seen it's an impressive ambitious and spotty achievement, where as with Lynch's Dune it's bound to draw a dark, mordor-like line in the sand between those who hate it passionately and those who don't. I don't. | 1 |
This film is exceptional in that Marlene & Raymond present outstanding performances. The acting in this film is the greatest strength of the production, but the script, direction, and editing deserve applause. There is an extraordinary chemistry that exsists between the two stars. If you like Marlene, and you like Raymond, you'll love this film..... (It's a classic that compares with Casablanca.)<br /><br /> | 1 |
This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...<br /><br />He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).<br /><br />He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).<br /><br />This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.<br /><br />"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!" Not.<br /><br />Awful. | 0 |
Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like "High Noon" "From Here to Eternity" and this one?<br /><br />Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?<br /><br />Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.<br /><br />Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?<br /><br />Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY. | 0 |
this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10 | 0 |
I don't have words to describe how good this movie is. Only a genius like Amrita Pritam could have written such a real depiction of the days of partition. The movie kept haunting me for many days.<br /><br />Urmila did the role of her life in this movie. She put life in the role of Puroo and Manoj Vajpai did no less in his role as Rashid. It is hard to imagine anyone other than these two doing the role of Puroo and Rashid. The Punjabi costumes looked so natural on Urmila and Manoj looked like a natural Punjabi Mussalmaan.<br /><br />Sandhali Sinha as Lajjo and Suri as Ramchand did fabulous job. Priyanshu Chattarjee did good work as Triloki.<br /><br />Some of the scenes you just can't get out of your mind. When Puroo meets Lajjo for the first time, it brings tears to your eyes. The climax is just killer. I was expecting a tragic ending but thankfully, the ending was wonderful.<br /><br />This movie is in the same category as Pakeezah, Mughal-e-Azam, Banaras etc. Not to be missed. | 1 |
"You were on your way up and you tripped on a skirt !" Gilligan says to Jim Leonard. That sums up the plot of this story of up and coming Leonard (a YOUNG Humphrey Bogart) when his dream gets sidetracked by the bombshell heiress Carol, played by Dorothy Mackaill. Leonard has been working on a new and improved motor, but now his love life and motor company both have their ups and downs in this 68 minute shortie. Bogart hadn't developed the quiet, brooding style yet. Good performances by most of the supporting characters - her butler, his co-workers, a sister, interlopers along the way. Some adult themes, since it was done just before they really enforced the film code, but it's still tame compared to what is on TV today. Directed by Thornton Freeland, a year before Freeland directed the incredible "Flying Down to Rio". | 1 |
I don't want to write too much about the film but basically it's an action/comedy with a little bit of romance thrown in about two men who come together in unlikely circumstances and become highway men together. Fantastic performance by Robert Carlysle and everybody else involved. A brilliant 'baddy' who really makes you hate him. Some great comical lines - actually laugh out loud, amazing action and a great plot. Choice of music and ambiance all fantastic, basically brilliantly directed and brilliants written. I recommend this film to anyone who likes a good British movie or a good bit of action, i don't know why the film never took off, i thought it got no where near as much recognition as it deserved. If for nothing else, watch this film for one of the greatest finale's of all time. Not to give anything away, but this one really get's the heart beating! | 1 |
You like beautiful girls? Yeah me too. What is there bad to say about beautiful girls/women? Nothing imo, so why would I give this movie only 2 stars out of 5, although it got the "talents" of Chiaki Kuriyama and Aya Ueto? <br /><br />If I really wanted to watch beautiful people, I'd watch MTV or something that's why. This is a movie, a so called action movie nevertheless. So by definition it does not even really need a plot right? I'm not agreeing 100%, but let's say yes to that. So what does it need? 20 minutes footage from part 1 (I might be exaggerating a little bit, but it felt like more than 20 minutes ...)?! That would be "No". But then again you never know, the people who watched part one might not know what they ate this morning for breakfast, so hey let's remind them ... hey maybe remind them even twice? Just to be sure they won't forget ... at least until the credits roll, of course!!!! <br /><br />So forget about the story, about character development, about real emotions, about the "acting" (and no, I don't think women in skirts walking and/or fighting is accountable for acting!) ... what does that leave? Yes the action scenes. The action scenes are not bad and that's the reason I gave the movie 2 stars instead of 1! I was giving this movie a chance, but it was a waste of time ... You have better things to do/watch, believe me ... | 0 |
The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.<br /><br />Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.<br /><br />This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life. | 1 |
Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.<br /><br />When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.<br /><br />This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied. | 0 |
Oftentimes, films of this nature come across as a mixed bag of great work along with slight drivel to fill the runtime. Whether it be the big name support or the project itself, Paris je t'aime never falls into this realm. I believe I can truly say that the movie as a whole is better than its parts. Between the wonderful transitions and the fantastic ending sequence, merging characters together in one last view of love in Paris, I think the film would have suffered if any cog was removed. True, there are definitely a few standouts that overshadow the rest, but in the end I have a lasting image, even if just a split second of each short vignette. Love takes many forms, and the talent here rises to the occasion, to surprise and move the audience through shear poetry and elegance of the emotion's many facets.<br /><br />Quartier des Enfants Rouges: Maggie Gyllenhaal surprises as a drug-addled actress shooting in Paris and meeting with her dealer. The reveal at its conclusion leaves you a bit off balance as the infatuation between the two changes hands.<br /><br />Quatier Latin: Ben Gazzara and Gena Rowlands (recreating a relationship from an old Cassavettes film?) bring some great sharp wit and sarcasm as they meet to discuss their impending divorce. What of their conversation is true and what is just to anger the other, it is all enjoyable, leaving a smile on your face.<br /><br />Quais de Seine: Director Gurinder Chadha gives us a touching portrait of love existing beyond religious and racial differences. It is a sweet little story of shy love between two people obviously feeling a connection, but unable to quite vocalize it.<br /><br />Tour Eiffel: I will admit to being disappointed that Sylvain Chomet did not get an animated sequence together, however, this live action tale of mimes falling in love at a Paris jail has the same quirky nature as his film Les Triplettes de Belleville.<br /><br />Tuileries: The Coen Brothers stick to their strange sense of humor and deliver some fine laughs. Steve Buscemi really shines and sells the performance without speaking a word. His facial reactions to the verbal abuse of a disgruntled Frenchman are priceless.<br /><br />Bastille: Here is a heartbreaking portrait of a couple about out of love only to have it come back in the face of tragedy. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson a moving as the couple dealing with trouble and finding how strong the bond of true love is.<br /><br />Pére-Lachaise: A surprisingly funny little tale from horror master Wes Craven. A little Oscar Wilde humor can add levity to any relationship.<br /><br />Parc Monceau: Alfonso Cuarón looks to be practicing the amazing long-takes he perfects in Children of Men with this tale of two people in love, walking down the street. As Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier eventually come into close-up view, we also find the true context of their conversation of "forbidden love."<br /><br />Porte de Choisy: A very surreal look into the glamour of Paris. This is probably the most odd entry, but so intriguing that you can't look away from the craziness that ensues. Do not anger your Asian beautician, whatever you do.<br /><br />Pigalle: An interesting look at a relationship undergoing a role-play that seems to have been stagnant for years. A little variety from Bob Hoskins is necessary to fire kindled.<br /><br />Quartier de la Madeleine: Even vampires in Paris can find love amongst the feeding hours. I don't know whether to be happy for Elijah Wood as a result or not. Beautifully shot and muted to allow the vibrancy of the blood red, this short is strange, but then so is love.<br /><br />14th arrondissement: Leave it to Alexander Payne's odd sense of humor to really add some depth to this voice-over story told of an American in Paris to find what love is. Her harsh, uneducated French is a very stark contrast to the authentic accents we've been listening to until this pointjust off-kilter enough to be both funny and totally true to the story.<br /><br />Montmartre: An interesting introduction into the proceedings. Paris can be a city reviled for everyday activities like finding a parking spot, yet when love is discovered, it will take its prisoner anywhere to continue the journey.<br /><br />Loin du 16éme: Catalina Sandino Moreno brilliantly shows what love for a child is through her subtle performance as the tale is bookended by her singing to a young child, yet totally different each time.<br /><br />Place des Fetes: My favorite tale of the bunch. Seydou Boro and Aïssa Maïga are simply fantastic. The cyclical nature of the story and how fate brings the two characters together twice in order for Boro to finally ask her for coffee is tough to watch. Sometimes love at your final moment is enough to accept one's leaving of this earth.<br /><br />Place des Victoires: One of the best stories about a mother trying to cope with the death of her young son. Juliette Binoche is devastating as the mother, desperate for one last glimpse of her son, and Willem Dafoe is oddly perfect as the cowboy who allows her the chance.<br /><br />Faubourg Saint-Denis: Sometimes one needs to think he has lost love to accept that he has not been fully invested in the relationship. Melchior Beslon reminisces, trying to find where they went wrong through a series of sharp, quick cuts from his meeting Natalie Portman to eventually "seeing" how much he needs her.<br /><br />Le Marais: Leave it to Gus Van Sant to show us a story about the gap in communication and understanding as his films almost always deal with some form of alienation. His photographer from Elephant is an American working in Paris who is the catalyst for Gaspard Ulliel's artist ramblings of love and soul mates. Sometimes one doesn't need to know what is being said to understand what is going on in the pauses. | 1 |
