text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping "executive vice-president." Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time! | 1 |
The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.<br /><br />There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.<br /><br />There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10. | 1 |
saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie. | 1 |
THHE remake was a superior movie remake in every way. Most remakes end up being total garbage but under the very talented direction of Alexandre Aja became one of the best ever made in terms of remakes and also as far as the mutant inbreed human sub-genre of horror is concerned. In steps part 2 directed by another individual Martin Weisz and written by the father and son combo of Jonathan and Wes "I cannot make a good horror movie to save my life anymore" Craven and if this is any indication of Weisz directing skills and young Craven's writing skills we are all in for a painful future as THHE 2 not only fails to be as good as the first but also fails to entertain on ANY level.<br /><br />We start off with a fairly graphic mutant baby birth which though is rather cool will not prepare you for the utter garbage that is to come, only hint to what could have been in this film. We then get to see a crew of scientists who all to briefly are introduced and dispatched by our radiated rejects. In steps our main cast of army reservist to save the day, this is where the major problems begin.<br /><br />From very sub par acting (yes even for this kind of movie) to the horrible characters to the lack of true carnage for most of its running time THHE 2 becomes a labor to watch as a lot of nothing happens as idiotic soldiers make mistake after mistake only to meet there demise not by the mutants but themselves. Think the Marines in Aliens only the exact opposite and you have the idea of how well these soldiers are trained. This is the true shame of the film as most of the Hills occupants do not get the kills you would like to see, like in the first film, in fact if this did not have THHE 2 attachment in the beginning and the brief overview in the beginning tying this loosely to the first this could have nearly been a Sci-Fi Channel original.<br /><br />The Mutant Mountainbillies as well are not as amusing this time around in fact in a lot of way they are far inferior to our prior batch as they all come off as being rather under designed and uninteresting. Also the one that took the cake was the Sloth-like Mutant (you know Sloth from the Goonies) who helps them out in the 3rd act. I was waiting for him to ask for a Baby Ruth or start going on about Rocky Road Ice Cream. Truly disappointing and shameful is the only way to describe most of the goings on here.<br /><br />The gore is in the film but not nearly as visceral as the original in fact it seemed toned down for the most part as other than the mutant baby birth scene there really isn't anything that stood out like in the first. Another major strike against this movie. So what did work here, the answer is nothing at all. This felt like a sequel designed specifically to make money off the success of the first and not to make an actually "good" film.<br /><br />I can go on about the crappy Drill SGT., the radio man that has a speech impediment (that's right, he is the kind of guy I want radioing in for help in a real crisis) or the pacifist fighter that resembles the exact same character mold as our "hero" in the first film but I believe you get the point. This movie is not even in the same league or even the same planet as the first. It should have been given another title and been added to the Saturday Night Line up on The Sci-Fi Channel. A true shame as a solid sequel could have been made but alas it looks like another horror movie that drops the ball on nearly every level and will get one of my lowest scores as I give THHE 2 the same score as its part: 2/10 Dreadful: Words cannot describe how bad this movie is a total polar opposite of its predecessor in every way, uninspired and down-right unnecessary. Next time guys if your going to make a sequel this bad...don't even bother. Please don't go support this garbage at the theaters, save your money and thank me later!!!! | 0 |
This is a truly remarkable piece of cinematic achievement. From the very start I was utterly hooked into the (true) story when Lt. Viktor Burakov (Stephan Rea) weeps while performing the autopsies on the remains of the children's bodies. This then is the compelling story of Andrei Chikatilo, wonderfully played by Jeffrey DeMunn (The Green Mile). In fact, he plays it so well and so sympathetically that the viewer almost starts to pity him, until we remember what he is. The psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, wonderfully played by Max Von Sydow was utterly believable in every detail, and the point he makes when talking about paranoia in the Soviet Union, is made all too apparent by the behaviour of the local Communist Commissar Bondarchuk played by Joss Ackland. For me though, the outstanding performance was from Donald Sutherland, proving once again what a superb character actor he really is. I was almost in tears when he told Burakov how the FBI had so closely followed and admired his work. This film puts Silence of the Lambs into the shade, from the atmospheric and bleak Soviet landscape, to the superlative performances by everyone involved. <br /><br />I rate this film 10/10 | 1 |
I'm going to make this short and sweet. It's not surprising that you had no use for this film. This is a story about the power, beauty and possibilities inherent in a meaningful education. Based on your pathetically composed comments I can see that your own education has been woefully neglected... or worse... completely wasted. Your comments are those of a truly ignorant person. I would advise you to do something about this condition... but in your case I feel it's probably too late. My hope is that you yourself don't intend to go into the teaching profession ( especially in Film Studies) because you could only do damage. Oh... one last bit of advice. In the future, if you intend to write more opinion pieces, you should really proofread your work. It will make people take you more seriously. | 1 |
