text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />A Roger Corman "American International" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fiancée. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.<br /><br />*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson | 0 |
This is the kind of movie that people of a certain age will say of "I didn't think they made movies like that anymore". Walter Matthau gives his usual over-the-top performance, but instead of leaving teeth marks all over the scenery, leaves endearing grease stains. He is like that great uncle we all know that still wears plaid polyester and embarrasses everyone, but we still love anyway.<br /><br />Jack Lemmon's performance reminds us why he had more Golden Globe nominations than anyone else (22). He gives a true-to-life performance of the basically 'good, ordinary man', even in the milieu of a farce.<br /><br />This film will probably not appeal to people who prefer blunt humor designed to confront or offend, but will appeal to people who appreciate broad farce played with a straight face.<br /><br />The entire supporting cast is excellent in their ability to play such absurd characters while maintaining the reality of each character.<br /><br />Brent Spiner gives a marvelous performance as a professional version of a lounge lizard. Anyone who has known professional hosts in real life will immediately recognize the type he is playing. He nails the type perfectly. His rendition of 'slime' merits study as a perfect example of the contrast between absurd and pathetic.<br /><br />The plot is rather a straight-forward 'let's marry rich' theme that has the usual results. Just because a plot theme has been done a thousand times does not mean that it is dated, but rather that it is a timeless theme.<br /><br />The rest of the supporting cast shows what can happen when professionals exhibit their skills in the roles that are written for them, instead of vying for the spotlight. In this film even the second tier actors shine. It is also obvious that they enjoyed making this film.<br /><br />The plot may be standard and thin, but it allows the performers to shine.<br /><br />This film is a true treat for people who want to see professional actors engaging in their craft. The plot falls away and the performers shine. | 1 |
"With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?" Mia<br /><br />A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.<br /><br />You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and "tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.<br /><br />The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.<br /><br />There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, "Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot." | 1 |
The Ghost Train is a treat to those who appreciate the typical 1940's humour. It incorporates World War Two into the plot but not as much as I initially believed it would, and the characters are a unique blend who play their roles fairly well. Askey, playing the role of Tommy Gander, is what brightens the story up for the parts which could of been portrayed as boring or "dragging".<br /><br />The story of the haunted station is actually spooky even for present day standards. It is unique and the way the characters communicate with each is fantastic to liven up the mystery which is The Ghost Train. Gander is basically a nuisance to all the other members while the rest get along fairly well. He is always centre of attention and can be dubbed as being "annoying" but that is by those who do not appreciate 1940's humour. His humour is innocent and childish which makes it sweet to watch.<br /><br />If it was not for Askey/Gander, than this film would of been shorter in action, enjoyment and the result would be not as effective in my opinion. | 1 |
This is a great movie, I did the play a while ago. It had an extra zing-- to it. I loved Vanessa Williams as Rosey, and also Jason Alexander has a good voice. It was great. The setting were also very good. Except the fact that it is 2 hours and 50 minutes, makes it pretty long. Overall I give it 8.5 stars. They also added a few parts, but it was still cool. | 1 |
I picked this up because, having spent time in the Albany region of New York, I knew a couple of people in the movie and I happened upon it by chance. The attempts at comedy are lame, the compulsory girl-on-girl scene is sickening, the plot is nonexistent, the acting is among the worst I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on special effects. I realize this is a very low budget film made by a small independent company, but if you're going to do a sci-fi horror flick with giant bugs, don't make the giant bugs completely unbelievable. People want to see giant bugs. That's half the fun right there. And if you're going to make the giant bugs completely unbelievable, at least get the actors to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek allusion to that fact ("You idiots! These aren't them! You've captured their stunt doubles!"). Be prepared to waste two hours of your life that you'll never be able to get back. | 0 |
This is a pretty simplistic romance. Girl finds boy, girl loves boy, girl loses boy, girl finds boy. Colleen Moore is the outstanding ingredient in this recipe, delivering a wonderfully varied dramatic/romantic performance, well deserving of an Oscar nom. Equally fine are the aerial combat special effects.<br /><br />Moore plays a French girl whose mother has turned over their field to a British aerial squadron during WWI. She is the "daughter of the regiment", loved as a little sister. Into this mix comes a fill-in for a downed flyer, Gary Cooper. At first they hate each other, then they love each other, then the entire squadron is sent out on a suicide mission. Cooper returns but crashes in the village and a red cross unit removes him. Moore searches for him, is told at a hospital he is dead, then wanders the streets until he calls from a hospital window and they are reunited.<br /><br />It's a nice little romance, but hardly more than that. Recommended for fans of Ms. Moore and Mr. Cooper | 0 |
First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.<br /><br />I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.<br /><br />If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day. | 0 |
When I first saw the trailer for this film, I really wanted to see it. I thought some of the director's other works were quite good, but I must say I was disappointed. The plot involves a young woman, who lives with a widowed father and two his two sons. They move into a well-guarded community, yet all is not as it seems; a sort of Twin Peaks. The woman begins to see, or not see, things an people. During the first reel, I had a hypothesis, and thought, "this can't be the whole reason?" Well, the ending lived up, or better DOWN, and gave us what I felt was a truly weak final act. The sound mixing and quality is excellent. Saw it in a THX Certified Theatre, and was impressed.. by the audio, and only the audio. The picture is missing substance. | 0 |
I just don't know how this stupid, crap, junk, garbage & good for nothing film is a blockbuster. It was so boring with a very, very weak (or no) story-line and wasn't even a jot funny. The film was about 135 minutes of only a paragraph of story about Prem (Salman Khan) is a love guru and is helping hapless & romantic Bhaskar (Govinda) to get the girl he wants. I'm not saying that I didn't like the film because it wasn't funny or anything, I will accept a movie that is not funny but has a decent story. The only two reasons why I can say it's a super-hit are: <br /><br />1. Salman Khan & Govinda are on-screen together but there first time together was in Salaam e Ishq which was a flop so it can't be. But it was a really good movie.<br /><br />2. Salman Khan's name is Prem and all the films with that name have been a hit including Maine Pyar Kiya. So it's just luck.<br /><br />I heard that it's a remake of Hitch, I've not seen it & I'm glad I didn't. Music is OK the only good songs are Do you want a partner, You're my love & Soni De Nakhre but what is the use of it in a really bad film, that too, if you have someone like Katrina Kaif who dances with two left feet? She is completely crap. Neither she knows acting, language (her voice is always dubbed for her), dance and always fails to impress. I do not like her one bit she was even disappointing in Koffee with Karan. Overall Partner is a disposable film with a disposable actress Katrina Kaif. Its better off that she is kicked out of Bollywood and never comes back again. | 0 |
This movie is so bad, it can only be compared to the all-time worst "comedy": Police Academy 7. No laughs throughout the movie. Do something worthwhile, anything really. Just don't waste your time on this garbage. | 0 |
If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage. | 0 |
For some reason, this film has never turned up in its original language in my neck of the woods (despite owning the TCM UK Cable channel, which broadcasts scores of MGM titles week in week out). More disappointingly, it's still M.I.A. on DVD even from Warners' recently-announced "Western Classics Collection" Box Set (which does include 3 other Robert Taylor genre efforts); maybe, they're saving it for an eventual "Signature Collection" devoted to this stalwart of MGM, which may be coming next year in time for the 40th anniversary of his passing
<br /><br />I say this because the film allows him a rare villainous role as a selfish Westerner with a fanatical hatred of Indians and who opts to exploit his expert marksmanship by making some easy money hunting buffaloes; an opening statement offers the alarming statistic that the population of this species was reduced from 60,000,000 to 3,000 in the space of just 30 years! As an associate, Taylor picks on former professional of the trade Stewart Granger who rallies alcoholic, peg-legged Lloyd Nolan (who continually taunts the irascible and vindictive Taylor) and teenage half-breed Russ Tamblyn to this end. As expected, the company's relationship is a shaky one reminiscent of that at the centre of Anthony Mann's THE NAKED SPUR (1953), another bleak open-air MGM Western. The film, in fact, ably approximates the flavor and toughness of Mann's work in this field (despite being writer/director Brooks' first of just a handful of such outings but which, cumulatively, exhibited a remarkable diversity); here, too, the narrative throws in a female presence (Debra Paget, also a half-breed) to be contended between the two rugged leads and Granger, like the James Stewart of THE NAKED SPUR, returns to his job only grudgingly (his remorse at having to kill buffaloes for mere sport and profit is effectively realized).<br /><br />The latter also suffers in seeing Taylor take Paget for himself she bravely but coldly endures his approaches, while secretly craving for Granger and lets out his frustration on the locals at a bar while drunk! Taylor, himself, doesn't come out unscathed from the deal: like the protagonist of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948), he becomes diffident and jealous of his associates, especially with respect to a rare and, therefore, precious hide of a white buffalo they've caught; he even goes buffalo-crazy at one point (as Nolan had predicted), becoming deluded into taking the rumble of thunder for the hooves of an approaching mass of the species! The hunting scenes themselves are impressive buffaloes stampeding, tumbling to the ground when hit, the endless line-up of the day's catch, and the carcasses which subsequently infest the meadows. The film's atypical but memorable denouement, then, is justly famous: with Winter in full swing, a now-paranoid Taylor out for Granger's blood lies in wait outside a cave (in which the latter and Paget have taken refuge) to shoot him; when Granger emerges the next morning, he discovers Taylor in a hunched position frozen to death! <br /><br />Incidentally, my father owns a copy of the hefty source novel of this (by Milton Lott) from the time of the film's original release: actually, he has collected a vast number of such editions it is, after all, a practice still in vogue where a book is re-issued to promote its cinematic adaptation. Likewise for the record, Taylor and Granger who work very well off each other here had already been teamed (as sibling whale hunters!) in the seafaring adventure ALL THE BROTHERS WERE VALIANT (1953)
which, curiously enough, is just as difficult to see (in fact, even more so, considering that it's not even been shown on Italian TV for what seems like ages)!! | 1 |
I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's "The Odyssey." Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.<br /><br />At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality. | 0 |