Nothing can prepare you for another lousy bimbo outing! This time, it's being brought to you by the never-inevitable Fred Olen Ray! As far as exploitation movies go, this one doesn't click! As science fiction, it's plain unoriginal! All that we see is an an ugly feminine android wearing a bikini out to destroy the Earth, and showing off all that's nearly bare to resist! Give me a f---ing break!!! If this kind of entertainment is your thing, then why not dust off those old SI swimsuit mags from the attic for a change?! This would have been much better if it didn't set the sleaze factor on very high, but that still wouldn't make this one great. I'd like to point out another film called THE ASSAULT (1996) by Jim Wynorski, which resembles the identity of ALIENATOR. It illustrates why top-notch 1st-person "femme fatale" action movies don't translate well in America. Sorry, fellas! | 0 |
This is a spin off of Pulp Fiction. I thought that it would be good for a few decent laughs. Well it turns out that this movie really was terrible. The whole plot doesn't follow on the Pulp Fiction plot. It turns to other movie like Forrest Gump and more. Some laughs came out of this movie, but all and all it totally took 90 minutes of my life away from me. If you are thinking of renting this movie, please don't it will waste 90 minutes of your life. Reconsider renting this and go on and find a movie that actually makes sense. Please if there is a Plump Fiction 2, I will definitely not go on and rent the sequel. Just giving a heads up for those out there. | 0 |
I am sick of series with young and clueless people, talking about their "problems" all the time, self centered, boring and absolutely annoying (Popular; Dawson's Creek; Beverly Hills; etc). "Hack" is a breath of fresh air, with a great actor (David Morse), a completely different plot, credible people with REAL problems (thank God !!) and very, very good histories. I just love it!! I hope "Hack" will go on for a long time, because it is a great television series for grown up people, for a change. | 1 |
Not since "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" and the "How High" previews<br /><br />have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought<br /><br />would be hysterical.<br /><br />Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F<br /><br />by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-<br /><br />of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in<br /><br />Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the<br /><br />flimsy plot.<br /><br />This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes "Hogan's<br /><br />Heroes" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of "The<br /><br />Producers" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have<br /><br />shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.<br /><br />Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the<br /><br />action from two different angles, then being edited together. This<br /><br />sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an<br /><br />obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his<br /><br />scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double<br /><br />over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of<br /><br />the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with<br /><br />severe flatulence, over this thing.<br /><br />Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes<br /><br />no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the<br /><br />latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The<br /><br />supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,<br /><br />which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to<br /><br />watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the<br /><br />last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a<br /><br />performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring<br /><br />in at the beginning.<br /><br />The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to<br /><br />put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their<br /><br />eyes, and talk in a "funny" accent. It may be one of the most<br /><br />blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was<br /><br />slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put<br /><br />me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene<br /><br />where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.<br /><br />"Star Trek"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely<br /><br />drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last<br /><br />three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a<br /><br />formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you<br /><br />actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with "The<br /><br />Majestic," but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a<br /><br />while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.<br /><br />"Which Way to the Front?" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.<br /><br />I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.<br /><br />I do not recommend it.<br /><br />Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in<br /><br />seeing this, please consult professional help.<br /><br /> | 0 |