I only comment on really very good films and on utter rubbish. My aim is to help people who want to see great films to spend their time - and money - wisely.<br /><br />I also want to stop people wasting their time on garbage, and want to publicize the fact that the director/producer of these garbage films can't get away with it for very long. We will find out who you are and will vote with out feet - and wallets.<br /><br />This film clearly falls into the garbage category.<br /><br />The director and writer is John Shiban. It's always a bad sign when the writer is also the director. Maybe he wants two pay cheques. He shouldn't get any. So remember the name - John SHIBAN. And if you see anything else by him, forget it.<br /><br />I won't say anything about the plot - others have already. I am a little worried by how much the director likes to zoom in to the poor girl's face when she is crying and screaming. These long duration shots are a little worrying and may say something about the state of mind of Mr. Shiban. Maybe he should get psychiatric help.<br /><br />Enough already. It's crap - don't waste your time on it. | 0 |
This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.<br /><br />I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.<br /><br />Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on. | 0 |
For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.<br /><br />Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.<br /><br />The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.<br /><br />The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.<br /><br />Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it. | 0 |
I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them. | 0 |
One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934. | 1 |
I'm guessing that we all, no matter if we are fans of cars, luv the sound of a Dodge Challenger as it growls along the road, the noise a 57 Chevy make as it screams with ecstasy when it tears round a corner and, most of all, the blast of sound as a classic vehicle bursts into flames as it explodes. I'm not the biggest car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but any of the above really does rev my engine! There's no denying the importance of transport on cinema. It has even been said that the invention of the train was one of the biggest influences on early cinema (looking out a window almost like a moving picture and the idea of being transported to a different time/space). But the car remains the most popular and most luved, it's even got its own genre: the carsploitation genre. A genre that focuses purely on the beauty of cars. In effect, it's just porn! Car porn! And I'm not talking about that rather nasty documentary on Channel 4 in which men actually had sexual intercourse with cars. Whatever floats your...car, I guess. Moving on... whilst RUNNING ON EMPTY isn't quite as pornographic as VANISHING POINT (Richard C. Sarafian, 1971) for instance, with its close ups of the car in motion, all it's bumps and curves (!), this doesn't mean that the car isn't the main focus of this film. In fact, the cars themselves become characters (more on that later). They're objectified and fetishised as much as the women, in fact, maybe even more. And holy holy, are these cars something! Every car in this film (besides the ones in the background) are simply beautiful works of art, there's no question about it.<br /><br />As I was saying, these incredible cars are, in a way, given characters themselves. You actually start sympathising with the car! SPOILER Most notably during the scene in which the car is being wrecked and burnt SPOILER OVER. This has become almost a convention of the carsploitation genre; the evil 1978 Plymouth Fury from CHRISTINE (John Carpenter, 1983), Satan's custom Lincoln Mark III in THE CAR (Elliot Silverstein, 1977), the nifty little Mini Coopers from THE Italian JOB (Peter Collinson, 1969) to the friendly Volkswagen Beetle in THE LOVE BUG (Robert Stevenson, 1968) and of course each car from DEATH RACE 2000 (Paul Bartel, 1975) and even WACKY RACES (1968-1970) all of which had their own character. Ironically however, this emphasis on the car often over takes (!) the human characters! And this is certainly the case with RUNNING ON EMPTY, in which only one human character (the blind character who drives his car with his hearing rather than sight) has any sort of dimension, the rest are very much stock characters. These are all your stereotypical Australian 1980s teenagers; big hair, annoying accents and none of whom would look out of place in NEIGHBOURS, especially the Kylie Minouge look-a-like. But who gives a damn? It's all about the cars racing and crashing! That's it! If you don't like that you really are watching the wrong genre.<br /><br />The car scenes are certainly the selling point of this film, and the best thing it's got going for it. They are fast; very fast! And we're not talking about the rather annoying technique some films seem to use where they record the car 'speeding' at around 40mph, and then speed it up. Oooh no! Not with this film you don't. These cars are zooming along at top speeds in real time no fancy editing tricks here. So, we've got speed. Check. What about crashes? Check, check, check! Whilst there isn't cars crashing EVERYWHERE a la the incredibly BLUES BROTHERS (John Landis, 1980) , when cars do crash in this film, they certainly crash! It would seem that they use gunpowder or something similar to build the cars as one little hit and KABOOM they're up in flames. It kind of reminded me of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (Bo Arne Vibenius, 1974) in that sense.<br /><br />Between these simply awesome scenes (especially the very start and the very end) there are quite a few scenes which slow everything done and, in my opinion, fail to add very much to the film. Note: more exploding cars needed! However there are a couple of exceptions here which are great scenes SPOILER especially the attempted rape scene.<br /><br />So, all in all, this is a man's film! A boy's film! Full of cars vroom vroom vrooming around the outback and a couple of tits thrown in for good measure too. I'd recommend this little film to anyone even if they are keen cyclists (!) it's a great film which you can just switch your brain off, sit back in your leather chair and put on full volume! I'll give it 3.5 luvs out of 5 luvs Bruuuuum! P.S Amazon are selling this for just over £2 it's a real bargain although the DVD lacks any special features whatsoever. | 1 |
