text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Three teenage girls in an incomplete triangular relation. The base of the triangle is barely there. At the apex is Marie, a serious, short and lean tomboy with a Belmondo-like facial structure. Her best friend is the physical and psychological opposite: coquette, chubby -- I dare say fat -- and desirous for her first kiss with a boy but not quite ready for her first sexual encounter. Because of her chubbiness, boys don't seem interested and it pains her.<br /><br />The other leg of the apex is a beautiful "fille fatale" blonde vamp. She is deeply involved in the sport of synchronized swimming performing at competitive level. Marie sees her during a competition at the local public swimming pool. Marie insinuates herself into the life of the vamp using the desire to become a synchronized swimmer as an argument. The vamp has a reputation of being a whore, making out with any young male that orbits around her. Marie is not phased out by that reputation. Put a stress on reputation.<br /><br />The first half is set up. We get to see a lot of synchronized swimming as we become familiar with the three girls. Eventually the narrative leaves synchronized swimming behind and concentrates on the topsy-turvy relations among the three. That's when unexpected things start to happen.<br /><br />It is a trademark of French films to drop nuggets of wisdom on the viewer. This one is no exception. Here it is about ceilings and the dying. See the film to learn more.<br /><br />The director says that the use of synchronized swimming is purposeful. That women-only sport is a metaphor for a girl's life: pretty and feminine on the surface while hard working and competitive underneath. A number of scenes drive this point: elegant moves and smiles for the public, legs kicking ungainly underwater. The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously. | 1 |
This version of "The Lost Horizon" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time! | 1 |
"Ruby in Paradise" is a beautiful, coming-of-age story about a young woman, Ruby Lee Gissing, escaping her stifling roots to become herself. Although the title character is played artfully by the gorgeous Ashley Judd -- in likely her first movie role, albeit one to be quite proud of -- the emphasis is not upon becoming "somebody," a la the next Madonna (whether Jesus' mother or the lurid, attention-hungry singer).<br /><br />It instead emphasizes following ones' instincts and being somewhat introspective about them, to grow into one's ideal, adult self. NOTE: This isn't an action movie!!! It uses an occasional voice-over narration (by Ms. Judd) while writing in her journal -- and oh, I see I've just lost the male half of the readers out there. But be patient with this beautiful movie, where we learn that one's bliss can be discovered in -- oh, I dunno, carrying water and chopping wood.<br /><br />Actor/director/writer Todd Field, who played Nick Nightingale in "Eyes Wide Shut," co-stars as Ruby Lee's noble love interest, one who helps her heal her idea of relationships implanted from youth.<br /><br />But not even his character is the answer for Ruby Lee: There's no external hero imposed upon her. The ultimate message is that we are responsible for ourselves. Writer/director Victor Nunez, who also wrote/directed "Ulee's Gold," did an amazing job showing a young woman growing into herself -- confronting age-old challenges of good v. evil along the way.<br /><br />The supporting cast is also stellar, and the music used, particularly the cuts by chanteuse Sam Phillips (whom I hear is the wife of T. Bone Burnett), is right on -- most especially "Trying to Hold on to the Earth." Now, when I hear the first few chords of that song, tears spring to my eyes, Pavlovian and unbidden -- not sure if it's the music, or the indelible connection to the movie's quiet, charming message of empowerment.<br /><br />This movie is highly recommended for any young person trying to find his/her way. For any woman of any age, it is a must see! The downside: It is NOT on DVD, except in Spanish. (We learned, however, that it is legal to make one copy of a VHS version, which can be readily found online. My beloved husband found someone with a VHS copy and got a DVD copy made for me.) Although this treasure of a movie occasionally pops up on-air on an indie channel, usually you can't count on that when you might need it most as a tonic to soothe the pressures of the world. So buy a copy for yourself.<br /><br />This movie should have a major re-release, and it would, if I were Queen of Hollywood.<br /><br />-- Figgy Jones | 1 |
The movie itself is so pathetic. It portrayed deaf people as cynical toward hearing people. True, some deaf people are wary of dating hearing people, but they are not necessarily angry like of Marlee Matlin's character was throughout the story. Deaf people do not go to the bar and dance the way Matlin did. All in all, the movie itself is more boring than pathetic. It is so boring that I'd like to believe that it is an insomnia-cured movie. If I have a problem sleeping, I can simply pop in Children of a Lesser God and watch. It will put me to sleep.<br /><br />Keep in mind, this is a deaf guy talking. | 0 |
It's quite an accomplishment that three stories filmed by three very different filmmakers could be simultaneously so insightful about gay & bi-sexual relationships, and their struggles! <br /><br />"Pool Days" is about the awkwardness of adolescence, and the mutual attraction between an older man and a younger one. A story about experience and vulnerability!<br /><br />"A Friend Of Dorothy" portrays a common dilemma many gay and bi-sexual people experience at some point in their life: the intense attraction towards someone whom is heterosexual. Sensitively examined, this story truly left me feeling moved!<br /><br />"The Disco Years" shows another version of a no-win situation: getting involved with someone who is not only confused about their sexual orientation, but is also terrified of being exposed as anything other than straight! A very empowering story for those of us who have experienced betrayal at the hands of a sexually confused and frightened person! <br /><br />While these three stories will appeal to anyone who has an iota of empathy towards others, they will psychologically empower those who consider themselves gay, bi-sexual or searching. Each story is uplifting in its own unique way! | 1 |
Story about three eclipse (maybe even Indigo, ha) children beginning their love for murder. Oh, and the people who are "hot" on their trail.<br /><br />Bloody Birthday, a pretty mediocre title for the film, was a nice lil surprise. I was in no way expecting a film that dealt with blood-thirsty psychopath kids. And I may say it's also one of the best flicks I've seen with kids as the villains. By the end of the movie I seriously wanted these kids to die in horrible fashion.<br /><br />It's a really solid 80s horror flick, but how these kids are getting away with all this mayhem and murder is just something that you can't not think about. Even the slightest bit of investigation would easily uncover these lil sh!ts as the murderers. But there seems to be only a couple police in town, well by the end, only one, and he seemed like a dimwit, so I suppose they could have gotten away with it. Haha, yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet-pilot.<br /><br />Nevertheless, this movie delivered some evilass kids who were more than entertaining, a lot of premarital sex and a decent amount of boobage. No kiddin! If you're put off by the less than stellar title, dash it from your mind and give this flick a shot. It's a very recommendable and underrated 80s horror flick. | 1 |
If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it. | 0 |
Not even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop. | 0 |
and parading around a 14-year-old girl in a thong swimsuit is one of them. To fans of this movie, I'd like to ask: would you allow your daughter to walk around a resort dressed like that? And would your 14-year-old be able to handle the reaction she'd get from men? If yes, I'd like to know why, on both counts. A suit like that is a clear invitation to men; it's hypocritical to suggest that's not. <br /><br />And on another point, what teenage girl would ever claim her father was her lover, without the excuse of severe mental problems? That's almost as disgusting as the swimsuit. <br /><br />Simply put, some things are just not funny or appropriate, and they never will be. | 0 |
La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...<br /><br />This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.<br /><br />Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.<br /><br />Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.<br /><br />La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid. | 0 |
Now don't get me wrong I love bad movies... no I adore bad movies, Troll 2.... ouch painful, Manos The Hands of Fate... just watch Torgo go, Guru the Mad Monk.. is that traffic noise in the medieval background? OK so that's clear, but this is one of those films that was quite obviously trying to be something better, but didn't make it. Why not? Well it would be easy to blame the plot, but heh we've seen worse, there weren't too many holes and heh I know there's not a lot of originality in it but then that needn't kill a film. The effects aren't bad (if you completely ignore the last scene), the monster is OK, the truck quite menacing so where did it go wrong? Well I'd love to blame it on the 'Chris Moyles' look-a-like Harley... so I will! Comedy and horror are difficult to mix well, bad comedy and horror even worse and there's the problem. I loathed this guy from the moment he stuck his head up (literally), the continual bating of the overly meek Adam becomes annoying, so annoying that you lose belief that the mildest of people wouldn't react by pushing him out of the moving car door... and I thought it was the monster bits that the director was meant to have trouble convincing us of. Why are bad movies fun? Well you have great fun poking holes in them, laughing at the script, all the howlers etc. This film doesn't make the coveted category of 'Worst Movies' because its just bad due to being annoying nuff said. Don't bother, go watch anything else and you'll be a better person for it... I promise! (Fade to chants of Torgo Torgo Torgo) | 0 |