"Her Cardboard Lover" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. "Her Cardboard Lover" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat. <br /><br />The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in "The Women" but not in this movie. <br /><br />The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and "When Ladies Meet" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in "Her Cardboard Lover" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in "Johnny Eager." He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years. <br /><br />Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in "All About Eve" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, "The Women", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in "Her Cardboard Lover." Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.<br /><br />Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb "Escape". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, "Personal Property" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles. | 0 |
This is a pleasant film, even if the premise is silly. It was sort of a guilty pleasure to watch. Meg Ryan seems to be able to pull off roles in this kind of film (another example is Joe vs. the Volcano). That's what makes her a star, in part. Walter Matthau, of course, had that ability, too, and he really puts himself into the role, making an amusing, good-hearted Einstein. I suppose you could say they're both good at portraying loveable characters, though loveable in different ways (loveable young women vs. loveable curmudgeon). | 1 |
This movie succeeds at being one of the most unique movies you've seen. However this comes from the fact that you can't make heads or tails of this mess. It almost seems as a series of challenges set up to determine whether or not you are willing to walk out of the movie and give up the money you just paid. If you don't want to feel slighted you'll sit through this horrible film and develop a real sense of pity for the actors involved, they've all seen better days, but then you realize they actually got paid quite a bit of money to do this and you'll lose pity for them just like you've already done for the film. I can't go on enough about this horrible movie, its almost something that Ed Wood would have made and in that case it surely would have been his masterpiece.<br /><br />To start you are forced to sit through an opening dialogue the likes of which you've never seen/heard, this thing has got to be five minutes long. On top of that it is narrated, as to suggest that you the viewer cannot read. Then we meet Mr. Slater and the barrage of terrible lines gets underway, it is as if he is operating solely to get lines on to the movie poster tag line. Soon we meet Stephen Dorff, who I typically enjoy) and he does his best not to drown in this but ultimately he does. Then comes the ultimate insult, Tara Reid playing an intelligent role, oh help us! Tara Reid is not a very talented actress and somehow she continually gets roles in movies, in my opinion though she should stick to movies of the American pie type. <br /><br />All in all you just may want to see this for yourself when it comes out on video, I know that I got a kick out of it, I mean lets all be honest here, sometimes its comforting to revel in the shortcomings of others. | 0 |
Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.<br /><br />His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.<br /><br />And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.<br /><br />Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).<br /><br />The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.<br /><br />Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...<br /><br />Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.<br /><br />I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;). | 0 |
It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official "truth" and caught so many "news" agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real "scoop". It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers "only" had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.<br /><br />The Venezuelan elite teaches us "How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy". It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.<br /><br />The fact that the "Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians" scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called "free" (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what "really" goes on in the world.<br /><br />The famous "objectivity" challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse "us" - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading "democracy" around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.<br /><br />I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of "our" involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.<br /><br />All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud. | 1 |
Each frame in the movie is a lesson to new directors or existing directors to know how a movie should be taken. Hats off to Sekhar. He is underestimated in Indian film industry. The director has got all the qualities in taking this movie in the range of Satyajir ray, Adoor.. Every character is portrayed effectively in the movie. Though it's simple story, it's been taken to such extent it can be considered to one of the best in India. I don't have enough adjectives to praise the movie. Just as the way the life goes in day-today atmosphere, the movie has been taken. Though the songs in Indian movies are considered to a weak area, songs in this movie has given extra energy to the potential of the movie..especially background score..it's amazing | 1 |