The movie, which was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, was brilliantly made. It starts with a family of three, a doctor (James Stewart), his wife (Doris Day)- who is a former stage singer, and their young son- my guess is about 10 years old, who are traveling through Morroco for leisure. On the bus, the bump into a French government agent, and they are a little too nice to him. He is killed at the marketplace after finding out the information he sought. He wants to carry this information out to someone, so he goes to the only person he, even slightly, knows: James Stewart. The antagonists kidnap their young boy and say if he tells anything about what the agent told him, his son would be killed. Stewart has to travel to London, because that is where his son is, and where the assasination that the agent told him about would be. The movie is very suspenseful. There are many twists and turns (typical Hitchcock movie). Also, it has just the right amount of comic relief. In addition to all of that, it won an Oscar for Doris Day's performance of "Que sara, sara." This movie is very good. It is hard to find a problem about it. I would certainly reccomend it to all Hitchcock fans and all suspense fans. I give this movie an "A-" only because it is a little bit predictable. | 1 |
If you like horror movies with lots of blood and gore, tons of jump-scare moments and unrelenting, escalating scenes of excruciating death, then look elsewhere. If you like quiet, moody, thoughtful horror which casts blood aside in favor of a genuine feeling of dread, then Wendigo is for you.<br /><br />Thoughtful, stressed out George, his psychoanalyst wife Kim and their young son Miles are heading out to the snowy countryside for a long weekend vacation away from the city. On the way up, George hits a stag with his car. The hunters who had been pursuing the deer are not thrilled when they find that George has ended their chase. In particular, deranged hunter Otis takes it personally. He follows the family to their vacation home, making sure they see him. He spies on George and Kim as they have sex. He fires through their windows with his rifle when they aren't home, letting them discover the ominous holes in their windows and walls when they return. When Kim takes Miles to the drugstore in town, Miles is attracted to a small sculpture in a display case, carved to resemble a man with the head of a stag. A Native American man tells Miles that this is the Wendigo, a spirit of the woods who has a taste for flesh and is always hungry. Miles takes the figure home with him, already haunted by the death of the deer the day before. That afternoon, when he and his father go sledding, George is shot and Miles pursued through the woods by a creature barely glimpsed...or is he just in shock, and imagining the whole thing? Hours later, George is rushed to the hospital and Miles, still clutching his statue, either faints, dreams or goes on a vision quest, in which the Wendigo returns. This time the angry, flesh eating god - part tree, part stag and part man - is hunting for Otis, who has finally gone over the edge.<br /><br />Wendigo is a beautifully made film, almost totally silent but for the wind howling through the snow covered trees. Okay, so the monster itself is kind of fakey-looking, but it's a small flaw, more than made up for by the genuine feeling of tension and dread that creeps through every frame of the film, and the eerie backdrop of the silent, snowy countryside. The performances are great, particularly by Jake Weber as the moody and thoughtful George and Patricia Clarkson as his sweet but no-nonsense wife. They are a happy couple with their share of common problems, and it is the strength of their relationship and their love for each other that makes this film powerful. Watching this film is often like watching someone's home videos, so realistic are the performances. <br /><br />This movie is not for everyone. A lot of people may find themselves totally bored, waiting for the hideous Lovecraftian Beast and bloody revenge that never come. We can never really be sure if the Wendigo even exists, seen as it is through the eyes of a sensitive child and also, later, through the eyes of a madman. This is more a psychological drama than a horror film, but it has more than enough creepy elements in it to satisfy fans of subtle horror. | 1 |
Since Siskel's death and Ebert's absence the show has been left in the incapable hands of Richard Roeper. Roeper is not a film critic he just criticizes anything he doesn't like personally i.e. films with country music get panned because "I don't like country music!" and children's movies get a standard "Don't see it now, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it for your kids!" Roeper may well be an idiot savant, but in some other field. The weekly guests 'sitting-in' for Ebert fare better, but who wants to pick a daisy in the midst of a cow pat? All that said, it IS the only show in town and that alone makes it worth watching. As for Roger Ebert, if Stephen Hawking can talk, so can you! It's your mind and thoughts we long for. Do whatever is necessary to get that usurper off his self-declared throne. | 1 |
This one is considered a key Pre-Code film from the director who later made the musical biopic THE JOLSON STORY (1946), but also the paranoid sci-fi INVASION U.S.A. (1952)! and features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best early roles.<br /><br />She's supported by a fine cast which includes popular actors and valued character performers of the day George Brent, Douglass Dumbrille, Edward van Sloan, Nat Pendleton and John Wayne (at one point addressing Stanwyck with the titular nickname, derived from a popular song which is heard constantly throughout) in the former category and, in the latter, Robert Barrat (as Stanwyck's father), Donald Cook (as her most tragic conquest), Alphonse Ethier (as her elderly mentor more on this later), Arthur Hohl (as a lecherous politician) and Henry Kolker (as Cook's boss and father-in-law, whom Stanwyck also seduces). Curiously, scenes in which Walter Brennan appeared were subsequently deleted at his own request when the film ran into trouble with the censors!<br /><br />Abetted by crackling i.e. typically hard-boiled dialogue and realistic Anton Grot sets, the narrative contains unexpected overtones of Nietzschean philosophy fed to our small-town heroine by the intellectual Ethier (Stanwyck complains to him early on that she's no "ball of fire" which, of course, contradicts her later comedy directed by Howard Hawks and co-starring Gary Cooper of that name!). Under Ethier's auspices, she quickly blooms into an essentially heartless character determined that nothing shall stand in her path to success; the symbolic depiction of her rise in stature at the New York firm she's eventually employed with is reminiscent of a similarly sardonic one relating to an ambitious statesman's lust for power in Sergei Eisenstein's October (1927)! Sociologically, it's also interesting that Stanwyck is constantly seen sticking her neck out for her black maid/companion.<br /><br />The first two-thirds of the film are simply terrific; at first, I found the latter stages somewhat disappointing because I was expecting to see Stanwyck get her comeuppance by falling for the belatedly-introduced George Brent character while he ignores her
but, just like the others, he's soon under her spell! On second viewing, however, this aspect felt less jarring as it's evident that Stanwyck has been affected by the two deaths her selfish behavior has caused, and that her tenure in Paris has softened her (even if she tries to cling to her hard-earned wealth for as long as it's possible).<br /><br />Released on DVD by Warners as part of their FORBIDDEN Hollywood VOLUME 1 COLLECTION, the film is presented in two strikingly different edits a recently unearthed Pre-Release version and the tamer Theatrical Release print. Among the considerable footage cut from the latter is dialogue pertaining to Stanwyck's life as a tramp from the age of 14 (though it's heard in the accompanying trailer!), while many other scenes have been shortened (i.e. censored for content): the violent fisticuff which develops between Stanwyck and Hohl after she resists his advances; the seduction at the railroad car; the scene in which Dumbrille is surprised with Stanwyck by Cook; the shooting, followed by a suicide (only shots are heard in the shorter version); Stanwyck thinking about her conquests while the phonograph is playing (again, only Brent appears in the version released to theaters), etc. Tha latter, then, utilizes alternate takes for some scenes and includes an establishing shot of the city which is missing from the longer version; however, we also get an obviously tacked-on happy ending (the Pre-Release version concludes abruptly on a very effective open-ended note) and an equally unconvincing cautionary letter sent by Ethier to Stanwyck in New York which, basically, has the function of substituting all references to Nietzsche! | 1 |
I must admit, I didn't expect this to be as good as it was. I also didn't expect Samuel L. Jackson to play slide and sing blue either.<br /><br />Cinemark of Beaver County PA does this frequently. They advertise movies in the lobby, get you all excited about seeing it, and then disappoint you by not showing it...<br /><br />I Expected that with such a great cast of Jackson and Ricci and even a former N'Syncer (Timberlake), that this movie would at least have shown for a week. But nay, at that time if I remember correctly MI3 was showing on 3 screens (that or some other type of supposed blockbuster).<br /><br />Like Blues Brothers, and Crossroads, this movie incorporates the mystic and legend of what blues music is all about. Passion, and hard times. Religion and Sex. Hell Hounds of the past. Redemption. I mean so many elements go into the blues to make it work.<br /><br />This was just a good all around story. Of course, not many people will see it cause it doesn't have pirates or swinging spiders. But it does have Samuel L. Jackson...<br /><br />Think of what happens to Jacksons character from Pulp Fiction after he walks the earth and settles down and that essentially describes him to a "T".<br /><br />Great and underrated, but aren't all the good ones like that anyway? | 1 |
Brain of Blood starts as Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley) the leader of a country called Kahlid is close to death because of cancer, however if he dies Kahlid will tear itself apart without anyone to lead them so doctor Robert Nigserian (Grant Williams) & one of Amir's devotees Mohammed (Zandor Vorkov) have devised a plan to take Amir's dead body to America where mad scientist Dr. Lloyd Trenton (Kent Taylor) will transplant his brain into a fresh body & with a bit of plastic surgery no-one will ever know he was even dead. Things don't go according to plan though as when the time comes to transplant Amir's brain Trenton's freak assistant Gor (John Bloom) brings a dead body of someone that fell from a balcony, Trenton needed a strong fit living body & since there's no more time he decides to use Gor's body as a temporary stop-gap until another more suitable one can be found. Unfortunately when Amir wakes up in his new body he's not very happy at what he sees, I mean would you be if you found out your brain was inside a badly burned freak?<br /><br />Also known as Brain Damage, The Brain, The Creature's Revenege & The Undying Brain this cheapo exploitation flick was produced & directed by the one & only Al Adamason & quite frankly I'm offended at the pathetic 1.5 rating Brain of Blood has on the IMDb, personally I think it's terrific fun in a so bad it's good sort of way. The highly entertaining script by Kane W. Lynn & Joe Van Rodgers is as loopy & silly as they come from sloppy blood soaked brain transplants to crazed mad scientists, from 7 foot tall acid scarred freaks who play with toy cars to 4 foot tall midget medical assistant's, from basement dungeons to rooftop chases, from car crashes to assassination's, kidnaps to screaming scantily clad women, from Regina Carrol's hair-do which should get it's own mention during the opening credits to teenage girls imprisoned in the basement for blood to a laugh-out-loud hilarious ending which includes some deep meaningful speech! It's all here & Brain of Blood has quality cheese stamped all over it, if your a fan of bad low budget exploitation flicks with a sense of fun then this film should be right at the top of your list of 'must see' films. Despite it's lowly 1.5 rating I am proud to admit that I liked Brain of Blood a lot, I thought it was an absolute hoot to watch, it slows down a bit at the end with a few too many shots of people wandering around doing nothing in particular but until that point it had moved along like a rocket, at only 85 minutes it's relatively short, it's difficult to second guess the barmy plot & I just think it's loads of campy fun.<br /><br />This is director Adamson's masterpiece as far as I'm concerned along with Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971) which he made a year before this. Those who have seen an Adamson film before will know about the none existent production values, cheap special effects & cardboard sets & that all adds to the fun, this film manages that fine between incompetence & seriousness to create a memorable viewing experience. I love the opening shot of Kahlid which is obviously just a photo of the Taj Mahal in India complete with statuesque people in the foreground! Regina Carrol's hair seems to be a separate entity on it's own, it seems to change styles between shots & is frankly horrendous, don't get me started about her make-up job either that she must apply with a a paint sprayer! There is another hilarious moment when we see Amir's body has been transported to America wrapped in what looks like ordinary tin foil, why is the question I asked myself, why!? The effects are variable, there's a terrible looking fake spider, Gor's burned make-up job is pretty bad although there is a surprisingly gory brain removal which is actually quite impressive.<br /><br />The budget for Brain of Blood must have been practically none existent, I must admit I thought Trenton's lab was quite good with various computers & medical instruments although the rest of the film looks cheap & nasty. The production values are low, the music was taken from another film Beast of Blood (1971) & the acting is awful but in a campy fun sort of way.<br /><br />Brain of Blood may have the best title for an exploitation film ever & as far as I'm concerned it's a highly entertaining piece of nonsense that I had a great time watching & laughing at. They just don't/can't/won't make them like this anymore, impossible to recommend to anyone looking for a good film but bad movie lovers should enjoy it. I liked it, but then again I'm just weird. | 1 |