I saw the film in its original theatrical release in Austin Texas. The old Paramount Theatre (I don't know if it still exists.) went all out with speakers around the walls connected accurately to all six channels. At 15 years of age, I was blown away. The concept of surround sound was completely foreign to music and film at that time.<br /><br />I vividly remember at least three outstanding scenes where the surround sound made a huge impact. (Though please forgive me if time has warped my memories with inaccuracies.) The first was a travel by the camera through Catfish Row, alive with the sites and sounds of daily activity. You saw each one first, such as a blacksmith for example, then as the camera passed them by their sound would continue to be heard passing left or right down the side of the theater to the rear. The second was a marching band that was seen first in the front, then it marched past the camera splitting left and right. Not only did the sound of each instrument follow its own directional path, it also changed in timbre as it played toward you, to the side of you, and then away from you. And if that wasn't enough, they also accounted for the Doppler effect for each instrument as it went by. The third scene was near the end of the movie as Porgy is leaving Catfish Row for New York to look for Bess. He and about half the cast members pass by the camera as they leave the village with the same sound effects as the marching band. The other half of the cast/chorus sing along with them and also wave and voice goodbyes to Porgy and their other friends. The friends' replies can then be heard from the sides and the rear.<br /><br />Surround sound was used with splendid effects throughout the movie. I think I remember a rock or something thrown from a pier and hearing it land in the water behind me. Little things like that were evident to theater-goers lucky enough to have the full six channels -- things that would just seem mundane in theaters without it.<br /><br />I stayed in the theater for several showings. You could do that then. And I went back several more times before it left town. I never saw the movie again. It literally BEGS for release on DVD with restored picture fidelity and surround sound. I do hope someone somewhere has preserved it. Please, Gershwin family, allow it to be released before it is lost for good to other generations. | 1 |
I saw this on cable recently and kinda enjoyed it. I've been reading the comments here and it seems that everyone likes the second half more than the first half. Personally, I enjoyed the first story (too bad that wasn't extended.) The second story, I thought, was cliched. And that "California Dreaming," if I hear that one more time... Chungking Express is alright, but it's not something that mainstream audiences will catch on to see, like "Crouching Tiger." | 0 |
This film to me is a very good film!!<br /><br />I have a German Shepherd myself and I wish to god he was like Jerry Lee!! I hope too that there is another K-9 in the running!! With Jerry Lee and Dooley in them!! I don't care what any one say these two films were excellent!! | 1 |
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film. | 0 |
French cinema had always been very strong when comes the time to present historical subjects. 95 % of the time, they never make errors. This film is of one of the best of the genre, due to very very strong acting by Depardieu and Pszoniak. Wajda work, as the director, is truly a wonder. Everyone should see this great film. | 1 |
If I hadn't read his name on the DVD cover, I never would have suspected that this rather gushy and old fashioned musical was made by a man so closely associated with the French New Wave. In fact, the film is so far from that, that I wonder if back in the 50s and 60s, New Wave auteurs would have absolutely hated this type of film--it's so...so...unreal. And, it seems to have little to do with so many of his previous films. This isn't necessarily a bad thing--just a very surprising thing.<br /><br />What I also found a bit surprising was the amount of praise some of the reviewers gave this film--especially when there are so many better French musicals out there. The songs in this film were simply not particularly interesting and the characters all seemed so bland and stereotypical. If I had to see another rich person who fretted about how hard it is to be rich or get a good sale price on a designer outfit, I was going to puke.<br /><br />The bottom line is that like American musicals, not every French musical is gold. This film is not another "Les parapluies de Cherbourg" (UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG or "Huit Femmes" (EIGHT WOMEN) and despite the presence of Audrey Tautou, I can't see much reason to recommend it as anything other than a dull oddity. | 0 |
There were so many reasons why this movie could have been great. I'll give you three.<br /><br />1. Sienna Guillory. She is extremely hot in this movie and was the reason I chose to watch it in the first place.<br /><br />2. Tim Curry. Amazing bad guy and I always get excited seeing him in movies (even Home Alone 2).<br /><br />3. Jason Donovan. For all you Aussies and Poms out there, this is a rare treat. Former Neighbours star 80's heart-throb dressed in drag selling drugs.<br /><br />However none of these things nor the fact that the movie is about the drug/rave culture managed to make this movie even remotely interesting. The script was dull, the performances ordinary and despite the scenes with J.D and any scene with Sienna I found everything about this movie pretty passe.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | 0 |
Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection. | 1 |
Highly flawed but just about watchable `comedy' that runs like a Farrelly brothers reject. The most criminal thing about it though is the casting. I couldn't for one minute believe Jerry O Connell and Jake Busey in the role of superstuds, who could pull any woman at the drop of a hat, nor could I believe (the very beautiful) Shannon Elizabeth as a streetwise tough cop!. Story is predictable but does manage to raise a titter on a few occasions, although, the `gross out', meant to be `shock comic' scenes, (one involving an amputated testicle, and another set in a sperm bank) are just plain awful. If this film is on TV then its probably worth watching if you are extremely bored, but please don't waste your money renting it!! | 0 |
SAPS AT SEA is evidently a pun on a Gary Cooper film, SOULS AT SEA. The title aptly describes the starring team, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. who go on an ocean voyage to soothe Ollie's nerves only to run into escaped killer Nick Grainger. As played by Rychard Cramer, this criminal is both amusing and chilling, making him a fine foil for the Boys' comedic characters. Despite his powerful presence, Cramer never upstages the Boys, a tribute to Stan and Ollie's beguiling charisma. That is as it should be, since the Boys are supposed to be the protagonists in this film.<br /><br />Such is the charm of Laurel and Hardy's personas that they elevate average material. For SAPS AT SEA has its slow spots. For instance, as a previous commentator has noted, a bit where a doctor (the delightfully flustered James Finlayson) tries a balloon called "lung tester" on Ollie, lacks punch. The scenario is very episodic, with the first part, taking place in the Boys' apartment, almost completely unrelated to the second part where they go off to sea. But on the whole, the film is highly pleasant entertainment with a sufficiently brief running time so that it doesn't wear out it's welcome.<br /><br />There's a certain poignancy viewing the final collaboration between Laurel and Hardy and producer Hal Roach. I haven't seen all of Laurel and Hardy's post-1940 films but those that I have seen don't measure up to even the weakest Hal Roach products. In these later movies, Laurel and Hardy seem to be in an alien environment, deprived of such colorful supporting players like Finlayson and Charlie Hall and Marvin Hately and LeRoy Shield's sprightly musical scores. They also aren't the well-meaning and optimistic bumblers we know and love but in the later films, are either exasperating blockheads or pathetic misfits.<br /><br />It is a pity that many Hal Roach Laurel and Hardy films are now generally unavailable to the public. Even in a minor entry like SAPS AT SEA, one can see that Laurel and Hardy were great comedians. This was because Hal Roach, for the most part, allowed Stan Laurel, the guiding force behind the team, complete artistic freedom. Once Laurel lost his autonomy at other studios, the team lost much of its uniqueness. | 1 |
I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.<br /><br />The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.<br /><br />Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.<br /><br />Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever. | 0 |
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one. | 0 |
Sorry, I don't have much time to write. I am not a psychologist but have known one for 25 years. She said that Scott Wilson portrayed a sociopath (no conscience) extraordinarily well. I agree! She also said that Robert Blake portrayed a person with anger and impulse control who had a conscience but couldn't control himself superbly. I agree! What a chilling and tremendous film. I have seen over 2000 films and would rank this in the top 100. My lifelong friend deals with clients such as these regularly. My only criticism was the preachy narration at the end of the film. Many people grow up in less than ideal circumstances but only one in a million will behave as these 2 losers did. | 1 |
**Warning - this review may contain spoilers ** <br /><br />The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.<br /><br />However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.<br /><br />He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.<br /><br />Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.<br /><br />When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.<br /><br />Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.<br /><br />Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.<br /><br />Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who "owns" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.<br /><br />Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.<br /><br />In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.<br /><br />As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.<br /><br />Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous. | 0 |
Engrossing drama of four men on a canoing weekend down a remote river. They are pacifist Ed (Jon Voight), adventurous, violent Lewis (Burt Reynolds), obnoxious Bobby (Ned Beatty) and nice guy Drew (Ronny Cox). The first 40 minute are great--there's the incredible dueling banjos sequence, interesting interplay among the characters and just stunning widescreen cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. Then two hillbillies attack Ed and Bobby. One of them rapes Bobby...and the trip becomes a nightmare.<br /><br />Just unbelievable. The scenery is incredibly beautiful yet this horrific violence is taking place. To be truthful, Beatty's rape has never bothered me--I'm very aware it's being faked despite the good acting. This movie also shows how the characters change--Ed has his pacifism tested, Lewis becomes weak, Bobby is violated by one of the people he mocked earlier on and Drew tries to keep himself sane. Direction by John Boorman is also very assured and the sounds of the forest and the river help the mood immensely.<br /><br />The acting is mostly good. Voight is just OK in the lead--he's been better. Beatty is also just OK--but it is his debut film and he has guts for taking such a risky role. Cox is very good especially when things start falling apart. And Reynolds is just superb--one of his best acting jobs EVER! How this wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award escapes me. Also Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward are way too believable as the hillbillies.<br /><br />A powerful film--NOT for children. Try to see an uncut version--the TV version is butchered. Also letter-boxed viewing is essential to capture the breathtaking images. | 1 |