This is arguably the best film director Haim Bouzaglo made until now. A skilled TV director, well-trained in story-telling and in directing his actors through long epics he tried to catch in this very low-budget film the essence of the very special psychological situation the Israelis live though under the permanent danger of the terror attacks, resulting in 'distorted' lives. Each character trying to live his own life, to watch and control the other, while being himself watched and controlled by other characters and mostly by the continuous pressure, by political and historical forces well beyond his control. Some call this destiny, but destiny has a very concrete representation in this film.<br /><br />There is no explicit political saying in 'Distortion'. Characters never discuss politics, not even at the level of saying 'bastards!' when they hear that a new terror attack happens. Their reaction to events is to localize the attack and to count the victims using the official and media terminology for the dead and the wounded. They do not really live but rather survive on borrowed time happy to have survived one bomb, and waiting for the next one to happen. Personal, social, professional life seems to work someway, but is deeply flawed and influenced by events. The main character played by the director is a playwright whose mid-life personal and creative crisis is amplified by the pressure of the events and by the fact that he is lucky enough to leave a terror attack site minutes before the bomb explodes. He hires a private detective to follow his girlfriend who is a TV investigative reporter whom he suspects is falling in for the subject of her next show - another failed man, former military, whose business and family life dismantles under the events. He starts to write a play that carbon-copies the reality and will bring it to the stage, in theater in film scene that reminds Hamlet as well as 'Synecdoche, New York'. It's not that I would dare suspect Charlie Kaufman looking over the shoulder of Bouzaglo, he certainly needs not that, but the Israeli director screen is brilliant into anticipating the later film (and the first directed by Kaufman). As in the American film actors play real persons and start interacting with them in an reality-meets-stage-meets-reality melange which never lacks logic, at least not artistic logic.<br /><br />Bouzaglo directs his actors with the usual talent, trusts them and allows them the freedom of living through the situations rather then acting them. His style is much more free here than in his TV series, and the 'distortion' effects, although borrowed from American horror movies work pretty well all over. The ending seemed to me a little rhetorical and unsatisfying dramatically, but the shade of the suicidal killer who is haunting the film and the whole situation in a temporal loop will also follow the viewer when remembering later this film. | 1 |
I cannot believe that this movie was ever created. I think at points the director is trying to make it an artistic piece but this just makes it worse. The zombies look like they applied too much eye makeup. The zombies are only in the movie for a few minutes. Finally, there are maybe five or six zombies total, definitely not a nation. The best part of the movie, if there is one is definitely the credits because the painful experience was finally finished. Again to reiterate other user comments, the voodoo priestesses are strange and do not make much sense in the whole movie. Also, there is a scene with a snake and a romanian girl that just does not make sense at all. It is never explained. | 0 |
It plays like your usual teenage-audience T&A movie, but the sentiment is incredibly bleak. If it was made today, it'd be considered an art house movie. It goes through the usual routine of a guy trying to get laid, but the results of his efforts are harsh and cruel and unsatisfying.<br /><br />The whole teen flick formula is adhered to, but nothing turns out the way you'd expect. Imagine a director's cut of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where, at the end, James Stewart wasn't allowed to return to the real world. An incredible film that subverts all of the expectations of the genre. It makes you feel dirty afterwards: there is no redemption for the characters. I'm amazed it ever got made. The eighties version of Detective Story. | 1 |
Very slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best. | 0 |
I really wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more. | 0 |
This has got to be the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. Randy Quaid funny as a supporting actor in the original, but not as the leading. Too much Eddie. The original is a classic. Like the original, the supporting actor carried the show. Ed Asner was very funny. He is the Eddie of Christmas Vaction 2! How come Snots still looks the same after all those years and everyone else in the original looks 14 years older. After 15 minutes of watching this movie I don't believe I had even laughed yet. The island thing just didn't work. If it wasn't for the good looking South Pacific female guide on the island the movie would have been a total loss. I sat on this review for a week and yes, I still think the movie should never have been made. Lets hope there is not a THIRD!<br /><br />Shawn Gearin | 0 |
I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.<br /><br />I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors never!<br /><br />He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word "art" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.<br /><br />Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?<br /><br />He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.<br /><br />Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them. | 0 |