I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence. <br /><br />In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.<br /><br />John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.<br /><br />We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.<br /><br />After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.<br /><br />One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.<br /><br />I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else. | 0 |
What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, "prison mating ritual" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding "Ben Gazzara," introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later. | 0 |
I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.<br /><br />Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.<br /><br />The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.<br /><br />Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.<br /><br />The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film. | 1 |
this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today. | 1 |
This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends. | 1 |
If this film was just outrageously poor would be fine, the problem is many take it seriously. To make it short, a few points: <br /><br />- There is no story, no focus, no lead whatsoever and all the questions raised fail to find an answer. Overall, the film is extremely repetitive and boring (I have been in war-torn African countries several times and found all the lingering on local misery and hopelessness very painful to watch but still having no sense).<br /><br />- Questions raised are pure manipulation and the truth is that they are no questions but statements.<br /><br />- I am no doc filmmaker, but what's the point in raising, for example, the question of weapon smuggling, if the only element brought to the audience is a local reporter's statement? The director doesn't even bother showing us at least a sequence where he would be waiting near the airport trying to spot heavily loaded trucks leaving the area right after a plane landed.<br /><br />- The story of the fish takes up less than 5 mn, and is only supported by a sequence where the director films a documentary shown during a local conference. Did this guy do any work at all???? <br /><br />- Abject poverty is shown all the time in endless sequences but where's the point? One can go almost anywhere in Africa with a hand cam and shoot the same images unfortunately. Where's the big news? <br /><br />- Filming the prostitutes watching and crying over images of their assassinated friend and fellow prostitute is worth the worst emotional manipulations one can see these days on thrash and real TV.<br /><br />- The parallel drawn between the famine devastating the country with over two million starving and the exportation of fish is absolutely pointless, dishonest and makes no sense but to manipulate viewers in typically anti-globalization and anti-western feelings.<br /><br />There is an interesting debate in France after an academic published a very detailed comment on the film, which brought number of journalists working in Africa for decades to investigate a bit further about several details. It turns out that: <br /><br />- The fish waste shown drying in the sun and collected by some local people is not at all meant to be eaten by human beings but is collected to be exported for reasonably good money for animal-feeding purposes. I think I am not the only one having had the impression that the director suggested the exact opposite.<br /><br />- Arm smuggling is a reality (but there again, where's the big news??), but not the way this film explains the issue. If the empty planes landing in Mwanza do participate in smuggling, they actually unload their shipment in a different location in Africa, then go to Mwanza to pick up fish in order not to make the trip back empty (meaning that they do actually land empty in Mwanza...).<br /><br />- People do eat fish locally, contrary to what the film suggest (around 40-60% of what is taken out of the lake) and thousands of people make their living with it. Good for them! It's private business of that kind that will one day take African countries out of poverty and not western moaning and endless foreign assistance.<br /><br />I cannot tell how shocked I am seeing the success of this film! | 0 |
Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing. Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop. | 1 |
It's hard to believe that a movie this bad could actually be released. The dialog was unnatural. Especially poor was the portrayal of the relationship between the boy and his future step-father. I guess you could say that they succeeded in producing awkward dialog, but what was said seemed false and artificial. The suspense just wasn't there. The music was about as bad as it gets. The only reason I watched this movie was because I live in the Death Valley area and was curious about what locations would show up on the screen. Fortunately the movie was on TV and so I didn't waste any money renting this sorry excuse for a film! I honestly believe that most amateurs could put together a more captivating plot than was presented here. It's too bad that the time of an entire film crew was wasted on such trash! I guess the only positive thing I can say about the movie is that some of the scenery was good. | 0 |
This movie is basically about some girls in a Catholic school that end up getting into trouble because of putting red dye in one in one of their school mates shampoo and after being reprimanded for this act they decide to take off to Florida for a vacation. On their way there they meet up with some guys in a local diner and decide that they would both meet up with each other in another location later on. The girls end up on a road side near the woods and stop for awhile and while one of the girls decides to walk around a bit she sees a murder happen in which the local sheriff himself is involved. She becomes scared and runs to tell the others what happened. The other girls decide to go take a look with her and two of them get killed by the killer. Then the two remaining girls are caught by the killer and are placed in local jail cell. The deputy sheriff meanwhile is keeping watch over the girls and despite their insistence that the sheriff is the killer he ignores them both and acts as ignorant and everybody else in this movie who just can't put two and two together much less some lousy detective work at that. The best part was the rape scene between the killer and one of the girls where he decides to rape her in her jail cell and it seems that the girl actually WANTS to be raped by this man and the bare chest scene I admit was good but before their lips meet he has other things in mind. This movie reminds me of the low-budget thriller "Blood Song" with Frankie Avalon staring in it, the same motive just a different character part. It's not a movie worth renting not even for an 80's low-budget movie and the ending was the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie and it left me wanting my money back! | 0 |
This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least. | 0 |
In the past 5 years I have rented some bad movies...completely on purpose. See I aspire to be a movie reviewer, and as we all know there are horrible movies released every year. Anyway, about 3 months ago I rented this one. I watched it all the way through...and cried profusely. This is one of those movies that is so freakin bad it makes you want to puke. It actually put a sick feeling in my stomach. I've seen lots of bad movies (Mystery Science Theater 3000 anyone?) but this one takes the cake. The plot was hard to follow, the lighting horrible and the sounds almost inaudible. If there was a negative rating on the scale here this movie would be at -11 for me. This may seem odd, but I highly recommend it. It's something you have to see for yourself...but don't say I didn't warn you. I don't think this review could get any more precise so I'm done now.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I just love this show.It's so funny and cool.Kuzco is such a hilarious and interesting character, I love him.He's the thing that makes this show what it is, although Kronk and Yzma are so funny and charming too.Everything about this show is great for me, because it always manages to make me laugh, no matter if it's only once an episode.It's just so funny and all the characters are so lovable and cool, it makes the show worth the time to watch, unlike some crap on Disney channel.Give this show a try next time it's on, if you've seen the movie, and even if you haven't seen the movie, you'll find this to be very enjoyable anyway, so go ahead. | 1 |
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel. | 0 |
Why would Burt Lancaster allow himself to play a poor schnook who is ultimately undermined by femme fatale Anna Dundee, played by Yvonne DeCarlo in 'Criss Cross'? The same reason why Robert Mitchum allows himself to be cast as another loser who falls for femme fatale Faith Domergue in the 1950 noir, "Where Danger Lives". Perhaps they both felt it was a good way to show that they had 'range' as actorsthat playing against type, the usual 'tough-guy' role they were known for, would enhance their image as actors who could play any role. But the problem was that roles like Steve Thompson, the pathetic love-sick milquetoast in 'Criss Cross', did nothing to enhance Lancaster's career. Not only is Lancaster completely miscast in the one-note role of Thompson, but there's something inherently unlikeable (and may I say, pathetic) about the film's protagonist in the first place.<br /><br />'Criss Cross' is an interminably slow-moving film. Among the many unnecessary scenes in the film is at the beginning: the flashback which chronicles Thompson's confrontation with Dan Duryea's Dundee at the nightclub. Everything that occurs in that initial flashback is explained later in the picture: the illicit affair between Steve and Anna, Steve's strained relationship with Martinez the cop and his bad blood with Dundee. If Director Siodmark felt compelled to begin the film with a flashback, why not keep it under three minutes? I think it would have been more effective.<br /><br />In 'Criss Cross', it takes quite awhile before the protagonist commits himself and steps out of the 'ordinary' world of Act One. That's the scene where he's "passing by' and 'runs into' Anna at the nightclub. And notice how Siodmak spends so much time cutting back and forth between Anna dancing and Steve staring at her? In addition to the cross-cutting, he also spends a great deal of time focusing on Esy Morales and His Rhumba Band than moving the story along.<br /><br />Up until the crisis of Act Two, the story plods along with Thompson having various uneasy encounters with Anna and then drowning his sorrows at his usual watering hole. At the midpoint of Act Two, he learns that Anna has run off and gotten married to Dundee. It's becoming more clear at this point that one of the film's central weaknesses is that Dundee is never on screen throughout most of the second act. There are no confrontations between Thompson and Dundee during this time and we're left with the rather unexciting machinations between the two lovebirds. As it turns out (and Anna 'explains' this later to Steve), the reason why she left was not only because he disappeared for eight months but she also felt pressure from Steve's mother as well direct threats from Martinez the cop who implied that he would see to it that she ended up in the Women's House of Detention. Anna goes back to Steve because she realizes she made a big mistake with Dundeeit turns out that he's been beating her and she's now scared of him.