Was excited at the opening to hear part of "Chevaliers De Sangreal" but wanted more so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4 minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even w/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the "God Particle" or largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A.Einstein | 1 |
I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.<br /><br />Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.<br /><br />The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one. | 0 |
This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......<br /><br />I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).<br /><br />Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house? <br /><br />I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR. | 0 |
If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.<br /><br />This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.<br /><br />The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him. <br /><br />I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story.<br /><br />If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did. | 1 |
"Babette's Feast" and "The Horse's Mouth" are the two most insightful, accurate films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in "Babette's Feast" are not, as some other commentators here have said, "an artist is never poor," but two lines that come before and after it:<br /><br />"I was able to make them happy when I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best." <br /><br />I spent nine years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence in 1871). <br /><br />To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the chance to have done her best as an artist. <br /><br />That is why it is so satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up -- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it. She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person would come to receive it. <br /><br />To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy, it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner, the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them, talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film.<br /><br />One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film, as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever. | 1 |
First let me say I am not from the south but I am an American. I don't love Country music but I can stomach it. I would never wear a cowboy hat but I wear hats. I don't live in a trailer but I do eat tuna salad and own a home. What does that have to do with this comment? A lot if you are one of those people who say only "country" people love this movie. This movie is loosely based on the "They loved and lost" premise. James Bridges directs an American love story as real as it gets. In an era of Jerry Springer and "Lets put it out there" mentality, this film rings truer than ever. <br /><br />Bud is "coming of age" and embarks on a life of his own with a little help from his aunt and uncle so he moves to the big city with them. Bud finds himself drawn into the local honky tonk world for the only escape a blue collar man can afford. He quickly meets Sissy who is from a similar background and the two have a whirlwind romance filled with painful ups and downs. <br /><br />(*This plot takes so many turns that one has to just sit for a few minutes before they get hooked. Marriage is a focus here that is often missed. Early in the film they marry and we view the transition from being single to married. The film highlights some of the modern struggles a woman has when she marries an old fashioned man. It also brings into view the male ego with women and competition.)<br /><br />Bud is challenged and is excited when Micky's puts in an electronic bull. Sissy gets ideas of having fun on it too but is quickly reminded that she is married and need to start "acting like it." The emotion between the two characters is raw and expressive and the plot continues from there especially when they (NOTE THIS IS GIVING SOME OF THE STORYLINE AWAY) split and Sissy falls for an ex con with a penchant for abuse and cruelty. She soon realizes that the grass is not always greener on the other side.<br /><br />How anyone can compare Bud to Vinnie Barbirino is shocking to me. John Travolta gave an exceptional performance that was worthy recognition. He was believable and real. The scene where he shaves his beard and you first see him at the bar..still gives me goosebumps. Mind you I am not a huge Travolta fan, but come on, I see why Sissy was kicking of her boots so early in the film. Deb Winger was so real that you found yourself sympathizing with her as she pens a note of emotions to Bud, after sneaking in to clean his house during their break up. <br /><br />The supporting cast was incredible. Wes played by Scott Glenn gave a first rate performance that made you hate him and curse him as he abused Sissy. Madolyn Smith-Osborne, as Buds Mistress/girlfriend was so authentic that large chested girls across the U.S. prayed to wake up flat chested to wear the clothes she donned in the film. My biggest kudos's go to Barry Corbin and Brooke Anderson as Bud's aunt and uncle. They seemed like someone's aunt and uncle somewhere in Texas and however small their role, they made the film so much bigger and lifelike. Two memorable scenes were the Dolly Parton contest and the unforgettable scene where Bud and his aunt stand outside after one of the characters death. The dialog between them is touching.<br /><br />If you can watch this for what it is, a true American love story. Then I recommend that you take it for what it is...a film before it's time that gave us voyeurism into a world unlike our own but real enough for our enjoyment and entertainment. If this world sounds similar to yours then you will enjoy it so much more. Lastly, the music however dated, is sure to send you back in time if you are over 30 years of age. | 1 |
As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love. | 1 |
This is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.<br /><br />Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland. | 1 |
"Alexander Nevsky" marked director Sergei Eisenstein's return to film-making after a period of exile, and what he produced is a bald-faced propaganda film proclaiming Russia's superiority over Germany.<br /><br />There's very little plot: Russians unite to battle Germans; Russia wins. The film is really an extended montage of mostly battle scenes, mixed in with some moments of German brutality (like a rather shocking scene that shows German soldiers throwing Russian children onto a raging fire). This was Eisenstein's first sound film, and it's clear that he had no idea what to do with the medium. Indeed, this film really looks more like a silent film with some sound added. There are some dialogue scenes, but they sit rather lifelessly on the screen, and the pacing is all off, as if the actors weren't actually on the set together at the same time when they were filming them. Eisenstein mostly uses sound as an excuse to overlay a rousing Prokofiev score over the proceedings, and indeed, that's one of the film's biggest assets.<br /><br />Say what you will about Eisenstein's ability (or lack of) to direct actors or tell his film in a more narrative format, he certainly knows how to edit images and music together for maximum effect, and "Alexander Nevsky" over all shines through its deficiencies.<br /><br />Grade: A | 1 |
This was one of the first color films I have seen at the cinema when I was a child. It is good to remember it. The girl, Liz Taylor, who later became a beautiful woman, starred together with the tiny and excellent actor Mickey Rooney. The content of the film plot is good for all ages, good wills and behavior. Good ethics of Velvet's parents, particularly her mother is something to take into account. Our generations should be well educated and this film may help to this purpose. Velvet loves the horses and racing them, and Mi Taylor (Rooney) brought her to an international horse racing competition in England, where at the end the young Velvet won, but was disqualified because of being female. | 1 |
I am a massive fan of Jet Li! He is THE best HK action film star alive... and consequently - This film rocked! I saw it in the video store and, as it was in the mainstream section of this mainstream video store, I didnt register its presence at first, and had to look twice. I immediately knew what I would be renting out. My only qualm (I suppose I expected it) is that it was dubbed (AAARGh) and not subtitled. Elsewise, the movie's original/strange/cool plot, and full on action made it one of Jet Li's better movies... even though they all fall under that category.... | 1 |
Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.<br /><br />(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western. | 0 |
This movie is like the thousand "cat and mouse" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable "unlikely" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and "National Treasure" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie. | 0 |
"The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!" Robert Altman <br /><br />In 1955 Charles Laughton directed "The Night of the Hunter", a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster. <br /><br />Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in "Cape Fear", another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade "Cape Fear", boat scene and all.<br /><br />Now we have Robert Altman's "The Gingerbread Man", another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted "The Night of the Hunter" for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to "spread his wings and try a popcorn picture", but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.<br /><br />So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's "house ship". Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.<br /><br />Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.<br /><br />Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the "thriller format" to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. "Gingerbread Man" is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.<br /><br />The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's "Cape Fear" was, the film still never amounts to anything special.<br /><br />7/10 In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: "Kansas City", "Gingerbread Man" and "Cookie's Fortune". Unlike "Gingerbread Man", both "Kansas City" and "Cookie's Fortune" tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with. <br /><br />"Kansas City" is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, "The Wire"). That said, "Cookie's Fortune", while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.<br /><br />Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed "Images", an art house thriller, in 1972.<br /><br />Worth one viewing. | 1 |