In the year 2006, "In Cold Blood"-a riveting thriller from 1967-has two new interesting contexts that it did not previous have. First, and most chillingly, is the fact that it's star, Robert Blake, was recently on trial for murdering his wife. Second, the recent Oscar winning biopic, "Capote" showed the muddled back story of this haunting true crime tale's author, Truman Capote. These two new twists make the film timely for a modern audience.<br /><br />As a stand alone film from it's era, "In Cold Blood" is top notch in every way. Most notable is the stunning black and white cinematography from Conrad Hall (later of "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition" fame). Many of the stills from this film of the Kansas farm house at night or the tree-lined back country roads could be sold as fine art photography. Combined with the cracker-jack direction from Brooks and superb editing in the early scenes (where we see the mundane daily life of the innocent family about to be senselessly slaughtered beautifully intertwined with the plotting of the two hapless killers), a rich brooding atmosphere is created that sets the stage for riveting suspense (even when everyone knows how this is all going to end due to the fact its all based on real life events). It's also great to see in this day and age how brilliantly staged a harrowing murder scene can be depicted where the graphic nature of the act is transmitted to the viewer subliminally with nary a drop of blood shown on screen.<br /><br />The film is also anchored nicely by Robert Blake's eerie performance as the more sympathetic yet senselessly brutal side of the killing duo. The flashback scenes to his horrible childhood are extremely well done. Then there is the scene towards the end of the film where he is speaking to the reverend before being sent to the gallows and he makes his last "confession" so to speak. It's one of those classic movie moments that is a perfect marriage of gritty acting, superb writing, flawless direction, and haunting photography. I dare you to erase from your mind the stark image of the rain's reflection from the window flowing down Robert Blake's pallid face in lieu of actual tears.<br /><br />The only thing hampering "In Cold Blood" is the slow moving middle act where the killers are on the lam and the forced nature of the social commentary at the end. The tacked-on political message about the death penalty is secondary to its compelling depiction of the mad killers and their prey. | 1 |
This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.<br /><br />Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)<br /><br />Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally. | 1 |
Three zany couples, all SIX OF A KIND, become entangled in a madcap search for stolen bank loot.<br /><br />This is a lively, hilarious comedy, with the six stars - Charlie Ruggles & Mary Boland, W. C. Fields & Alison Skipworth, George Burns & Gracie Allen - all heartily engaged in doing what they did best: getting laughs.<br /><br />Ruggles & Boland make another of their film appearances as husband & wife - this time rather more amorous than usual. They were a perfect team - she the strident lioness, he the nervous rabbit - and they dominate most of the screen time here. From beginning to end, they are a delight.<br /><br />Burns & Allen continue the patter they originated in Vaudeville, perfected on radio & would eventually take to television, with George the perpetual straight man & Gracie the eternal fool. At times in the film she tends to go a bit over the top, but it's difficult to dislike her. Her heart was obviously made of solid gold.<br /><br />While Skipworth is given rather short shrift - only fragments of her formidable personality flash through - Fields is in his element as the disreputable sheriff of Nuggetville, Nevada. Whether explaining how he got the nickname Honest John' or skulking about at night looking for the missing moola, he is never less than wonderful. Best of all, he gets to perform his entire classic pool routine, preserving it forever for a grateful posterity. Finally, he executes the near miraculous - he gets Gracie to shut up.<br /><br />Paramount was so pleased with the success of SIX OF A KIND that they wanted to hurry the principle players into another comedy. Only Fields demurred. He felt he had now arrived at the point where he no longer needed to share a movie with other celebrity comics. The Studio finally agreed and began preparation of Fields' first solo starring feature, YOU'RE TELLING ME (1934). | 1 |
This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest. | 0 |
The story of the film was as simple minded as its morality: Go find a girl, marry her, live with her happily ever after. Though the film had some fine moments and turns, most of it stayed at the surface of what might have been shown in a film with the same storyline.<br /><br />The Baptist/Mormon struggle was only touched superficially and was mocked about, probably intentionally. A more interesting story would have been a mixed couple.<br /><br />If you wanna see a film which doesn't need too much concentration, which can be watched by the whole family and which teaches your children modest and conservative values (besides the modern tolerance stuff ;-) ), you will be fine with this film. Might be shown at a family-home-evening... | 0 |
I remember watching this movie over and over again when I was a kid. I loved it. Whilst I haven't watched it recently, I am sure I would enjoy it just the same today. Its a very light funny movie guaranteed to make anyone laugh. The situations with each one of the characters were so funny and imaginative! I particularly liked the one with the girl traveling with her mother's ashes (who ends up picking them up on the highway after the explosion) , the robbers and the nuns. This nice humour style is much missed these days. Also, this movie proved that actor Paul Keenan (Dynasty/Days of our Lives) was off to a great start. I recommend it to anyone lucky enough to find it in their local video shop. | 1 |