<br /><br />One of the silly refrains uttered by more than one character in Criss Cross is that you can never hijack an armored car. But everyone acts so surprised when Steve points out it can be done if it's an 'inside job'! You would have thought that Dundee would have known about Steve's 'profession' as an armored car driver and propositioned him beforehand. But of course Steve needs to make the proposal so that Dundee won't kill him after discovering his affair with Anna (if they're so afraid at getting caught, why do Steve and Anna meet at his apartment where Dundee can so easily find them?). I really got a kick out of Finchley (played by Alan Napier), the 'brains' of the operation. Dundee is so dumb that he has to hire this alcoholic ex-professor type who plots out the heist on a map. Oh there is the matter of procuring the ingredients to construct the gas bombs used during the robbery and of course Finchley is good at that too!<br /><br />The only really well done scene in the entire film is the armored car robbery. The editing was quite good as it depicted the rising action of a heist gone bad. As the gas bombs go off, the brutality of the gang is shown in high relief when Dundee murders the innocent Armored Car Guard.<br /><br />The climax of the film is as drawn out as the rest of the film. Why does it take so long for one of Dundee's goons to kidnap Thompson? There's that nurse, then the goon is waiting outside, then he comes in and pretends that he's a friend, Steve falls asleep and finally after he awakes, the goon kidnaps him.<br /><br />When Steve finally meets up with Anna at the house, we wonder how Anna got her hands on the cash. Did she somehow steal it from Dundee after the heist when he went out to dinner? It's never explained. Even worse, Anna suddenly becomes the evil femme fatale out of the blue. Before, her selfishness and attraction to Dundee can be explained by her perceived rejection at the hands of Steve and Martinez's threats. But after going back to Steve because she fears Dundee, she inexplicably turns on him when he is most vulnerable. Just as there is 'instant coffee', you have 'instant femme fatale'.<br /><br />In "Film NoirAn Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style" by Silver and Ward, the authors hail 'Criss by Cross' as "one of the most tragic and compelling of film noir". I beg to differ. In order to have tragedy you need characters that have great depth and in order to be compelling you need a story that's plausible. Criss Cross has neither. It's an overrated "B Movie" that somehow has found itself in the pantheon of art house noirs. Once again, the herd mentality has triumphed in evaluating the pictures of yesteryear. | 0 |
Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy THE MOVIE is about dolls that come to life when the humans aren't around. In this adventure they must rescue a kidnapped french doll named Babette from the captain of pirates. On their way they journey though Deep Dark Woods, Taffy Pit, and even Looney Land. Will the aide of their new friend The Camel With Wrinkled Knees help them or just slow them down with his hallucinations of his friends leaving him? How will they escape the Kookoo king and his henchmen!? What will their owner Marcella say when she sees her 7th birthday present doll gone along with her other toys? Delightful surprises await the two adventurers.<br /><br />All scores are out of a possible 10: Story: 8 - Very cute. Dolls that come to life when the master isn't around. Not just that because they go out into many many different places, but they are in an imaginary world so anything can happen. Meeting new characters, going to different places finding new friends, its great. The characters all work so well in this too and who doesn't love pirates?! Acting: 8 - Every character suits their voice so well. Specifically the Marlon Brando taffy pit enemy, The Greed. The french doll has a very uptight french accent, the evil Hitler-esquire king Kookoo (whos got hair that resembles Simpson's Sideshow Bob) plays his role very well, and the sorrow old black man voice for Camel works perfectly. Why is it that old dubbed animation was soo much better than new ones? Music: 10 - Nothing short of perfection here. The songs have been in my head for years, and re-watching it nearly 20 years later, i can still remember each and every one of them and will now be able to know exactly where these tunes come from. Joe Raposo of "Sesame Street" fame did an excellent job with the songs for this and everyone sings real well.<br /><br />Editing: 6 - Heh, this is where it'll get confusing. I mean how far did the Raggedy's walk anyway? A lot of events just seem to occur one after another and there's no telling WHO the other dolls and toys were as you never see them in the real world of the movie, but it does follow some sort of path and you know they'll eventually get to where they need to go, its just pretty hard to follow at times.<br /><br />Uniqueness: 8 - Between this and Unico i'd have to say there's parts in both movies i will never forget no matter how hard i try to. Mainly the scary parts. I've probably mentioned already how older movies were Much creepier than animation of today but this takes the cake in the scary factor. Outside of the South Park movie and some Disney films there's almost no animated musicals, or good ones of that coming out so its very unique.<br /><br />Worth: 8- Its classic. Worth the hunt to get a good copy thats for sure, but the VHS copies are probably all stretched out by now. The DVD version is sold on Ebay all the time and it'll definitely be something you'll watch more than once. If anything get it for the nostalgia purposes.<br /><br />Overall Score (Not an average): 8 - Its a wonderful timeless musical made in the late 70s and can still be enjoyed today. Its characters are all unique and the songs are great. So great you might find yourself humming them time and time again. Give your favorite stuffed animal a hug today! Reviewer's Insight (Including bias): This isn't like the Raggedy Ann TV series made a decade later. This was way more darker and real world. The effects in this seem like a lot of other acid-trip cartoons from the 70's, in particular, Yellow Submarine. Still, its given me memories I'll never forget, and might still influence things today. It wasn't easy to find but it'll remain a treasure to keep in my collection of DVDs and videos forever. | 1 |
Others have harped here about James Stewart's age when playing Lindburg (he was 47 Linburg was twenty five.) But Stewart does not look his age and the film, for him was a dream come true. An actual pilot and a retired Air Force Reserve General at the end of his life, Stewart had the feel for the character and understanding of his passion, which other actors could not bring to the role. Added to the cast was co-star Murray Hamilton, who was also to be featured in "The F.B.I. story with Stewart) and such other well known character actors as Richard Deacon, of the later "Dick Van Dike Show" and Robert Cornthwaite of "The Thing from Another World" the 1951 Sci-Fi classic.<br /><br />Billy Wilder captures the flavor of the Lindburg Autobiography and the telling of what was to become a major event in the history of aviation. This story and film are a testament to the soul of determination and perseverance to realize a dream. A box office failure at the time of it's release, it has since become one of the great classics of American Film and another in a long line of outstanding performances by an actor that has been called America's Everyman. No student of film history should miss seeing this one. There have been over 500,000 films since the beginning of motion pictures, and this one belongs among the top 500. | 1 |
Rivalry between brothers leads to main story line. Navy Commander Chuck Prescott(Marshall Thompson)has developed the Y12 aircraft to test how far man can go up in the atmosphere. His brother, Lt. Dan Prescott(Bill Edwards), seems to be the best test pilot around and is chosen to go up in the Y12. Dan of course has a problem with taking orders and is also an over confident dare devil. <br /><br />On Dan's second flight, he hits over the 300 miles up comfort zone and his craft passes through a meteor dust storm. Returning to earth, Dan becomes a monster that resembles 200 pounds of bad asphalt. He also has a demanding craving for blood, whether it be from farm animals or fellow human beings.<br /><br />Short runtime of an hour and seventeen minutes; black & white with near stoic acting...typical of low budget sci-fi.<br /><br />Rounding out the cast is Marla Landi, Robert Ayers and Carl Jaffe. Noteworthy trivia: about two months after this film was released; the Russians put the real first man in space. | 0 |
Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here. | 0 |
There is nothing remotely scary about modern "horror" which is an insult to the word "horror". Freddie Vs Jason, the Scream movies, Cabin Trash, and especially Stephen King's infantile attempts - he's recycled every story from The Monkey's Paw to whatever, often in the same story - at horror in both writing and on film (except for Kubrick's version of The Shining which actually was scary, unlike King's books which are as frightening as my big toe - the left one, which still has the nail.<br /><br />But The Woman In Black is that rare modern film that will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. This is the way it should be done; the director creates tension, and the scariest ghost ever actually seen simply by having her suddenly turn up standing still somewhere or other with that incredible look on her face. Then he brings it all to a ghastly disturbing close. He's learned his lessons from the masters who knew how to make horror - Val Lewton (original Cat People) and Robert Wise (a Val Lewton disciple and director of the Haunting and The Body Snatcher), Jacques Tournier (another Val Lewton disciple who directed a truly horrifying zombie film, not the gross rubbish Raimi did (gross isn't scary, folks, it's just gross), and Lewis Allen (The Uninvited), and of course Jack Clayton's turn on Henry James The Innocents, and the way the master of suspense, Hitchcock, can still bring you to the edge of your seat even with a slow-building and burning period piece like Under Capricorn.<br /><br />TEN STARS... | 1 |
First I have to say that I really love Udo Kier and have always had respect for Armand Assante but nothing could save this train wreck of a movie. Udo does not even appear till much later in the movie and the acting from Everyone is just terrible. The script is all over the place, the dialog is wooden, the "action" is laughable and the plot could be summed up on a dirty cocktail napkin. I really wanted to find something redeeming in this movie but found myself holding my hands over my eyes, shaking my head and repeating over and over to myself, "Oh Udo.....why???....Why?????..". If you are a fan of Udo or Armand, please don't watch this movie. It will only make you sad for them. | 0 |
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.<br /><br />Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.<br /><br />Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.<br /><br />There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10. | 0 |
Yesterday was Earth Day (April 22, 2009) in the US and other countries, and I went to see the full-feature movie-version of "Earth" by DisneyNature. I guess, like the auto manufacturers, Disney is trying to convince us that they care about the planet. Maybe they really do care about the planet, I don't know, but I don't think it warrants a special unit with the word "nature" in it. I do know that my youngest daughter loves Mickey Mouse, and who am I to tell a one-year old my personal feelings about Disney? <br /><br />Aside from incredible cinematography, it was a typical Disney disappointment for me. Preceded by a half-dozen Disney movie trailers, rife with Disney cliché ("circle of life", "falling with style"), over-dramatic music, recycled footage (Disney claims "40% new footage"). I was even starting to think that James Earl Jones narration is getting a bit boring. I like James Earl Jones, but his work for Disney and Morgan Freeman doing every Warner Brothers narrative starts to wear thin. I really think that Disney bought some BBC nature photography that was so spectacularly done, they felt it would sell itself if they slapped some orchestral music and recognizable sound-bites on it.<br /><br />And what is Disney's obsession with showing predators chasing and killing baby animals? There were a half-dozen such scenes, complete with bleating youngsters on the verge of getting their throats ripped out. I think Disney needs to recognize that animals have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggles that appeal to the action-movie oriented teenagers that got dragged to this film by their parents. I was also cognizant of how Disney stopped well short of implying that man had anything to do with the climate change. Are they so afraid of the tiny minority of deniers that they think it's still a controversial subject? <br /><br />I recommend skipping this one and renting the Blue Planet DVDs on Netflix. Nature films seem to be best done by the British at the moment. | 0 |