Okay, I like to give the benefit of the doubt. I watched his show.<br /><br />It isn't funny to me. All I remember was a lot of "weird" noises and yelling. I don't think I even cracked a smile. The only thing that somewhat resembled humour was his Anjelina Jolie/Jennifer Aniston bit. I think you can get dumber by the minute watching it though.<br /><br />Also, what's with the "Ask Whitey?" section? Is that a ripoff of "Ask a Gay Dude?/Black Man?" from Chappelle's Show? Isn't it that obvious? But when Chappelle did it, he was exposing the ignorance of the subject. Like Borat. But what's up with picking random white people and yelling stuff at them? That's not funny, its just plain dumb.<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure I heard certain "jokes" of his somewhere else... it seems abit like he's 'plagerising' bits & pieces, throwing in some "loud" yelling.<br /><br />Anyway, it wasn't funny. Seriously. Don't even waste your time. | 0 |
Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.<br /><br />The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.<br /><br />With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies. | 0 |
Irwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the " Master of Disaster " | 0 |
Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is! | 0 |
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.<br /><br />This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.<br /><br />Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself! <br /><br />The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot! | 0 |
After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.<br /><br />The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.<br /><br />The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next "scary" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.<br /><br />The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10 | 0 |
This is one of my all time favorite movies and I would recommend it to anyone. On my list of favorite movies (mental list, mind) the only ones on par with it are movies such as The Lord of the Rings series, Spirited Away and Fly Away Home.<br /><br />I can really relate to the main character Jess. At the start of the movie she's a shy girl with a slightly odd background who has a lot more friends who are boys than that are girls. She really sucks you into her life. I also certainly can't fault any of the protagonist's acting, or anyone else's in the film.<br /><br />The soccer was interesting to watch even for someone like me who has no idea of the rules. The movie is never boring. The romance is really cute and didn't make me blush tooooo hard! One thing that really made it though was the Indian factor. Jess' parents are Indian and there are many colourful Indian conventions throughout the film providing a very interesting cultural insight as well as everything else. The Indian people are also hilarious! Essentially this is a coming of age film about choosing the path you want and fighting for it.<br /><br />Feel good comedies are becoming my favorite movie genre thanks to this film. They're funny, they're refreshing and they make you feel good! ^_~ | 1 |
(Only light spoilers in here)<br /><br />Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.<br /><br />You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with "Care for some tea?", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the "wannabe movie" category.<br /><br />You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.<br /><br />However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.<br /><br />I voted 4/10. | 0 |
Anna (Ursula Andress) is brought in as an official R.N. by ex-lover Benito Varotto (Duilio Del Prete), ostensibly to nurse an aging widower, Count Leonida Bottacin (Mario Piso), back to health after a heart attack. But Benito is actually leading a group of heirs and businessmen, including American entrepreneur Mr. Kitch (Jack Palance), with ulterior motives, reflected by what Anna hopefully will actually accomplish with the Count. He has a history of, well, liking women, and would be actually a bit more "vulnerable" as he is cured. The bad guys get derailed as Anna does not go along and grows closer to the Count. The ending might be said to be ironic, but it is probably better described as predictable. <br /><br />But so much for plot--this film is totally an erotic comedy, from start to finish, and oh how good. There are many nude scenes, including ones of Anna and Jole, one of the malevolent heiresses, played by Luciana Paluzzi. Both Ursula and Luciana are noteworthy continental ex-Bond women, and thus fulfill the fantasies of male viewers. As she did in Thunderball (remember Fiona Volpe), Luciana plays a femme fatale, sort of, although less elegantly.<br /><br />Perhaps the best scene is Anna's (slow) complete strip and jump in bed with the young Adone, the "other patient" (who incredibly is resisting), in an attempt to find out what he knows about the plot. But even at this point she is already two-faced (for the better), for she has decided not to go along. However, Benito is more than a two-timer with women, having had lengthy flings in the past with both Anna and Jole, and the rival best erotic scene follows an invective-filled (to put it mildly) argument between him and Jole. This is a standing-up encounter in which Luciana is down to black panties only. Another nice one is Ursula swimming fully naked in the estate's pool. The Count is free, as the client, to put his hands wherever he wants to on Ursula, and he takes advantage. Hey, somehow I've gone back to the actresses' names in my descriptions. Erotic scenes involving other women include an amusing naked wine cellar chase. "The Sensuous Nurse" is compact, 77 minutes, but it doesn't need to be--it is enjoyable without interruption, start to finish. Definitely recommended.<br /><br /> | 1 |