There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.<br /><br />Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap. | 0 |
"Moonstruck" is a lovely little film directed by superb story teller, Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane). The film is great on many levels. It shows a good slice of Italian culture, has a touching romance, and (best of all) is a hilarious comedy.<br /><br />One thing I liked most about the film was the relative unconventional looks of the actors. Nicolas Cage looks positively odd for most of the film, and Cher... well, Cher always looks a little odd.<br /><br />Overall, it's a fun film, and easy to recommend.<br /><br />7.4 out of 10 | 1 |
This is arguably John Thaw's finest performance where he successfully shakes off any traits of his Inspector Morse character and brings a perfect adaptation of Tom from the pages of the book to the TV screen. This is a well made production which maintains its family viewing vibe despite some very mature themes like the outbreak of the second world war and the physical abuse suffered by the child.<br /><br />However it is the relationship between Tom and young Willie that is the heart and soul of this story. It is touching and beautiful to see this bond between the young boy evacuated from London and the grumpy old man he is left with develop - a real grandfather/grandson connection.<br /><br />It is a pity that this story wasn't made with a bigger budget with a more established director as it belongs on the big screen, not shown once or twice every ten years on a Sunday afternoon. Given the right guidance, John Thaw would be celebrated the world over and bestowed with many awards for his brilliant performance in this movie. A great actor and a great role that should have been honored more than it was at the time. | 1 |
Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation, the movie was made in just three days. | 1 |
"Caligula" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 "Fellini Satyricon" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the "glory" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in "The Robe" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in "Emperor Caligula" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however. | 0 |
Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended. | 0 |
First, a warning. 'How to Marry a Millionaire' comes prefaced by an apparently random five minute orchestral performance of 'Street Scene', a Gershwin-lite piece treated with the full pomp and ceremony of, well, Gershwin. Sitting through it takes some patience. If you have the DVD, rest assured, you can skip forward. You won't miss anything.<br /><br />The film itself is one of the perpetual disappointments of 50's Hollywood, a movie so bolstered by major star-power, opulent mise-en-scene and perfect high-concept that failure seems inconceivable. The title alone is perfect. Generation after generation, however, are forced to ask themselves - how is this so limp? The script is an albatross about the production's neck, a dead, smelling thing that chokes everything and everyone before they can really spark to life. There are no comic situations, just isolated moments that play for laughs. Whenever an actual comedy scene threatens to develop, the movie quickly moves on to other, less interesting things. A case in point - the scene where the three leading ladies each bring a date to the same fancy restaurant. One of them, short-sighted, refuses to wear her spectacles out of vanity. One of the dates is married. A classic Hollywood farce set-up, surely, complete with mistaken identity, angry wife, and probably a pie in the face for somebody? Well, no. Instead, we cut between the three dates as the ladies react 'comically' to things their partners say. Hit the punchline, and cut to the next limp joke. If in doubt, have Marilyn walk into a wall. Where's Billy Wilder when you need him?<br /><br />The three stars are almost a perfect diagram of the life cycle of the classic Hollywood screen goddess. This was one of Marilyn Monroe's breakout films, and the camera just eats her up, even though the script gives her nothing to do. She's so luminescent she almost seems newly hatched. Lauren Bacall, on the other hand, had been a major star for nearly a full decade, and she knows how to dominate the screen even when in frame with Monroe. She gets the only thing passing for a real role, and delivers the few good lines with a cynical snap - given the right material, she could have brought this thing to life. She's a curiously ageless actress - when she lies about her age in the film and claims to be forty, it isn't instantly ridiculous - and far less girlish than her co-stars, giving her a convincing authority. Betty Grable was far from ageless, and had a good eight years on her co-stars, putting her near the end of her Hollywood career. There's an air of desperation about her at times, stranded on screen with nothing but a toothpaste smile and a few scraps of comic timing, unable to play her real age but fooling no-one as a contemporary of this new, sharper generation of actresses, relying on the same old schtick that had served her throughout her career (for Marilyn-doubters, seeing the two juxtaposed in this movie helps to throw Monroe's subtlety and - yes - intelligence into sharp relief). She's also lumbered with the dead wood in terms of male co-stars (although all of the men - even the great William Powell - are guilty of lazy performances); she's unable to strike any comic sparks off them. Better to have given her role to the under-utilised Monroe, who could be funny all by herself, and left Grable with the repetitive Mr. Magoo routine.<br /><br />That the movie is as enjoyable as it is can be put down to the luscious Hollywood production, the sort that renders even the twee likes of 'By the Light of the Silvery Moon' watchable. But somewhere, buried beneath the flabby jokes and professionalism, lies the rough outline of a sharp, cynical comedy about the business of marriage that Bacall could have made sing - and new generations of movie viewers will sit down with 'How to Marry a Millionaire' in expectation of that movie, ready to be disappointed all over again. | 0 |