I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend. | 0 |
In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The "wrestlers" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the "matches" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed. | 0 |
If, like me, you actively seek out the rarest and weirdest (and often most awful) that world cinema has to offer, then you should look no further than the supernatural horror output of Hong Kong in the early 80s. Often mixing bizarre black magic with kung fu and silly comedy, and usually packed with plenty of creepy crawlies (snakes, worms, eels, centipedes etc.), these movies are about as bizarre as it gets.<br /><br />Succubare is definitely a case in point: featuring a mountain tribe whose women keep their men from straying by casting nasty spells over them (that, should they leave, cause them to fill up with writhing creatures and die an agonising death), some so-so martial arts, and lots of real life animal killing (much of which is perpetrated by a geek who has absolutely no bearing on the story), this film is just plain strange.<br /><br />A prolonged scene in which the tribeswomen hunt for snakes and insects, casually throwing the creatures into the baskets on their backs, is quite fascinating; a tribal feast that sees a poor ox bashed on the head and then torn apart is totally disgusting; and the moments that show worms crawling in open wounds and being vomited onto the floor will have the squeamish losing their appetite for a while.<br /><br />However, it's the live animal munching that really qualifies Succubare for legendary status amongst fans of out-there movie-making. It's thoroughly vile to watch and yet strangely compelling: the geek chomps on a snake, woofs down a fat, juicy toad (nasty!), and hungrily devours a mouse (biting off its head and then shoving the rest in afterwards).<br /><br />Not a great movie (hell, it's not really even a mediocre movie), Succubare is recommended only to people who think they've seen it all. This one gets 4 out of 10 from me, which is probably more than it deserves, but I begrudgingly respect it for being able to make me feel slightly ill. | 0 |
I see that the majority of the comments so far have been if not overly positive, then at least positive. I can not understand that. The only explanation I can find is that the people who commented had something to do with the film, because this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It makes "Boggy Creek II" and "Mutant" look like masterpieces of horror. The acting is shaky at best, and awful for the most part. The entire movie is almost pitch black, probably so they could shoot it all in the same location. The monster looks like something from one of Roger Corman's worst films. And the plot...well, the less said about it the better.<br /><br />One to avoid at all costs. | 0 |
This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.<br /><br />On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.<br /><br />Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc. | 0 |
Guys and Dolls has to be one of my favorite musical movies ever. It is a very fun movie to watch and nothing more. it embodies what people have forgotten about musicals-musicals were made to entertain, not to to preach. Nowadays we have Rent and Chicago which are great musicals and good movies but they fail to bring us solid entertainment with no strings attached. The only thing that bothered me in the movie was Marlon Brando, the guy can't sing! It was very annoying to listen to him sing and talk when I couldn't understand him. If it weren't for Marlon I would have given this 10 stars. Guys and Dolls provides old-fashioned entertainment that we rarely get these days. Watch it to have a good time!! | 1 |
Oh my gosh! this was one of the best Sci-fi movies i have ever seen, and quite frankly i can't stand Sci-fi films.<br /><br />Vin Diesel and his co-workers made this movie really enjoyable!!<br /><br />I also must say that Vin diesel is by far the most sexiest and most talented male actors i have seen. Keep it up Vin! your doing great!! As for everyone else good job. i thought the drama and suspense kept the viewers really intrigued. again, great job everyone and i 'm rooting for you Vin.<br /><br />Sincerely yours, <br /><br />Alexandra | 1 |
I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting- though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of Cage's talent. | 1 |
I am glad I saw this film having seen some of the director's other films in the past. I thought the production values was great like the costumes and settings with the bridge. It was interesting to see how the concept of spirit and demons were handled.<br /><br />I do agree with some of the other comments about the fight scenes. They were hard to follow at times.<br /><br />Ultimately, a moral tale. It would be interesting to know what some Japanese viewers thought of the film. It is a film I would like to see again.<br /><br />Some scenes like the ones where Benkai and the Prince were fighting on a "psychic" level were well done.<br /><br />I did come out of the cinema thinking what has just happened here. Intense. | 1 |
What's the matter with you people? John Dahl? From "Rounders" and "Unforgettable"? TOO Quirky? Knocking emma Thompson and Alan Rickman for having fun playing against type? And somebody liked the Gingerbread Man?<br /><br />I rented this not knowing anything about it and found it about as nifty a video find as you can get. Never insulting, well thought out, funny, scary. I disagree with the naysayers, clearly. I thought the story itself was unremarkable but the great cast, which most likely means the director was paying attention, lifted it to super cool status. Good sound design also (much more appreciated in surround, but I'm not bragging). And yes, I'm a girl, so maybe it has a slight female slant (the guys in the gang are pretty worthwhile). All in all, a 9 and a hearty RECOMMEND. | 1 |
Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.<br /><br />The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. "BOONES! Hi, Bones" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky! <br /><br />The "Special" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.<br /><br />Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! "Capt. Life is Not A Dream" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.<br /><br />A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.<br /><br />Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.<br /><br />The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.<br /><br />The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat..... | 0 |
Mount Godwin-Austin (otherwise known as K2) is the world's second highest mountain, and if the evidence presented in this film is to be believed is the hardest mountain to climb successfully without getting yourself killed. "K2" is basically a buddy flick set in the breathtakingly dangerous world of mountaineering. While the outdoor photography takes in some truly awesome scenery, the characters standing in front of all those glorious landscapes are a crashing bore - and therein lies the fault with the whole film.<br /><br />Cocksure lawyer Taylor Brooks (Michael Biehn) and his quiet married friend Harold Jamieson (Matt Craven) spend their free time rock climbing. During one of their trips, they meet up with another bunch of climbers funded by wealthy mountain enthusiast Philip Claibourne (Raymond J. Barry). Claibourne's team are in training for a forthcoming shot at the infamous K2, a mountain that Taylor and Harold would both love to tackle but could never afford to do so. During their training run, however, two of Claibourne's team get themselves killed in an avalanche. Taylor and Harold put themselves forward as potential replacements. Despite initial reluctance, Claibourne gives them the nod of approval and the pair find themselves joining his team in the Himalayas. Harold's wife Cindy (Julia Nickson-Soul) is distraught that her husband is going to take on such a dangerous climb, especially since he has recently become a father. Tensions in the climbing team mount as Taylor repeatedly clashes with another member of the group, the equally brash and arrogant Dallas Woolf (Luca Bercovici). Meanwhile, Claibourne himself grows increasingly ill as altitude sickness takes its toll on his body. Will the guys reach the peak of K2, or is their quest destined to end in disappointment, or even death?<br /><br />"K2" spends an inordinately long time introducing its somewhat dislikeable characters. Biehn as a foul-mouthed, pushy, adventurous type is especially hard to like, as is Barry as the hard-nosed mountaineering millionaire. But on the other side of the coin, Craven is so dull that it becomes difficult to believe his wife could possibly give a damn about him going off to climb K2 - heck, she'd be better off if he never came back!! Rounding off the main characters is Bercovici, whose characterisation as Dallas Woolf is as campy and over-the-top as every other role he's ever played. The story itself is totally tame and disposable just a straightforward yarn about guys trying to reach the top of a mountain. There's a bit of male bonding thrown in, but the whole subplot about Harold and his wife amounts to nil, and the personality clashes between Taylor and Dallas ring totally false. "K2" scores its few merits solely from the stunning cinematography by Gabriel Berastain during the Himalayan sequences, the scale and awe of the mountains is quite nicely captured. I'm completely with critic Kim Newman on this one, who hilariously stated in Empire magazine: "On this evidence, climbing K2 can't be any harder than sitting through it!" Quite true, Kim, quite true! | 0 |
I went to see it 2 times this movie, a friend of mine went to see it at the release party, and he was telling me it was so great, that I was expecting very much about the movie, to mutch, I couldn't enjoy it because I was not watching it in nuteral position. The second time I knew what to expect and I enjoyed it more than the first time. After The second time I felt so in the mood to have a party. I LOVED the music it's just great.<br /><br />If Tom Barman improves his directing talent he will be a director where everyone will be talking about. If you can delivere this movie as your first you must be talented.<br /><br />The acting is done by some great belgian stars (Dirk roofthooft) and a bunch of upcomming talents like Titus De Voogdt.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I went into this film really wanting to like it - it headlined a film festival earlier in the year, and boasted an all-star cast. But (and you could tell there was a "but" coming) it's a failure of a film. Outstanding character acting by Sarandon and Walken is destroyed by editing and the antics of the supporting cast. Turturro's performance is lackluster, and most of the comedy is overplayed. The recurring puppet shows are pointless, and a few scenes are completely out of place.<br /><br />That said, there are some wonderful moments sprinkled in the film. A genuinely touching stage moment, several of the seductions, and a few of the comedic color actually work out. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the diffuse, incoherent script and some bad acting. | 0 |
This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.<br /><br />In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.<br /><br />In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.<br /><br />Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.<br /><br />The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.<br /><br />The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements. | 0 |
I saw this movie years ago on late night television. Back then it went by the title of "Stairway to Heaven". Even as a young boy, I remember being deeply moved by the story and astounded by the visual effects of the court trial (those who have seen it know what I'm talking about). Such imagination! A perfect blend of romance, drama, humour and fantasy, this movie is right up there with the greatest classics ever made: Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind. This movie is rated extremely high by IMDB voters and rightly so - over 51% voters rated it 10 out of 10; over 84% rated it 8 or higher out of 10. I was surprised it was not listed in the top 250 films until I realized so few have seen/rated this movie, compared to those on the list. What a pity. I hope this movie gets released on DVD for Region 1 (North America), so that 1), I can purchase it, and 2), others discover this hidden treasure. | 1 |