I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit. | 0 |
The Scots excel at storytelling. The traditional sort. Many years after the event, I can still see in my mind's eye an elderly lady, my friend's mother, retelling the Battle of Culloden. She makes the characters come alive. Her passion is that of an eye-witness. One to the events on the sodden heath a mile or so from where she lives.<br /><br />Of course, it happened many years before she was born, but you wouldn't guess from the way she tells it. The same story is told in bars the length and breadth of Scotland. As I discussed it with a friend one night in Mallaig, a local cut in to give his version. The discussion continued to closing time.<br /><br />Stories passed down like this become part of our being. Who doesn't remember the stories our parents told us when we were children? They become our invisible world. And, as we grow older, they maybe still serve as inspiration or as an emotional reservoir. Fact and fiction blend with aspiration, role models. Warning stories. Archetypes. Magic and mystery.<br /><br />"My name is Aonghas, like my grandfather and his grandfather before him." Our protagonist introduces himself to us. And also introduces the story that stretches back through generations. It produces stories within stories. Stories that evoke the impenetrable wonder of Scotland, its rugged mountains shrouded in mists. The stuff of legend. Yet Seach'd is rooted in reality. This is what gives it its special charm. It has a rough beauty and authenticity, tempered with some of the finest Gaelic singing you will ever hear.<br /><br />Aonghas (Angus) visits his grandfather in hospital shortly before his death. He burns with frustration. Part of him yearns to be in the twenty-first century, to hang out in Glasgow. But he is raised on the Western shores among a Gaelic-speaking community.<br /><br />Yet there is a deeper conflict within him. He yearns to know the truth. The truth behind his grandfather's ancient stories. Where does fiction end? And he wants to know the truth behind the death of his parents.<br /><br />He is pulled to make a last fateful journey, to the summit of one of Scotland's most inaccessible mountains. Can the truth be told? Or is it all in stories?<br /><br />In this story about stories, we revisit bloody battles, poisoned lovers, the folklore of old and the sometimes more treacherous folklore of accepted truth. In doing so, we each connect with Angus, as he lives the story of his own life.<br /><br />Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle is probably the most honest, unpretentious and genuinely beautiful film of Scotland ever made. Like Angus, I got slightly annoyed with the pretext of hanging stories on more stories. But, also like Angus, I forgave this once I saw the 'bigger picture.' Forget the box-office pastiche of Braveheart and its like. You might even forego the justly famous dramatisation of The Wicker Man. To see a film that is true to Scotland, this one is probably unique. If you maybe meditate on it deeply enough, you might even re-evaluate the power of storytelling, and the age-old question of whether there are some truths that cannot be told but only experienced. | 1 |
I loved this movie! OH MY GOSH! This movie rocked so hard! I found it amongst some old tapes and didn't know what it was and after having read the back of the cover to see what the summer had to say about it (Which btw, mentioned the fact that Elton John covered the soundtrack for the film more times than it mentioned what the film was actually about.), I thought it sounded interesting, and I was even more interested in seeing it because it was an older film.<br /><br />"What controversy?" I thought to myself as I put the tape in the player, I was curious I get. And my expectations were certainly met. I loved it! I guess it is a really girly kind of movie, but it was so sweet and adorable! It was a beautiful romance, although at times the directing reminded me of the camera work in 'The Graduate', which I thought at the time of seeing it the director must have been on acid with some of the close ups they did.<br /><br />OK, so it wasn't entirely conceivable for these two kids to run off and live on their own...but it could happen...in a fantasy...<br /><br />But, the ending just sincerely ticked me off! I was so mad with how they ended it...it sort of leaves you hanging, and I suppose they may address what actually happens to them in the sequel...but at the same time, I'm almost hesitant to see that, since sequels are almost never as good as the first.<br /><br />I totally recommend this movie to anyone sixteen and over! It's an awesome movie...Awesome! | 1 |
for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??<br /><br />the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.<br /><br />don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.<br /><br />sadly, from a guy from wings.<br /><br />the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.<br /><br />if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better. | 0 |
The film had NO help at all, promotion-wise: if there was an advertising promo on TV or radio, I didn't see/hear it. The only newspaper ad I saw was on it's opening weekend: a dingy, sludgy B & W head-shot photo of Andy as Val-Com, behind jail bars, with headline: "WANTED! Runaway Robot!" ( which was also the poster in front of the 3 movie theaters I saw it at --NOT the nice little color poster on this site, with headshots of all the cast, and cartoon of Crimebuster --which really wasn't THAT good--they OUGHT to have used an action scene from the film itself--didn't they have an onset photographer? A poster is supposed to HELP a prospective audience decide if they want to SEE the movie--there were SO many people who couldn't get into their sold-out choice, and wanted to know WHAT Heartbeeps was about--and that poster didn't help! That dingy pic, and the only other photos supplied to papers were so indistinguishable in B & W that they were worthless. ) There was NO trailer for the film: only a slide at one theater, consisting of the word "Heartbeeps" inside a heart-shape, with a Cupid's arrow through it, and one that was a totally black picture: just Andy and Bernadette's voices saying "Val-Com! My pleasure center is malfunctioning!" "So is mine; do you think we ought to tell our owners?" THAT is no help to people who hadn't been aware of the movie.<br /><br />During the filming, Andy told reporters that he couldn't eat, once his plastic lips were applied, so he would "load up on breakfast, and fast" during the day's shoot. I don't know WHAT Bernadette did: but at the time, I'd wondered why they didn't just sip protein drinks through long straws, or eat astronaut-style puréed food via tubes? <br /><br />Phil-Co, the baby robot, seemed to have been the pre-curser to Short Circuit's Johnny-Five, with the same eyes, similar face. I've been trying to find if they had the same designer, but no help. I have vintage magazine articles about the film, and the design team was immensely proud of their work, and were going for a special award for their innovative device to create stenchless "smoke" for Catskill's cigars. Just shortly thereafter, LucasFilm did NOT use that device, though they OUGHT to have, for Return of the Jedi's scenes with Jabba the Hut: a man created "steam" around Jabba, by blowing cigar smoke into a tube, joking that all he needed was a glass of brandy, and he'd be a happy man. I thought that LucasFilm's using of real tobacco products was insensitive to people who were upset by smoke. <br /><br />John Williams, who had then recently succeeded the late, great Arthur Fielder as the maestro of the Boston Pops ( which was THEN a ratings hit--but it never recovered from Fielder's death, and is now a shadow of it's former glory ), was using the show to promote films with which he supplied the music. He'd premiered "The Empire Strikes Back" score there; and you would think he'd have helped Heartbeeps along, by playing a few numbers there? The one thing that critics had liked of this film was Williams' score--yet it was NOT available for purchase! I saw one vinyl album, in 1982, with half Heartbeeps, half another film--but it disappeared. I only just tonight saw the CD listed on THIS site, and have ordered it. If I can ever get a scanner, and time to type out the articles, I'd like to create a Heartbeeps tribute site. I liked the movie, and don't care what dissenters say! <br /><br />The only trouble with the film, was, that near the end, it was messed up, logic-wise: the robots ran away from the factory to have the freedom to decide their own fate, make their own choices; yet, when the junkyard owners tell them that Phil needs to go TO the factory, to have a "purpose" programmed into him, they don't even question it; they just glance meaningfully at each other, and they go. Along the way, each of the adults lose battery power, and "die." They aren't REALLY dead, as they are robots, and only need new batteries, yet it is treated as "death," with little Phil crying over them, and rolling away. So, what was the POINT of this? Phil never gets back to the factory, and gets "a purpose!" AND of course, the junkyard owners COULD'VE driven them, or given them all battery recharges, with back-up batteries; but the real point was to have this poignant scene, where the robots all wore down, and Phil is left to cry. <br /><br />At the end, Val-Com is a golf instructor, and Aqua-Com is --I'm not sure what. Catskill is an ENTERTAINER--what ELSE is HE supposed to be? I'm not sure that they made it clear. The junkyard owners seem to be taking it easy, lying on chaise lounges, drinking lemonade from Phil, their "bartender." Val's and Aqua's new "daughter," Philsia--I think the name is--maybe it's Sylvania--doesn't seem to be much more than a table lamp. <br /><br />There is missing footage, which is sad--from photos I surmise that the stuff missing includes a sweet scene, where Phil is having a Christmas, with Val gifting him with a car's steering wheel; Aqua is supplying a horn; Catskill has taken the firefighter helmet to give to Phil, as we saw; and they have Christmas trees. I don't know if any missing footage supplies better logic, or if the writers just couldn't think of a better crisis/resolution. The film was trimmed to 72-75 minutes, to pair it with other failing films. No other reason than that. For a DVD, I would LOVE to be in on creating, as I want to see interviews with the cast/crew and John Williams, and the Merv Griffin interview. The making-of footage; and reediting and restoring the missing footage to make it better. | 1 |
I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat. | 1 |