What a piece of stupid tripe.<br /><br />I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?<br /><br />There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.<br /><br />FOX has lost it, IMHO. | 0 |
I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.<br /><br />The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more "stagey" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.<br /><br />Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.<br /><br />This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation. | 1 |
In Europe, it's known as Who Dares Wins; in America, it's known as The Final Option, but under any title this ludicrous SAS action flick asks the audience to put their disbelief to one side for around two hours. I find it incredibly hard to comprehend how Lewis Collins (the hero here) was almost chosen as Roger Moore's successor in the Bond films.... this guy is so expressionless he'd struggle to get a job in a waxwork museum (as a waxwork!!!) Luckily, Judy Davis is on hand to partially redeem the affair with a meaty performance as a hard-line lady terrorist, and there's a climactic ten minute action sequence that is quite competently orchestrated by director Ian Sharp. Let it be added that it's a very, very, very long wait for these closing excitements to come around, and I can't honestly say that a near two hour wait for a bit of decent action was worth the effort.<br /><br />SAS hard man Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) goes undercover among a group of peace protesters who would like to see the end of nuclear weapons stock-piling. He meets their leader Frankie (Judy Davis), a strong-talking and opinionated woman who might just be capable of taking extraordinary measures to achieve her goals. Frankie's dedicated bunch violently lay siege to the American Embassy in London, demanding that a nuclear missile be fired at a naval base in Scotland (she believes that when the world witnesses a nuclear blast for real, everyone will be so appalled that they will join her campaign for disarmament). Unfortunately for Frankie, she makes the mistake of taking Skellen on her little embassy raid, and he plans to thwart their plan from inside with a little well-timed outside help from his SAS comrades.<br /><br />The film is inspired - quite obviously - by the awesome SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy in 1981. Someone who saw that event on the news apparently thought it would be good to devise a film along similar lines. Unfortunately, the film is rather banal, with too much stupid dialogue and a heck of a lot of embarrassingly bad scenes (the arch-bishop's debate which descends into a riot, anyone?) Frankie's idea to bring about peace by instigating a nuclear blast is ridiculous anyway, so she becomes a laughable figure just when the audience is on the verge of viewing her as an interesting villain. Who Dares Wins tries to be a celebration of the military legend that is the SAS, but at the same time it dips into clumsy action clichés and ill-thought-out plotting. The result is a well-intentioned but wholly ineffective slice of Boy's Own absurdity. | 0 |
On the bright side, it ended. That's the only thing this movie has going for it, of course.<br /><br />This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen some bad ones. This movie is actually so horrible, I went and changed my rating for Children of the Living Dead to a 2 just for not being Raptor.<br /><br />Official one-liner rating: "Come with me to another movie if you want to live." | 0 |
It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.<br /><br />The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.<br /><br />Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.<br /><br />I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work. | 0 |
Never mind if 'National Velvet (1944)' is a bit hackneyed and occasionally unconvincing, Clarence Brown's equestrian fable is an endearing and very likable story with a good moral. After achieving modest success through her appearance in 'Lassie Come Home (1943),' young Elizabeth Taylor, age 12, landed her first leading role as Velvet Brown, a passionate schoolgirl with an obsession for horses. Though filmed in California, the story - adapted from a novel by Enid Bagnold - is set in a small township on the English countryside, and full advantage is taken of the Technicolor photography to present the vibrant and handsome landscapes of blue skies and green shrubs. Mickey Rooney takes top billing as Mi Taylor, a misguided ex-jockey with devious intentions, whose relationship with young Velvet reawakens his sense of dignity and opens a new, optimistic chapter in his life. Though he noticeably struggles in one sequence, when he must confess the traumatic experience that led to his fear of horses, Rooney is enjoyable as the surly but passionate young man who must prove his worth.