In short, the movie had a little bit of a weak 1st act with some forced acting and a somewhat disjointed rhythm and pacing, somewhat of a decent 2nd act that managed to build some tension and intrigue despite some inconsistent pacing and some inferior performances by the cast, and the 3rd act ... there virtually wasn't ANY 3rd act!<br /><br />Regarding the 3rd act, the movie just abruptly ends. There is no resolution and no path down from the climax of the 2nd act, so there wasn't much of a 3rd act. The bad guys die and that's that; the end credits roll. There is nothing to show what happens to the protagonist and the supporting characters and so on. The audience would've likely left the theater after the movie, asking "that's it?" A real letdown.<br /><br />Music was composed by David Bell which worked adequately enough to serve the film most of the time, but it's certainly nothing outstanding. It's just functional, but achieves this by being merely generic and derivative. It is also apparent that the score is VERY dated with the use of synthesized timpani for some of the percussion. What least impressed me about the score is that some moments of tension heralds music cues sounding like they were ripped off of James Horner from "48 HRS." and "Commando," particularly the brass.<br /><br />In all, the film had potential as the basic story itself is good, but the execution was lackluster with mediocre direction, weak acting, and somewhat inconsistent pacing.<br /><br />There was virtually no 3rd act to properly finish the story, and this omission is major and unforgivable as it doesn't allow the movie to end satisfactorily. This could either be the screenplay or, possibly, the production had to cut out filming or editing the 3rd act into the finished movie due to budget constraints (but I'm speculating as to why there isn't a 3rd act). Whatever the reason, the abrupt ending really hurts the movie overall. <br /><br />This is good for a view if you're curious and you can get the movie for VERY cheap as well as to learn the reason WHY you need to have the 3 acts (beginning, middle, end) if you write screenplays and make movies.<br /><br />Otherwise, you might not want to waste your time unless you can get the MST3K version to at least get some laughs out of it. | 0 |
When this movie was released, it spawned one of the all-time great capsule movie reviews: Sphinx Stinks. It does, but in a mesmerizing sort of way. The casting is silly, starting at the top: Frank Langella and Sir John Gielgud as Egyptians? Not enough makeup in Cairo for that, at least not while this film was being made. But it's rather amusing to see them try. The performances run the gamut from mummy-like (sorry, the obvious observation) to over-the-top, with very few stops in between. The Lesley-Anne Down character seems as though she couldn't find Egypt on a map, much less expound upon its archaeological treasures. That's due at least in part to some really bad writing, one of the curses that will be visited upon every viewer of this movie. It's my opinion that movies involving a curse or that draw their basis from a subject that is somewhat esoteric, such as Egyptology, are ripe for silly, overwritten dialogue. It doesn't disappoint, and the convergence proves a double-whammy. The plot has one driving source of dramatic tension: Can this get dumber and less believable? The answer is, usually, YES. The location shots are beautiful, and the set design is generally very good, the only consistent reminders that this wasn't some low-budget production. That and the fact that there are so many well-known faces doing service in such an unintentional laugher. Cheap, no; cheesy, yes. | 0 |
Oh, how I laughed during those first couple of scenes. This silly little film about an 11 year-old who carries a gun, steals cars, robs stores, burglars houses, extorts money from other kids, burns houses, shoots rats, buys drugs, distributes drugs to his mother and his friends, and then kills a guy. What a great comedy! But it wasn't intended to be a comedy. It was intended as a social drama. How can this be? The events in this film are absurd and ridiculous. The characters are all stereotypes right out of a 4 year-old's comic-strip-induced immature imagination. The dialog is laughable; people talk like morons. It's a very dumb film.<br /><br />The first scenes are indeed very funny, for all the wrong reasons. But the unintentional hilarity of the idiotic premise runs out after a short while, and after that the laughs come only rarely; by that time the viewer can't believe what he is seeing and is alternately amazed and bored by what follows (if he has at least half a brain cell).<br /><br />A short film, but feels like an eternity. The film actually IS a seriously-intended attempt to show the world of a young degenerate, while imitating movies vastly superior to it, like "Fun". There is just such an air of phoniness about everything; the kids, the adults, everyone lacks credibility both in their actions and dialog. The kid in the lead mugs his way through the film as though he had seen all the Jimmy Cagney movies at least a hundred times. And, typically enough, the kid isn't portrayed as a reservoir of evil, but, instead, as a misunderstood little artistic talent. But of course. Every young hooligan is misunderstood - society made him bad. Poor child.<br /><br />The film is embarrassing; a collection of stale, occasionally hilarious clichés put together to make a movie that lacks intelligence and meaning. The intellectual level of the film is zero. | 0 |
I don't honestly know what legal or illegal substance they - the writers - were on when the wrote this horrid piece of tripe!<br /><br />The cast - sucks The plot - sucks The editing - sucks The whole premise of the movie is that a girl with psychic/telekinetic powers comes across a lesbian vampire sorority, you just have to be totally out of your head to watch even 1 minute of this.<br /><br />The only reason I had to watch it - it was on the here! network as part of a two-picture purchase and the movie that came on after it was the real one that I wanted to see. I fast forwarded through the whole thing and was just amazed how stupid this movie was in double speed!<br /><br />Do not rent, buy, or watch this movie....the vampires in the movie don't suck as much as the overall movie and production does!<br /><br />If you want a good lesbian vampire movie - The Hunger with David Bowie, Susan Sarandon & Katharine Deneuve - excellent movie to watch/own/rent in place of this piece of pure sh*t | 0 |
I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:<br /><br />1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.<br /><br />2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays. <br /><br />3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.<br /><br />4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.<br /><br />Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.<br /><br />Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly. | 0 |
Although I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's latest "serious" performances ("The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon"), I've always thought his real genious lies in physical comedy. This is not to say he is a fantastic, talented actor: those bozos at the Academy Awards seem to dislike him so much, he has never had a (truly deserved) nomination or award. Well, any "institution" that nominates for 11 Oscars a bore such as "Titanic" shouldn't be taken seriously.<br /><br />On with the review. "The Grinch" is the sweetest, best looking, best acted, more enjoyable seasons film since "The Nightmare before Christmas". Both movies seem very similar, too, with their highly stylized sets and the premise of someone stealing Christmas. Both make their principal actors seem like the villains (one in a higher degree than the other), both pack a strong moral lesson, and both are truly enjoyable.<br /><br />That is, until you realize that Jack Skellington is a doll, and The Grinch is a human being. But a human being that is so incredibly expressive, so fluid in his movements, so cartoon-like, so unreal, that never gets in the way of the movie. He can be hilarious, he can be a sad soul, he can be angry. He lives in a 3-dimensional world, where 3-dimensional people live. He jokes, he laughs, he cries, and ultimately he saves the Christmas. I loved this film to bits, and cannot wait for it to come out on DVD. This is one of those films you will really enjoy 10, 20 years from now. As timeless as they come. | 1 |
... when this movie so well proves that they indeed are unnecessary.<br /><br />Although few lines, it was kind of weird to see this movie, no subs, in a language unknown. A friend of mine sent a VHS, included a few pieces of papers with all lines translated to English. with her translation next to me, I began watching this tale (it is indeed a tale), and from the very first tunes of the whistling melody during opening credits I was stuck. the colours, that minimal acting (well, in most cases), absurd comedy, slapstick, thoughtful, beautiful... along with a few other movies (Paris, Texas and Nenette et Boni), this one is able to speak to anyone's heart - without words. Whenever you get the chance, see it. Whatever you do - don't miss it. It's a once in a lifetime experience. Oh, acting is great, the soundtrack is brilliant, the story is simple and told a thousand times before - but rarely (never?) like this. | 1 |
'Steamboat Willie (1928)' is often erroneously touted as the first Mickey Mouse film, though that title actually goes to 'Plane Crazy (1928).' The source fuelling this common misconception is probably an episode of "The Simpsons," which places the origin of Itchy the Mouse in a 1928 short called 'Steamboat Itchy,' obviously a parody of this cartoon. Interestingly, 'Steamboat Willie' was itself a parody, spoofing the latest Buster Keaton release, 'Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928),' though the connection stretches little beyond the title and the general story setting. In this Walt Disney short, Mickey Mouse takes charge of a river steamboat, much to the annoyance of Captain Pete the cat, who spitefully casts him aside. But Mickey is not to be outdone in nastiness. Far removed from the pleasant, wholesome Mickey that more recent generations enjoyed, this little mouse cares only for numero uno, inflicting pain and displeasure on a series of farm animals in order to provide music for his own amusement.<br /><br />First there's the laughing parrot, which cops a bucket and a large potato to the head. Then a goat is cranked by the tail to provide music ("Turkey in the Straw") from a guitar it has swallowed. A cat is swung around by its tail, a goose throttled about the throat, and a piglet viciously booted. For a children's cartoon, 'Steamboat Willie,' directed by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks, certainly has some mean-spirited humour, though I also noticed similar elements (though not quite to this extent) in some later Disney shorts, like 'Gulliver Mickey (1934).' Let's not forget Minnie Mouse, of course, who suffers treatment for which she could today sue for sexual harassment! The jokes may be crude, and the animation perhaps even more so, but this cartoon delivers a bucket-full of laughs, and it's easy to see why this little rodent became one of the most beloved characters in cinema history. If you're a fan of Mickey Mouse, or Disney in general, this is one steamboat you can't afford to miss. | 1 |
Ok, I will make this review short and to the point for those people whose mental capacity is perfect for watching this movie. Everybody knows of Motion Picture Association of America's ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. For the purposes of this movie, I think the MPA should create a new rating standard: IQ-20. | 0 |
With the exception of the fine rack on Clara Evans...this show was pretty bad...so why did I watch it? Too much coffee, and had to relax before hitting the sack. Watching BB change into his lamest Big Chief outfit, was amusing at best, downright laughable at worst.<br /><br />I could have made a better Skeltor and special effects on my Dell.<br /><br />Boxlietner has seen better days, this guy is a year younger than me, and he's looking more and more like the Scarecrow from his TV series days back in the early 1980....the women eye candy need to go back to acting school, although Evans size 40 and playing a 17 year old(she's in her early 20s was a stretch)....the Sci-Fi Channel has done better that this...but for us folks that don't get out to the bars much anymore, I guess we have to take what we can get...after all anything that gets you away form CNN, MSNBC, and Fox coverage of Election 2008 these day is a good thing. | 0 |