I've already seen spin-offs of cartoons such as The Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes and most of them are great.<br /><br />When I saw the All Grown Up pilot in 2001, I thought it was interesting to see how the Rugrats would look in their pre-teens/teens and it contained things that would usually happen during that time of life such as going to a concert, going to school and being grounded.<br /><br />The actual TV show is better because the Rugrats seem to wear different clothes in each episode and Angelica doesn't get punished as much as she did in the original Rugrats series. Tommy and Susie get punished in this series.<br /><br />I've also noticed references to Rugrats in this show and even flashbacks of how the Rugrats looked in the original series. They actually talk to the adults in this show because they're 10 years older.<br /><br />This show is aimed at a slightly older audience than the original Rugrats. Viewers of the original show may like this. | 1 |
Who will love my children has changed my heart, it made me cry all the way through, the most i cried with was when the family had to say goodbye to the baby, i cried the most with that, and each time a child was adopted, i cried when they had to say goodbye to their mother, it was sad for them to lose their mother, I felt sorry for the kid with epilepsy, i was glad he was adopted by the same family as one of his brothers. To me that boy i thought was the special one because he was going in a home. I feel that i am special because i am in a world with Aspergers Syndrome and sometimes when i feel down, i sometimes like to cry. I really enjoyed this movie, 10 out of 10. A true story, very good. Another movie that would bring tears to your eyes i think would haver to be Tuesday's With Morrie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207805) | 1 |
This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time. | 0 |
I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing. | 0 |
Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie. | 0 |
"Fraidy Cat", the 4th of these cartoons, is a good one. At least I like it, so I'm surprised that this is getting mixed reviews.<br /><br />This one is more of a macabre story than a funny one, although it has its moments of comedy. The atmosphere is dark and spooky. Suspense is another strong element here. As for humor, it's mostly dark humor.<br /><br />In this short, Tom listens to a creepy radio show at night and is absolutely terrified because it is about ghosts, something he believes. While Tom is scared to death, Jerry is watching everything and can't help but laugh the whole time. In fact, Jerry quickly finds a way to torture him more and more. With the help of a white shirt and a vacuum cleaner he creates a big "ghost".<br /><br />Tom lives the scariest experience of his whole life. Although Jerry scares Tom without a good reason, the way the story is made ends up being funny. Plus, once again, there is no violence here because this is one of Tom & Jerry's oldest cartoons. However, I don't get that joke of Tom's 9 lives nearly sucked into the vacuum cleaner.<br /><br />When Tom finally finds out that it was all a Jerry's scheme and that Jerry made a fool out of him, Jerry is «caught with the hand in the cookie jar» (he deserves to be discovered). Yet, Tom shows an incredible patience before reacting. He angrily looks at Jerry for about a minute. The funny thing is that Jerry invites Tom to laugh with him and takes about half a minute to realize that Tom is looking at him with a very serious face. Jerry tries to be funny, but Tom doesn't laugh.<br /><br />Overall, this is a different, peculiar and remarkable Tom & Jerry experience. | 1 |
TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.78:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).<br /><br />Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite. | 0 |
This is the most cliche ridden and worst romantic comedy I have ever seen. Every scene is cringe worthy and the two lead actors - Corey and Danny are soo annoying. Corey is very dumb and naive and should have never listened to Danny's false promises.<br /><br />Neve Campbell and the killer from Urban Legend are the only redeeming qualities in this poor attempt of a film. Danny (Dean Paras) looks in his late thirties and the girl he's trying to bed - Corey looks as if she's still in college.<br /><br />Here in Australia, this film is called Too Smooth; there is nothing smooth about this film at all. 1/10 Avoid | 0 |
After 21 movies and three years of working in Hollywood Bette Davis finally got a role she claimed as her own and which put her as a force to be reckoned with. As Mildred Rogers, Davis burst forth with a completely unsympathetic role of a slutty waitress who becomes the target of Leslie Howard's affections, and already eager to sink her teeth into a role like this, she had no qualms of the awful things her character was meant to do throughout the course of the film and the awful transformation she would undergo. It also has been widely noted that her performance here, one of the few things that makes this slightly uneven movie watchable, has been the one to remember even after two remakes and the scenes where she rips into Howard have made cinema history.<br /><br />At circa 85 minutes, the story moves at a nice pace, telling the story of Philip Carey (Howard) as his life crosses that of the destructive Mildred Rogers over and over again.<br /><br />Howard and Davis' chemistry is all but non-existent -- Davis sustained in an interview much later in life she personally didn't care much for Howard's iciness towards her and that helped her act even worse (in character) towards him as Mildred. All the same, the two seem awkward with one another; their scenes together remain stiff, only salvaged by the ferocious acidity Davis brings to her lines and her own nervous presence. Then again, Cromwell's direction has a certain stiltedness about itself that fails to come through at times -- he tries to fill in some space (whenever Davis is not there) with dissolves and montages indicating the passing of time (a calendar superimposed over a changing Frances Dee). All much in the style back then. This was before technicalities and complicated camera angles came into being, and in essence, the visual story is a simplified, bare essentials translation of the Somerset Maugham's novel -- which is saying a lot, since at 600 pages, "Of Human Bondage" would have been indeed hard to film even then.<br /><br />Storywise, it feels that Philip Carey may be something of a glutton for punishment, since there is no discernible, sexual attraction between he and Mildred and to compound that, Mildred never hides her displeasure from the get-go. Howard's performance never seems to go through much external emotion -- his eyes are constantly sad, his expression never veers too far away from lost (he could almost be a distant cousin to William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist" -- dejected, hurt, and absolutely passive), but this is possibly a part of his character and the reason he fails to see that other women (played by Kay Johnson and Frances Dee) are making themselves vulnerable to unrequited affections. Interestingly, Johnson's Norah, once she realizes Carey will never fall for her, is the one who sums the story up with her observation that people are bound to other people -- she is bound to Carey as Carey is bound to Mildred, and Mildred herself is bound to Miller (or men who fit the role of provider). In her short but memorable scene, she's the one who holds the essence of the story's moral. | 1 |
I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.<br /><br />If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.<br /><br />The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.<br /><br />If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.<br /><br />It could have been so much better. | 0 |
I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour. | 1 |
This is another film where the cinematography is the best thing to recommend it. That would be fine if the film were a travelogue, but as a dramatic exercise in cinematic artistry, that is not good enough. The theme of inter-species respect and co-operation ventures timidly into the forbidden world of inter-species love, but its approach is stereotypical, indicating a lack of understanding of the behavior motives of either species. As with many films, one always wonders what could have been achieved by a more innovative director and a more creative screenwriter. Alas, we probably will never know. | 1 |
This Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes. | 0 |
The Long Kiss Goodnight has just about everything action fans want: a witty screenplay by the guy who wrote Lethal Weapon, Samuel L. Jackson, and great action set pieces by Renny Harlin.<br /><br />Seriously underrated. One of the best action movies ever. | 1 |
The movie starts out with a bunch of Dead Men Walking peeps sitting in individual cells, waiting for their inevitable meeting with death represented by the electrical chair.<br /><br /> Then our "hero", who is called Tenshu, is taken to the chair, he's zapped, and then....he's still "Alive". AHA ! He is given a choice by some creepy military guys who look really cool : Either we zap you until we've made sure you're actually dead OR you can walk through this door and take whatever destiny might lie ahead of you". Our hero says yes to option 2, and then the actual story commences.<br /><br /> He wakes up in a different sort of cell (very high-tech and very big), where he finds another cell-mate, who also managed to survive the electric boogie-ride. A voice in the speakers tells them that they are free to do whatever they wish, as long as it happens within that room. Sounds a little suspicious, but the two men accept : What else can they do ?<br /><br /> What these two men do not know is that they have been set together, so they can awaken an inner urge to kill within them. Basically the unknown scientists in the background p**s them off until they decide that they should kill each other. Sounds weird ? Indeed, but there's a greater purpose to all of this. THIS is the part which should not be revealed, and so it shall remain unrevealed.<br /><br /> But fear not, it is the unknown that lures the viewer to watch more of this pseudo-action movie, fore it has an entirely different approach to the question : How long time can you stand being with a man who's an S.O.B. and would you kill him to obtain freedom ?<br /><br /> The first hour is basically trying to awaken your interest, it sneaks up without you actually knowing it. Then it becomes a roller coaster ride with WILD Matrix-like action fight-scenes with a touch of individuality to honor the comic book from which the movie is based upon.<br /><br /> The movie is indeed very special, so special that normal cinemas won't view it under normal circumstances. However, the story is fascinating, the music is fantastic, and the actors do their bit (some more than others) to make the movie truly unique.<br /><br /> If you should be so fortunate that your cinema or video store has it, watch it, and enjoy the fact that not everyone is trying to make mainstream movies to earn huge bunches of cash.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.<br /><br />The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.<br /><br />Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out. <br /><br />There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.<br /><br />Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability. <br /><br />I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.<br /><br />I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book. <br /><br />About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud. | 0 |
Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) "Death Wish" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's "stylish" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details. | 0 |
This movie reminds me of great movies that temporarily wake me up with the realization that the Emperor is indeed naked. Our election process is unclothed and dismal. My awareness is heightened and I want to see the world change. After a short while I am lulled back to my little complacency and "bubble life." In the best sense of film this work will ferment into an edible stew for me and like in "Network" I want to be convicted to say'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' But to whom? My vigorous youthful idealism has been slowly reduced to concerned parent with quiet convictions or rather "beliefs." "Man of the year" reveals how much I yearn for honest and sometimes humorous takes on our current political situation. Dobbs' line " I did inhale because I thought 'What the hell,it's lit, it's in my hand, I'll inhale it.'" was refreshing or would've been when Clinton was President. Why can't politicians be honest and set that tone for debates? We people must realize how much veneer is being put forth as real? I am sick of this election process already,anyone else? Let take off the veils and set an agenda for our elected officials and take them to task (not re-elect) when they continue with evasion and non-representation of citizenry. This movie can inspire us to increase our expectations of politicians that spew rhetoric. Great Film! | 1 |
This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.<br /><br />If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.<br /><br />I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A "warring angel" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect. <br /><br />I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.<br /><br />This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent. | 0 |
I mistakenly thought this was the 70's art film about the bed that eats people, which sounded interesting. It isn't. Interesting, I mean, let alone about a man-eating bed.<br /><br />I assume Stuart Gordon put his name on this in the same spirit that Lloyd Kaufman puts "Troma" on just about anything that's been shot with a video camera, in the interest of building up a franchise library. Little more can be said about this opus other than the running time is less than 90 minutes. It is, of course, about a bed that is haunted by the spirit of a man, or something, that once killed a woman with a wig and long false eyelashes. Along the way we get **a five minute opening credit sequence (is the one for "Lawrence Of Arabia" even as long?) **a murderer with Marylin Manson contacts who kills using the same technique as the troll in "Cat's Eye" **demonstrations of a sexual practice Michael Hutchence may have employed **a preview of what Emilio Estevez will soon look and act like **soft core porn even Cinemax would pass on **manbutt and one topless scene **a wacky (or is it "whack"-ee?) ending involving unintentionally hilarious hammer hits and leftover strawberry pie (well, it looked that way to me) **and a rudimentary surprise ending apros pos of nothing much. It's like the screenwriter even fell asleep on the "Deathbed" before finishing the last draft.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not sexy, it's shot on hi-def video and doesn't look bad but doesn't look good either, the acting is just good enough to not be bad enough to be fun and so is everything else. No one would probably have even seen or heard of it unless it was on a disc with another movie, the modern day "double feature." I wasn't paying attention for parts of it so I may have missed something. But for some reason I doubt it. Rating: PASS | 0 |
This 1939 film from director John Ford and writer Lamar Trotti tells a fictional tale of young lawyer Abraham Lincoln, his trials (literally) and his tribulations. It's a sentimental film, reasonably well made but hardly breathtaking. The casting of Henry Fonda as Lincoln seems a mistake, for while the actor had the right doleful qualities for the part, even with several inches of makeup and a false nose he's way too handsome for Honest Abe, who was famously homely. It's a good try from Fonda, who's nothing if not sincere, but his miscasting throws the entire film off. The supporting cast is excellent, though, and includes Alice Brady, Ward Bond and Donald Meek. But Ford is too reverential in his treatment of Lincoln, who is presented as just shy of a saint, and in the final scene the movie goes way over the top. | 1 |
This ingenious and innovate comedy packs many moments priceless and great sense of pace, though overlong. Chaplin's satire with several classics scenes , he has dual role as a Jewish barber and dictator Hynkel, an offensive portrayal of Hitler . Then the barber is mistaken for the Hitlerian tyrant and happen bemusing events. Funny and extraordinaries acting of all casting, as the co-stars Jack Oakie as Napolini(Mussolini-alike), Henry Daniel as Gasbstich(Himmler-alike) and Billy Gilbert as Herring( Goering). Chaplin's first spoken film is brilliantly photographed by Karl Struss.This splendid film contains numerous amusing scenes, the funniest are the following : 1) The one when during the WWI the barber-soldier along with a co-pilot are flying in a turned plane without aware 2)Dictator Adenoid Hynkel doing overacting speeches including a twisted microphone 3)Hynkel playing with an enormous balloon of the world 4)The Jew-barber shaving a man fitting to Hungarian Dance number 5 of Brahms 5) when Hynkel and Napolini each try to keep his body higher than other in a barber's chair; among them.<br /><br />Hitler banned movie exhibition to the Germans due to its satire of him, and put him in his death list after his proposed conquest of America.The movie is co-starred by Paulette Goddard, third of his four wives , they were married in 1936, although no announcement of the marriage was made later, one time finished The Great Dictator.The picture was released in 1940, when Chaplin had survived a moral scandal by a paternity suit but a brush with the House of Un-American Activities was the signal for the USA to refuse him re-entry from Britain and he fled to Switzerland. | 1 |
'This Life' is truly as bad as it gets. Its cast of mercenary, lascivious, ruthless, duplicitous, shallow characters are intended as a reflection on its post-eighties setting and I have to admit in this regard it is an accurate creation. Unfortunately, it leaves me nothing to sympathise with or care about and I regard it as just another step toward the television premium-rate phone in scams; astonishingly bad, cheap, reality and 'celebrity' saturated television; and other cut and run attitudes that have destroyed this medium and, indeed, much of British society. Sounds exaggerated? I don't think it is. In this regard programs such as 'This Life' have indeed been as influential as they are often called. | 0 |
"You can survive anything". Anything except a dumb horror flick. The director couldn't even decide whether he wanted a demon or just a plain ol' backwoods serial killer. You can't have both. It's like Michael Moore trying to have his cake and eat it too (or in his case 1500 cakes) by making his particular charlatan brand of "docu-comedies": they're supposed to be oh-so hilarious and zany, and yet you're also meant to treat them as truth-based, earth-shattering, hard-hitting documentaries. Some genres cannot be mixed.<br /><br />"Anything can happen to anyone, any time, any place." (Translation: this is the horror genre, so we can do any kind of nonsense we want.) This sounds not so much like something "wise" found on a paper of a Chinese fortune cookie, but more like the credo of every bad horror film director. We get this baloney of a statement served to us early on, sort of as a preparation/justification of the absurd buffoonery to come.<br /><br />"My phone isn't working!" Well, of course it isn't. There is a far greater chance that Sean Penn's brain starts working (after decades of catatonic apathy) than that a horror-film cell-phone does. The single most dreary and predictable horror cliché of the past decade. Why even say it? We KNOW help will never come via a phone-call, so ye horror-making dimwits might as well just not even mention it. The last 50 horror films I saw use this plot device. It's becoming embarrassing.<br /><br />"You always have to expect the unexpected." The final twist was rather surprising, I'll give them that much... However, plenty of nonsense on the way there.<br /><br />Check out the elaborate traps the heroine sets up with the speed of a drugged-up lab rat - in the cold, wet, and almost totally dark conditions. I just love horror-film realism...<br /><br />When a blood-thirsty demon starts trying to be funny (by "shshshing" his victims) then you know your horror-viewing pleasure is in doubt. The less said about the old geezer "cracking wise", the better... Another stupid cliché served by a tired, lazy, uninspired director.<br /><br />What are the odds of being attacked by your husband and then by an eye-hating demon - on the same day? "Expect the unexpected". They might as well have squeezed in an event in which she survives a plane crash, and then another in which she encounters aliens who tried to anal-probe her...<br /><br />The fast-forward button needs a temple or a shrine built in its image. | 0 |
I'm really disappointed by this piece of work. It is quiet shallow, keeps repeating itself, is mostly not exact and sometimes on the verge of being wrong. I think it's made for elementary school, especially because it keeps repeating itself over and over again while leaving large gaps. A young kid might actually enjoy it and learn from it, but a better way to make a kid appreciate theoretical physics are books like "A short history of time" or "The Tao of Physics". If you are familiar with the topic on a very basic level, you won't gain any new information or views from this series. Don't waste your time with it. Nice eye candy though. | 0 |
Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?<br /><br />Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.<br /><br />This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.<br /><br />Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.<br /><br />A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible. | 1 |