I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it... | 1 |
The only good thing that this movie created was that it made me hungry for ice cream, minus the dead body parts in it. The movie is one of the most cheesy I've seen in a long time. When the "Ice Cream King" dies in the beginning, I was laughing so hard because the kid took the ice cream from him and started eating it. His mom asked him to say something and should should have said "Leave me alone and let me eat the free ice cream so I can watch my acting career go down the drain at a young age." That seems about right for a line. Then I wondered why the ice cream prince was behind the bars of his ice cream truck. Was someone going to rob him of his twenty cents? I've never seen bars on a ice cream truck window. It seemed pretty stupid. You might as well forget about the acting because it is just awful. Forget about this movie and go down to dairy queen and get an ice cream. | 0 |
I just watched this, an early Harold Lloyd short film that featured his "glasses" character on Kino Video's DVD of "The Harold Lloyd Collection". He's actually a con man with Snub Pollard as his partner who gets discovered by Bebe Daniels who herself performs fake séances. What she discovers is that Lloyd and Pollard bilk many customers by dropping fake rings that are "lost". I'll stop there and just say this was quite funny especially when Harold and Snub enter the place Bebe works and encounter some creepy contraptions and put on costumes like Snub trying one of Bebe's outfits. Not too much slapstick but what there is of was also quite funny. So on that note, I recommend Are Crooks Dishonest? | 1 |
Cool action - yeah the premise has been done - but not this way - that's the trick. hey folks - SHOCK - it's an X-File.<br /><br />To me - it's cool that Scully/Mulder have almost no scenes together -- they have to adapt, rely on each other's intrinsic sense about what's really going on - and each other's adaptation skills. They read into each other's moves and get the job done.... (sort of).<br /><br />Oh yeah --- really good acting -- do these people get paid to do this? Or- a slow day when the convenience store doesn't call them into work. (hey - Duchovny - where's the day-old donuts?? Malcolm - get to school...) | 1 |
Contains Spoilers<br /><br />This is a Peter Watkins film. If one has seen his BBC masterpieces "Cullodden" and "The War Game", one will recognize the style (and his voice) within seconds after the start. Made in 1971 it is set in a very near future, when the Vietnam war has escalated even more and now seems to involve China. Nixon is still president and civil disobedience and protest is dealt with violently using drumhead tribunals (outwardly civilian with 'everyday citizens' as judges). Because "prison building can't keep up", an alternative is introduced: The Punishment Park. Delinquents can choose between severe prison sentences and a man hunt in a hostile environment, in this case a 85 km trip through the Californian desert at 100°F. If they reach an American flag at the end without being caught by National Guard or Riot Police, they will be set free, or else they have to serve their sentence (or be dead, as we will see). The film is made in a completely documentary style with three European teams covering a tribunal and the course of two groups already sentenced. Scenes jump between the tribunal tent, the hunting troops and the hunted condemned. Watkin's scarce off commentary gives us raw background information (time, temperature etc.). The tribunal scenes show a kangaroo court on the one side and a wide range of personalities on the other ranging from real terrorists over 'undesirables' to clearly innocents (e.g. a total pacifist who can't even hurt flies). The defense lawyer (who does take his job seriously) has to take abuse from both sides. What makes these scenes especially eerie is their resemblance to the rhetoric of todays administration to the detail. Meanwhile, some unfortunate events in the desert make clear that the 'rules of the game' don't really apply. The question remains open, whether it is rigged from the start or arbitrariness by the troops due to those events that leads to the outcome (I suspect, it is both). At the end we are back at square one with the next group going to "Punishment Park". This description may indicate a heavily biased (or even demagogic) propaganda movie but that would be misleading. The behavior (all participants were nonprofessionals as usual with Watkins) looks and sounds real (the tribunal scenes may even contain text material from real contemporary trials). I'd say that this could be sold as the 'real thing' without problem. With Watkins's "The Forgotten Faces" the reaction was "We can't send that or nobody will believe our real newsreels anymore (because this is indistinguishable from the real thing)". With "Punishment Park" it ought to be the same. Effectively banned in the US as far as I know this is a must see that hasn't lost its power or its relevance (especially today). | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.