This film is about a deadly poison that is contained in small glass globes that is used to kill. This is apparently done to hide an espionage ring intent on stealing plans for a new American bomber. Now much of this plot was repeated in other Chan films, THE JADE MASK and THE DOCKS OF NEW ORLEANS. Additionally, it was first used in MR. WONG, DETECTIVE--all had the exploding glass globes--a plot element that obviously has been overused. It was interesting in MURDER OVER NEW YORK, but by these later films it was rather passé.<br /><br />Fortunately, the rest of the film was fresh and the plot worked out very well--with a nifty conclusion where, of course, the culprit reveals himself. However, no plane could fly the way this one did--especially in 1940. Such extreme dives and rapid ascents were pretty silly out of this already obsolete plane.<br /><br />By the way, in a small role as a porter you'll see Frank Coghlan Jr.--the same actor who played Billy Batson in the CAPTAIN MARVEL serial. According to IMDb, Mr. Coughlan is 93 years old and retired from the film industry. | 1 |
This movie is about a Dysfunctinal Family but Not just any Dysfunctional Family. It is about the Family of the Father of our Nation (India) although, the film focuses mainly on the estranged relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and his eldest son Harilal Gandhi. It shows how The Mahatma had to kill M.K. Gandhi, how he had to sacrifice his family life in order to achieve our freedom. Every time Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son would try to get close the Mahatma would come between them. This is a beautifully done film. Akshaye Khanna has proved himself to be a Top Actor. He expressed emotions very naturally. Darshan Jariwala who mainly stars in Plays-Gurukant Desai's lawyer in Guru has portrayed Gandhi wonderfully.(as a real Human Being, unlike Ben Kingsley who made him look like a God) Shefali Shah the girl from Monsoon Wedding has also done a really good job of showing how Kasturba Gandhi was torn between father and son. This Movie is touching and so is its soundtrack "Raghupati Raghava" sung in a very unique manner. I saw this movie just 3 hours ago(it released in Dubai a day earlier-on the 2nd) and when the movie was over there was "Pin Drop Silence" and while exiting out of the Theatre not ONE person pushed another( Can you imagine us Indians not pushing ?) NOT ONE ! There was a Sacred Silence... | 1 |
This movie deserved better. Mike Judge's satirical wit brought to light something too many in this country are trying to deny... we're getting dumber as a society.<br /><br />Could the 24-hour-a-day Anna Nicole coverage be any more proof? Mike Judge paints a frightening future, where the dumb survive and thrive. Makes you stop and think, and laugh. Can you look at the world and not ask are we getting dumber? Are we being overtaking by the human trash as well as our own trash? (Beware of landslides).<br /><br />The movie is really funny. I'd tell you more of the plot but I don't want to spoil it.<br /><br />So why release this film with ZERO promotion? Could it be that the stupid are already taking over? | 1 |
This is a great movie but there could be more about Soylent Green. There should be more scenes of what they do to people. How people act in 2022. I think it would be neat to see if all this does happen in the year 2022 and beyond. Even if you still know what the secret is it is a great movie. So go rent or buy this movie right NOW!! | 1 |
I like Christophe Lambert as an actor. He has played in several good movies (Highlander, Subway, Greystoke, ...). But I can't even think he has played in that movie. The story is nearly nothing, the special effects are very bad and the actors also. To resume the movie, I have only one thing to say : it's the first time that I go to watch a movie and want to leave after 10 minutes. | 0 |
You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.<br /><br />The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.<br /><br />Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.<br /><br />I strongly recommend it 9.5/10 | 1 |
The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made). | 0 |
OK, I saw this in the theaters when it came out and I don't know why. I haven't seen it since, but I ended up on this page because I found myself thinking about this film - again I don't know why. But the fact that I remember it speaks volumes.<br /><br />Comedy is hard - much harder than any drama. Doing it right makes it seem easy, but doing it wrong ... is there anything worse than a bad comedy? Steve Martin, pay attention, you are falling in this category again for some reason.<br /><br />Elvira Mistress Of The Dark must have done it right for me to remember this movie fondly. Done at a quick pace, with tongue in cheek and knowing it isn't the Philedelphia Story, it entertains from start to finish. Brain Donors is another that fits right in this category (sans most of the gratuitous boob jokes).<br /><br />One point of contention - the ending. It seems the writers/director had no idea how to finish a comedy. The ending tries to be a love story, somewhat undermining the quirky fast-paced dialogue up to that point. Then there is the "tassle" scene. Whereas this has to be seen (male opinion), it is so over the top and out of place it's like a shock. One more rewrite for the ending was needed.<br /><br />This is not comedy genius like Spinal Tap or The Producers or The Holy Grail. But if you don't try to dissect it and just let the puns and sappy fun come to you, you'll laugh, I guarantee it. | 1 |
So many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major "cheese" category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.<br /><br />This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this "infection" spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.<br /><br />The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....<br /><br />Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.<br /><br />One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...<br /><br />Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.<br /><br />The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an "undisclosed location" giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me. | 0 |
I found about the movie "Holes" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. "Holes" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended! | 1 |
This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS. | 0 |
Sean Bean is great, as are the photography, locations and costumes. However, the plot is somewhat muddled, and the conclusion flat. The plot has been SUBSTANTIALLY altered from Cornwell's novel, and not to the better. Unfortunately, this adventure is much better read than watched. Sharpe was too narrowly drawn here, in contrast with his literary alter ego, who seems more intelligent and determined despite his apprehension in his new role as an officer promoted from the ranks. I really enjoyed the brief scene in which Sharpe is tripped by a "real" officer, and after a quick pause and piercing stare, pushes the surprised and cowed officer right back. It sets the tone for his later trials as a commanding officer.<br /><br />Rating: "4" of "10." | 0 |
Steve Carell stars as a person who you can relate to(sort of) in Dan in real life, a film which I expected not to like but ended up liking it. Not that the movie is laugh out loud funny it's just that it has a big heart. We all like Steve Carell, this isn't what fans of The Office would expect to see from him, but you know what, I liked this movie. <br /><br />Carell stars as Dan Burns, a widowed father who's daughters don't really like him. One weekend, him and his daughters travel down to see his family. While there, he goes to a bookstore and falls for a woman. When he gets back to his house, he finds out that his brother Mitch(Played by Dane Cook) is dating this woman(Played by Juliette Binoche).<br /><br />Dan in real life, at times, I found a bit unbelievable. Are the Burns family really the kind of people who do exercises together and play board games together and do a bunch of other family things? I would highly doubt that. I don't know any family who is like that. Is that stopping me from giving it a thumbs up? No.<br /><br />Dan in real life:***/**** | 1 |
The atmosphere in this show is great. There's plenty of excellent buildup, but thats where this show fails. There's way to much build up for nothing. You will constantly see a creepy set up that makes it feel likes something really freaky is coming right out of the corner and then....nothing. Over and over again nothing. You hear plenty of stories of people talking about freaky events but you see none. They show up at these peoples doors, talk about their deep and emotional pasts, set up lame equipment and find nothing! there is nothing on this show thats leads me to believe in anything paranormal. I laugh every time they need to exercise a "horrible spirit" that we as an audience have seen nothing of. They get rid of the spirit that never was and everything is put in a neat little package. A show that looked so freaky and had such great potential leads up to one thing...Nothing! | 0 |
Intriguing premise should have been a 20 minute short. That's how long it would take his biological parents to think, "Hmm, we lost one son (and never found him) who is about his age, and he looks like our remaining son. Oh, yes, and he's a runaway. Hmm." But no, this is the most clueless family in history. And the conclusion, while trying to jerk tears, manages only to induce more groans of disbelief. | 0 |
I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system. | 0 |
let me first just say that in the past, i have been a huge carlin fan. i think george is one of the smartest people and best comedians on the planet. what made george so great in the past was his ability to look at things in his own twisted way, and give us his unique perspective on those things. it wasn't always meant to be funny, but you always respected his opinions, because they were presented in such a clever way. but you are all diseased is just a long rant. he doesn't give us any unique perspective on anything, he just gives us a long list of stuff that he's p.o.'d at. there is no insight, no cleverness, just an old man complaining for one hour straight about things that we have all complained about. and on top of that, it wasn't even funny. you are all diseased appeals to dumb people who can't handle anything more advanced than something simple and direct. i don't mind anger fueled comedy, but george could have done so much better. i really hope that george carlin's next show will live up to the quality that george has shown in the past. | 0 |
Jim Henson always seemed to put out wonderful television shows. This was sadly one of the shortest lived. It was endearing to hear each tale with their delightful morals. Each episode was a new story, with new characters. John Hurt did a wonderful job playing the Storyteller, and the sarcastic tone of Brian Henson as the dog was always enjoyable.<br /><br />The set designs and costumes were very well done. The Muppet work, when required, is classic Jim Henson work. You know it is a Muppet, but it's endearing appearance more than forgives. You find yourself enchanted and compelled. When each episode comes to an end, you realize that you were quite entertained. An entertained that is fulfilling, not the kind that wears off after a few moments. You sit back and think about each episode, realizing that each story is indeed timeless, and presents a strong tale of morality.<br /><br />I have yet to show this to my own children, but this is indeed a series that is more than family entertainment. I implore you to find it on DVD, and snatch it up. If you can't do that, then just find it some how. | 1 |
We arrived at the theater too late to see Rendition, which was our intention, and 'The Comebacks' was the only film that hadn't already started. I had an inkling of how bad a film it was after reading the short blurb at the ticket counter. The theater was empty when we arrived and only two other people entered before the film started.<br /><br />The screenwriters and director threw every imaginable sports cliché at the audience without creating a single laugh, not one during the entire movie. Think of all the football movies that have been made and the millions of dollars schools and fans spend each year on football and you realize how ripe it is to be parodied or lampooned. If you add Texas to the mix,you ought to come up with the sports version of 'Little Miss Sunshine', not a big yawn.<br /><br />The first film that came to mind as we exited the theater was 'Can't Stop the Music' By comparison, this was 'Can't stop the Music' without Bruce Jenner, Valerie Perrine, or the Village People.<br /><br />If the film had a single grace note, it was seeing Matthew Lawrence grown up. | 0 |