Wait, don't tell me... they threw out the movie and kept the out takes. You know, This movie could have been shot in a back alley in New York. The "Gangster Bangster" I guess. Gangster Rap, Designer gangster duster clothes including the kerchief which somehow got moved from the neck for protection from the dust storms to the head. I guess it was to protect the head from the heat filtering through the K-Mart hats. "Budget rent-a-horsie", it seems, supplied the horsies. The one bedroom scene where the girl was talking and the guy was mouthing her words.... I though it was him talking. You know, watching this movie just confirms that, it isn't about the acting anymore... its about looks and it's about the money. Couldn't have been too much of that where this movie is concerned. Well, all in all, I think that this movie will go down as the all time worst movie ever made. Just one more thing though, where was Ice T? Did he finally get to go on Oprah? | 0 |
This pile of sh!t is tied in my book as the worst thing ever made. I can't BELIEVE that someone actually relased this CRAP, let alone acually MADE it. HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Not even worth mentioning the damn story or any details about it. THAT's how bad it actually is. Avoid it like SARS! | 0 |
This is a great movie for the true romantics and sports lovers alike.<br /><br />Drew Barrymore is at her best in this movie. As a Drew fan it was quite nice to see her shine after having several flops. I had my doubts about Jimmy Fallon but he totally delivered as Ben the comical, sports crazed sweetheart. The comedy in this movie is great, there were several laugh out loud moments.<br /><br />Their first date started rocky when he showed up at her apartment with flowers and she was sick to her stomach from eating a new place earlier in the day. Instead of leaving he helps take care of her, helping her change into pajama's then cleaning up the puke on her toilet and bathroom later telling her that she was 'very lady-like...no chunks.' Everything goes great between Ben and Lindsay the whole winter but then baseball season starts. Lindsay starts to realize just how obsessed Ben is with the Red Sox and why this seemingly great guy is still single. She tries to shrug it off and think of it as a good thing as she has a busy work schedule and she wont feel guilty for working extra hours while he is at games. She even buys all the books on The Red Sox she can find including one on 'The curse of Bambino'.<br /><br />Everything is going pretty well until Lindsay has a false alarm having missed her period. It both makes them both realize how serious they are getting and she begins to question if this is the person she wants to be with. A very touching part in the movie is after she tells him she got her period it shows him sadly putting away a baby sized Red Sox jersey he had bought just in case she was pregnant.<br /><br />Eventually Ben tries to show her how important she is and decides to go to her friends birthday Party after she said "I had to check my calender and when I saw the there was a Red Sox/Yankee game I knew I would be going stag'. After the party Ben tells her it was 'the best night of his life'. Shortly after he gets a call from his pal who went to the game he gave up for the party and told him "IT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER!!!" Ben freaks out about missing it and ends up really hurting Lindsay when she says "A few minutes ago you were saying this was the best night of your life" he says "well that was a few minutes ago."<br /><br />So they separate for a while, he realizes how immature his obsession is and decides to sell his season tickets which he inherited from his uncle because if he didn't it would 'remind him too much of what he gave up for them'. Lindsay finds out through a friend and decides to stop him realizing he is doing it for her. It ends very sweetly showing how his childhood love for baseball has been over shadowed for a whole new deeper love, Lindsay. They still go to the games and even attend the final World Series game and St. Louis and it is a happy ending all around. 2 thumbs up!! | 1 |
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.<br /><br />But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.<br /><br />This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.<br /><br />Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.<br /><br />I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.<br /><br />Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it." | 0 |
I really wanted to see this film - I thought the plot was really unique and intriguing. A cop (Andy Garcia) has a son who is dying and needs bone marrow replacement in order to live. The only match is a convicted serial killer, who escapes from jail. To save his son he has to track down the killer.<br /><br />Michael Keaton plays the convict in one of many disappointing aspects of the film. Keaton is a great actor at times but here he is pretty much boring. It's over-the-top to the point where you just stop caring.<br /><br />Garcia is better but tries too hard for a film that isn't up to par. Barbet Schroeder (at one time such a promising director with films like "Barfly" that amounted to pretty much nothing in the American market) directs well enough - I honestly thought the script was the culprit here...it's just a big mess.<br /><br />The film ultimately wastes a lot of good material, good actors and a good director - all because of a faulty script. What should have been a tense and thought-provoking film is just a Hollywood action dud. | 0 |
Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.<br /><br />Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.<br /><br />You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.<br /><br />As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was... | 0 |
The DVD for this film is by Alpha Video--a company that almost always releases the poorest quality prints. In Alpha's defense, often that is the only print available, but the specialize in public domain and cheap-o films. If you can find another print by a different company, try it first as the print for this film is scratchy and faded. Still, compared to most Alpha DVDs, this one is excellent--especially since the sound is pretty clear (and Alpha never seems to include closed captionings--even with films with horrid sound).<br /><br />A man has been dating a lady for a very long time. One night, he's a bad boy and spends the night with another woman. Soon afterwords, he comes clean to his fiancée about this, she forgives him and they marry.<br /><br />Very soon after the wedding, he gets a frantic call from the other woman--she NEEDS to see him and has just tried to kill herself. When they meet, he learns that she has an STD and she wanted him to know that he, too, might now have it. Then, although there is a nurse there and they are treating her for the suicide attempt, she somehow finds a gun and kills herself! The makes a HUGE mistake. He does not tell his doctor and he doesn't tell his new wife. Some time passes and now she and the baby are infected! At this point, the doctor meets with the guy and tells him about the importance of getting treatment and they shows him rooms filled with horribly infected people (actually, these were just films of people with STDs that they spliced into the film--most of whom have syphilis).<br /><br />In some ways the film is very progressive. It addresses a serious issue and it's interesting how the film encourages couples NOT to wait to get married but to marry fast and give in to those sexual urges--but only with each other (not bad advice at all). On the other hand, the film never exactly says what it's talking about. They never use the terms STD, VD or the like, nor does it even name the diseases. Often it is referring to syphilis but at other times it's talking about herpes or other STDs--the information just isn't very clear or specific--a VERY common problem with such films from this era. Audiences at the time must have felt quite confused about what they were seeing and many of the more naive probably needed to have some of their 'faster' friends explain it all to them! <br /><br />Speaking of "such films", in the 1930s-50s, lots of small and often sleazy production companies made films decrying the dangers of drugs and sex (though often they really just wanted to promise a bit of cheesecake for audiences who usually could not see such racy fare in Hollywood films). Many of these are hysterically funny since they are so over-done and the information so inaccurate. The most famous examples are REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS (both by the same two-bit production company) and compared to how salacious and stupid those two films are, this cheap film seems like it should be in the Criterion Collection!! <br /><br />Interestingly, there are weirdos out there (I would definitely be included among them) that enjoy seeing the films because they are often so bad and so horribly made that they are great fun. This one, however, isn't THAT bad nor is the message that convoluted and the film of the victims isn't as grotesque as some similar films. While the message really should have been more explicit and useful, for a 1933 film it's pretty good--despite the occasionally poor acting and the ludicrous suicide scene. Remember kids--just say 'NO' to suicide!<br /><br />Oh, by the way, the "two years of treatment" they talk about in the film was actually the norm for syphilis back in 1933. Nowadays, it's a lot more treatable--as are the rest of the STDs. | 0 |
With some wine, some friends and some good humor, I had a really good time watching this film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Jilon Ghai (as "Randy"), who was such a kick in the pants! His scenes with Charity Rahmer ("Michelle") were wildly amusing. I wouldn't want him coming on to me, but it was great watching "Randy" try to score with "Michelle" and even better seeing the results! Of course, the girls in the film are lots of fun to watch too. AND, a friend of mine showed me the PLAYBOY issue that had Pilar Lastra as the Playmate of the Month. She's definitely a looker. All in all, this film totally served its purpose, which was to entertain us in a light and care-free way. | 1 |
There isn't a whole lot going on in this story -- just two men employing very different ways of handling memories of Vietnam. But what it lacks in premise, it more than makes up for in acting and realism. It's a quiet film about the bonds of friendship and shared experience. We even get romance (not gratuitous -- just another very real piece of this story). It's well worth seeing. | 1 |