This is a "revised" Riverdance presentation, staged at Radio City Music hall in New York City. Of the three Irish "dance" musicals that I watched during the mid to late '90s (which includes the first "Riverdance" and "Lord of the Dance") I liked this one the best.<br /><br />I thought it was better than the original, held in Dublin, Ireland, because it adds segments that are mostly good, it has a more varied and colorful stage setting and it eliminated apiece for two from that original that wasn't good to begin with. This is just a very solid show with few weak spots. To be certain, there are some songs/dances that are just "fair" but none that are poor, which is amazing considering there are 20 numbers in all.<br /><br />The cast is similar to the first Riverdance with the main exception of Colin Dunne replacing Michael Flatley as the featured dancer. Both are extremely talented. The major difference might be in their looks with Dunne a little, goateed black-haired guy while Flatley is the clean-shaven blond. I prefer Dunne because Flatley's ego is so big he gets annoying at times. The female lead, Jean Butler, thankfully, is still there and is great to watch: what graceful beauty and talent! Butler and the rest of these women have the greatest legs I've seen on dancers. I also enjoyed the dancing of Maria Pages, a Spanish flamenco performer, and two guys: Daniel B. Wooten and Ivan Thomas. One number - with those two pairing off against Dunne and two other dancers -0 is called "Trading Taps" and is terrific fun to watch, maybe the highlight of the whole show. I have no complaints about violinist Eileen Ivers, either.<br /><br />The "fast" Irish songs here appealed to me the most. I appreciated the audience not getting in the way of the performance either with shrieks and screams like the women do in the "Lord Of The Dance" video. | 1 |
A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean. | 0 |
And here's yet another piece of evidence to claim that we should all worship the Italian giallo and acknowledge it to be the absolute most unique sub genre in horror. Emilio Miraglia's "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is a totally mesmerizing wholesome of original plotting, stylish production values, enchanting music, great acting talents and inventively gory murder sequences. It's a fabulous giallo (released in the golden year 1972) that belongs in the top-five of every fan of Italian cinema. The storyline doesn't just introduce your average black-gloved & sexually frustrated killer, but blends good old-fashioned revenge motives with the macabre myth of the murderous "Red Queen". At young age, their grandfather tells the constantly fighting siblings Kitty and Evelyn about an uncanny lady who, once every 100 years on April 6th, kills seven people of which her sister is the inevitable last victim. Fourteen years later, Kitty has become the successful choreographer of a prominent modeling agency (even sharing her bed with the general manager) when suddenly the killing spree begins. Sister Evelyn would be the obvious culprit, but she moved to the States recently... Or has she? Complex yet compelling and involving red herrings are thrown at you every couple of minutes and the Red Queen character is definitely the most fascinating killer in giallo-history. Her face can never be seen, but she wears a blood red cloak and produces the most ghastly laugh whenever she made a new victim. She's not exactly gentle either, as her victims are barbarically stabbed with a dagger, dragged behind cars and even impaled on fences! That latter one is truly one of the greatest (= most gruesome) acts of violence I've ever seen! What more could you possibly request? Some classy and tasteful nudity, perhaps? The gorgeous female actresses got this more than covered, among them Barbara Bouchet and a young Sybil Danning. Emilio Miraglia isn't the most famous giallo-director, as he only made this one and the equally recommended "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave", but his influence and importance should NOT be forgotten. | 1 |
This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is. | 1 |
Recreation of 1950's (London) Soho and the up-and-coming people. Based on a cult novel.<br /><br />Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance. <br /><br />What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.<br /><br />There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it. | 0 |
Bela Lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to Dracula. He is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like Lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though. | 0 |
We loved the movie. I am a mother to two little men. I love having a movie I can watch with them where men have integrity and character. Moveis where money is not the most important thing. And family's are forever and love means more then words. <br /><br />I do wish we saw more of the Davis family. But over all I loved it left me with the same feeling the others did "please don't be over". We both wish actors would not change.The new actors were good replacement tho.<br /><br />My 9 year old son loved this movie too. asked me to go buy them all. He is a movie critic so for him to say this tells me something. Family should all see this move buy it for friends . Help bring back a time of values. We will be Reading the books now that we are hooked. really hope to see more. Be Blessed happy moving | 1 |
I spotted the DVD on a store near my home, and since I'm a "cheesy horror movie/alien flicks" addict, I wondered how good it was. It even had two award mentions on the cover (I don't remember what festival it won) so I figured "Hey this might be good". So I bought it (for five euros) and I came here to IMDb to check out some reviews. Here, either people bashed the movie to say it was bad, or people said the movie was a wonderful feat in indie movies bla, bla. I then played the DVD, not thinking about any review I had read, with an open mind, and not expecting anything at all.<br /><br />Man... I don't' like being this critical, but the movie was genuinely bad... OK, I'm just going to give out some pointers of what I thought:<br /><br />1-Acting/dialog: The acting was so confusing... sometimes the actors did a decent job, but there were scenes were I could spot no effort at all from them! The dialog was even worst... I think it was probably the aspect I most disliked in the whole movie. The talking in between characters seemed... off. Not just bad, but far away from the actual happenings in the movie. The monologues of the female character, although well delivered, became boring and annoying in a little while... But of course the most ridiculous aspect was the... "aliens" or the "infected"... I wont even comment on that one, just going to say that it was absolutely ridiculous and took the entire mood away from the picture; 2-Visuals: the strongest aspect in the movie... if you forget the awful FX and light flashes they used to simulate explosions or what the hell they were supposed to be. The "camera in car" aspect was quite cool actually, but they didn't even used the environment to inspire fear or dread. They left that to cheap sound and video FX and the three "infected" characters. The movie becomes boring in so many scenes...; 3-Sound: Talk about editing... this movie has no problems in showing how weakly edited it was. From computer sounds imitating the forest animals to the "alien dialog"... ah...<br /><br />So what did I like in the movie... (SPOILERS) the only thing I really liked and it was actually quite scary was the succession of two scenes where the car is still and you spot something/someone walking in a distant. At first I really thought it was me seeing things, but when the character realizes that the "figures" coming towards her were her own reflection, I was surprised! Pretty creepy idea done well! Apart from that... I had an awful time.<br /><br />And I don't recommend this to anyone... not even "teen get together" because you can't even laugh at this...<br /><br />I give it a solid 2. Only some technical achievements worked here... apart from that... yeah... nothing | 0 |
Wow - most of the audience just seemed to shake their heads through much of this documentary at the sheer wizardry displayed on screen.<br /><br />The shift from the early days as a New-York based black-American phenomenon to current days as a racially diverse subculture (and largely West Coast-based) is profiled well.<br /><br />The humble turntable is not given the respect of any traditional musical instrument, but it can be so much more versatile and technically complex. These DJs take the required skills for any musical instrument - dexterity, rhythm and timing, among others - and apply them to a new technology with several more variables.<br /><br />DJ Qbert's comment that he pictures what "music" must sound like on advanced planets and then works it out, seemingly silly at first, makes more and more sense as you watch these guys go and spit out a multitude of sounds that no single traditional instrument could ever create!<br /><br />Some critics have said that this film focuses too much on certain 'stars' and squanders an opportunity to profile the wider hip-hop culture. One film at a time people! | 1 |
Almost four years after the Iraq war started and we're in a bigger hole than ever. That's right, so all those flag wavers who were so sure of the right and might of the American way are now chasing their tails, isn't that true? You bet it is. This movie said so from the beginning. It is kind of freaky how much the film,or should I say, filmmaker, knew what was coming. It is almost like going to a fortune teller and hearing what was going to happen in the future. There was a point when I felt the hairs standing up on the back of my neck as GW announced that 'major combat operations are over" on top of a visual of a broken down RV being towed away with the American flag waving in the rear-view mirror. You have to see it to understand what I mean. But even if you are apolitical or even if you are pro-war, this movie will have some kind of impact on you because it is so embedded in history. | 1 |
The Forgotten (AKA: Don't Look In The Basement) is a very cheaply made and very old looking horror movie.<br /><br />The story is very slow and never really reaches anything worth getting excited about.<br /><br />The patients at the asylum are embarrassingly funny especially Sam and the old woman who always quotes an old saying to everyone. (Look out for the bit when she gets close to the camera, tell me you can watch without laughing!).<br /><br />Now the gore is very poor looking, with the blood looking pink in many scenes so it doesn't really deserve its place on the video nasties list!.<br /><br />Overall if you aren't looking for a fantastic horror film and have some time to spare then it's worth a watch. | 0 |
Being advertised as the most expensive movie ever made in the Czech Republic, it automatically makes the you think it will be over glorified and clichéd (out of fear of the budget). However with a budget of 8 Million and half the movie in English it was not exactly a big budget, high risk movie.<br /><br />What we have a grand epic tale centered around the friendship of two people, the younger Karel and the older Frantisek . As pilots in the Czech air force when the Germans invade before the beginning of world war II they escape the country to England to joined the RAF.<br /><br />Their friendship becomes strained through the love of the same woman. However there is a bond of friendship that goes beyond merely being friendly. Their friendship is an elegant metaphor for the attitude of the Czech people and their country. Remember they were not the winners, the defeated the Germans only to be invaded by the Russians.<br /><br />Funny, exciting, intriguing, beautiful, sad and illuminating this movie is one of my favourite war movies. Most of all I like the way they make fun of the British in a way that is amazingly affectionate and gives an amazing insight into the way the British military fought WWII.<br /><br />Forget the recent American efforts (Peal Harbour, Saving Private Ryan), this is the best WWII movie for a long time. | 1 |
Harry Langdon's "Saturday Afternoon" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's "Cops" or Chaplin's "The Immigrant" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.<br /><br />For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of "Saturday Afternoon" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch "Saturday Afternoon" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.<br /><br />But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of "Saturday Afternoon," when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.<br /><br />"Saturday Afternnon" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.