"Mechenosets" is one of the most beautiful romantic movies I've ever seen. The name of the film can be translated in English as "the sword-bearer". The main hero (Sasha) was born with one exceptional ability: he can protect himself with the extremely sharp sword which emerges from under the skin in his hand. At first side he can seem one more foolish superhero from the senseless movie about unreal events and feelings. But it is not about Mechenosets. He hardly can be even called the anti-hero. I think he is just a person who lost the purport in his life and faith in good, justice and love. In his life he has never met someone who could understand and love him (except his mother). Every his step is stained with blood; he takes revenge on everybody for his gift which became a damnation for him. And suddenly he meets her. She doesn't need the idle talks and explanations. She loves him for what he is. She doesn't care what he did. The fact that he's next to her is more important than anything else. But soon she finds out his secret: he kills two people (her ex-boyfriend and his bodyguard) to protect her before her very eyes. Even after that she couldn't escape her feelings. They try to run but it's hart to hide. Finally they have a serious car accident. He is caged; she is in a mental hospital. They don't know anything about each other, but she believes that he'll save her. He surmounts a lot of obstacles but finally finds her. They run again but they aren't invulnerable. She is wounded, she needs a rest, but police almost catch them. He doesn't know what to do, they drive into a corner, and then his sword begins to cut down trees, helicopter around them, but there is no need for it, because she is already dead in his arms, and he is the lonely person in the whole world again. | 1 |
First of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.<br /><br />This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.<br /><br />No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help. | 0 |
Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.<br /><br />This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.<br /><br />Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits. | 0 |
So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.<br /><br />From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame "Decapitron" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.<br /><br />Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes. | 0 |
I love this movie. My only disappointment was that some of the original songs were changed.<br /><br />It's true that Frank Sinatra does not get a chance to sing as much in this movie but it's also nice that it's not just another Frank Sinatra movie where it's mostly him doing the singing.<br /><br />I actually thought it was better to use Marlon Brando's own voice as he has the voice that fits and I could not see someone with this great voice pulling off the gangster feel of his voice.<br /><br />Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat" is a foot-tappin', sing-a-long that I just love. He is a hard act to follow with his version and I still like his the best.<br /><br />Vivian Blaine is just excellent in this part and "Adelaide's Lament" is my favorite of her songs.<br /><br />I really thought Jean Simmons was perfect for this part. Maybe I would not have first considered her but after seeing her in the part, it made sense.<br /><br />Michael Kidd's choreography is timeless. If it were being re staged in the year 2008, I would not change a thing.<br /><br />I find that many times something is lost from the stage version to the movie version but this kept the feel of the stage, even though it was on film.<br /><br />I thought the movie was well cast. I performed in regional versions of this and it's one of my favorites of that period. | 1 |
This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead). | 1 |
Michael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname "The Butcher of Plainfield". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon. | 0 |
I was having just about the worst day of my life. Then I stumbled on this cute film, watched it, and now I'm ready to go out & kiss a streetlamp.<br /><br />I have to admit, I only watched it for 2 reasons: VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS. But it's really so much more. The plot is actually quite clever and creatively woven. It's almost like a Shakespearean comedy with all of its delightful misunderstandings. And of course there's also... VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS.<br /><br />The only unfortunate aspect of this film is that the version I purchased (the "100 Family Classics" collection by Mill Creek Entertainment) doesn't have the best video quality, and I've heard the same about the Alpha release. The brightness and contrast are a bit too high, so a lot of the scenes seem bleached out especially when Vera is dancing in a white dress. But I suppose you can fiddle with the controls of your TV set to compensate. I can only imagine how it looked on the big screen back in '51. The stage sets, costumes & colours are otherwise dazzling & delightfully creepy--sort of in a "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" vein.<br /><br />As far as the romance goes, this is just perfect. Not sappy, not contrived, not melodramatic. Just 100% ahhhhhh. Too bad, you poor schmucks, your miserable lives will never be as charming as this. Har har har. Wait, what am I laughing at? My life sucks just as bad as yours. Oh hell. Time to watch this movie again. | 1 |
This tatty am dram adaptation scrambles soulessly through the plot of Dickens' wonderful book, replacing the emotional impact with hurried transitions and any exterior locations with drawings. It's not the fault of the actors and the production team that the budget is so low, of course, but you have to question the point of making this in the first place when there's neither the time nor money to do it justice. Michael Hordern's Scrooge is far too gentle at the outset, making his transformation lack power, and this isn't helped along by a lack of reaction from him as he watches the visions. The other actors range from acceptable (Clive Merrison, Paul Copley), to non-committal (Bernard Lee) to seeming like they're about to forget their lines (John Le Mesurier). It doesn't even score points for effort, to be honest. | 0 |
I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made. | 0 |
Gilmore Girls is my favorite TV show of all times. they only aired the first 2 seasons in India but i've watched the rest on DVD or read it online. it's very refreshing to find a show where the protagonist isn't sneaking around her mother's back but has an open relationship with her. the chemistry between Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who play Lorelai and her daughter Rory is really great. all the acting is excellent and the characters, though extremely quirky, are still believable. the residents of stars hollow show all the amusing bizarreness of small town life, which is contrasted by the endless snobbishness and social norms that make up the high society life of Lorelai's parents. on one hand there are dance-athons and firelight festival's while on the hand you have cotillions, DAR meetings and cocktail parties. all the character's develop a lot and there's a happy ending for more or less everybody. there are dramatic elements but also a lot of very witty humor. Rory's boyfriends are all incredibly hot as are her friend Lane's. basically it's a cool, funny, very satisfying show which encompasses all the aspects of life and gives you a feeling of -if you work hard enough and wait patiently, you'll get what you want even if it wasn't what you intended. | 1 |
Imagine the most depressing winter you will never experience: grey instead of white, no snow fights and certainly no wonderlands. This is the Finland as portrayed by 'Frozen Land'. This film follows a bunch of people whose lives are oddly linked to each others' with results beyond anyone's nightmares. Yes, most characters are flawed in the way that only celluloid characters can - completely annoying and frustrating to watch, yet for some reason you wish for their luck to turn. <br /><br />With some randomly placed humour and a cast that groups together Finland's somewhat mainstream faces, Frozen Land offers a glimpse of the Finnish mentality that despite its depressing downward spirals manages to restore some faith in humanity. More so than Kaurismäki, to say the least. | 1 |
I saw this Hallmark television movie when it originally aired. I lost interest in the story because a character was said to be a witch. I just was not in the right frame of mind to watch this film. But Hallmark stands for the best, quality films. Now, there is a reason to give this film a second look. Clive Owen who plays "Damon Wildeve" just might have a chance to be selected as the next James Bond 007 when Pierce Brosnan passes it on. Clive Owen might have to wait until the year 2008. The other reason is the female lead is Catherine Zeta-Jones is now a celebrity (she was an unknown at the time) and became an Academy Award winner for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 2003. Joan Plowright as "Mrs. Yeobright" is also in this film. I like the opening line in this film: "Deliver my heart from this fearful, lonely place. Send me a great love from somewhere or else I shall die, truly I shall die." | 0 |
If you watch this movie you'll be quoting it and referring to it for a long time to come. It's been years since I saw Dolemite and I still quote it to this day. It's a true classic. It is so mind-numbingly awful that it makes a hilarious view. Every terrible line of dialogue is totally amazing. Every wobbly shot a work of art(?). And every punch and kick so woefully executed. You won't believe your eyes. It's all I can say. If I really get into how mesmerizing this movie is I won't be able to stop and I'll go way over the IMDb 1000-word limit.<br /><br />Please, please watch this movie. You'll be in hysterics. Either 1/10 or 10/10, depending on your sense of humor. | 1 |
BLACK WATER has to be one of the best Australian movies I've seen in many years. My girlfriend and I sat gripping each others hands, jumping in all the right spots. This is as much a crocodile film as OPEN WATER was a shark film. In other words, the creatures are merely part of the dilemma, the trap in which people find themselves through circumstances. How director's Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich wring as much suspense and terror from such a modest situation is amazing to watch unfold. And when I say terror, its not overblown, artificially constructed squirm moments, but more little touches that when you ask yourself "how would I feel in that situation" lead you to conclude "scared witless". Performances were great, the pacing and gorgeous cutaways to other life in the mangroves were excellent and the ending moments of the film felt very right. This is a fitting feature debut for two directors who should rightfully by very proud. Go and watch this very beautifully shot and acted suspenseful film. | 1 |
The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.<br /><br />This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs. | 0 |
I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.<br /><br />One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.<br /><br />Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.<br /><br />Yes, I know the "original" movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.<br /><br />Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.<br /><br />Well, just a quick list anyway :-) | 1 |
Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you. | 0 |
Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.