<br /><br />It is perhaps a good thing that Elizabeth Taylor had those entrancing violet eyes, because her acting abilities, at this young age, were rather limited. Her more emotional sequences, in which she displays courage and integrity in the face of adversity, strike one as being rather hollow, and the touchingly-naive notion that simply "believing" will accomplish everything is one that has since been repeated ad nauseam by practically every unmemorable inspirational sporting film ever made. Nevertheless, Taylor is bright-eyed and enthusiastic, and she works well with Mickey Rooney, who was no stranger to being a child-star. Anne Revere plays a very important role as Velvet's mother, once a famous athlete, who not only swam the English Channel but was lovingly-trained by none other than Mi Taylor's own father. I liked that Mi was not told about this until the film's final seconds, with Mrs. Brown correctly deciding that the young man would first need to develop his own sense of decency, rather than exploiting the memory of his late father for financial gain, as he would undoubtedly have done at the film's beginning.<br /><br />The film reaches its climax at the Grand National Sweepstakes, where Velvet has, at the last moment, decided to ride her own horse, the Pi, in the world-famous competition. Under the guise of a Latvian male, she goes on, as expected, to win the race, but is later disqualified - either because she's a girl, or because she tumbled from the horse before she was allowed to dismount (what a stupid rule!). This extended race sequence is exceedingly well-done, effectively capturing the nervous tension of those nerve-racking pre-race seconds, and the confusion of the event that places us in the same position as Rooney's character, stranded behind tall spectators and waiting anxiously for somebody to provide an accurate update. It doesn't really matter that we know it's a stunt double doing most of the difficult riding - in several scenes, we can clearly see a creepy-looking man in a wig - but the positive message remains the same. I'll wager that 'National Velvet' has nurtured the imaginations of millions of young girls over the last sixty years, and it's power to inspire has decreased little with time. | 1 |
Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want "simple entertainment",this not for you.<br /><br /> I could enthuse about the visual perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film. | 1 |
I am writing this review having watched it several months ago....the trailer looked promising enough for me to buy this lame excuse for a movie. It is a complete joke....and literally a spit in the face of real classics of the early generation of horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which they even had the gall to compare itself to on the back of the cover art. The producer who played Brandon should go flip burgers and serve up greasy hamburgers....hell he might not even be good at that either! The lighting was bad bad bad and a big annoyance through out the film you couldn't even see the actor's faces sometimes. I don't even remember the rest of the cast members which is sad really, bad they never do anything to impress you to make them memorable. That's all the time I will waste on this review PLEASE stay as far away as you can from this pile of junk even if you get it for 25 cents don't do it buy s piece of gum at least IT would keep you entertained!<br /><br />If you want good quality low budget fun, far better than this... then check out a Jeff Hayes film....because it takes talent to make it in horror and the kid has it!<br /><br />I gave this 1 star just for the cover art....thats the only thing worth liking abut this so called "film"<br /><br />-Rick Blalock | 0 |
It's 1982, Two years after the Iranian Embassy Siege which involved the dramatic SAS Rescue from the Balconys, and with a War with Argentina over the Falkland Islands currently taking place, what better film to make than a Gung-Ho "SAS" Film that re-creates the Iranian Hostage siege, whilst using Britains Number one action hero of the day, Lewis Collins. throw in Edward Woodward and a few other Well known actors and you've got a winner on your hands?...Well maybe not! The film itself doesn't make the situation serious enough, whilst the acting is quite second rate. it's like a Movie long episode of "The Professionals", but without the formula. This film goes nowhere fast and is quite predictable. Maybe Cubby Brocoli watched this film and decided to ditch Lewis Collins as a Touted James Bond Replacement for Roger Moore. Watch it if your a fan of Lewis Collins or SAS stuff in General, if not, save your time. | 0 |
Michael Caine has always claimed that Ashanti was "the only film (he) did purely for the money" as well as "the worst film he ever starred in". Hold on, Michael, weren't you in The Swarm and Hurry Sundown? And weren't both of those films a good deal worse than Ashanti? Perhaps Caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures (the director, Richard Fleischer, was hospitalised as a result of sun-stroke during the shoot). What Ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low-point of Michael Caine. Instead, it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast, exotic locations, boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline.<br /><br />Dr. David Linderby (Caine) is a W.H.O medic who is left devastated when his black wife Anansa (Beverly Johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an African tribal village. Linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders - led by Suleiman (Peter Ustinov) - and he sets off on a continent-wide pursuit which eventually leads to the Middle East.<br /><br />Along the way, big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. William Holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot; Omar Sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered Arab millionaire; Rex Harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists Caine in his quest. The film is based on a best-seller entitled Ebano, by the little-known author Alberto Vasquez-Figueroa, but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. Ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances), and Caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he'll never see his wife again. There are occasional flashes of action, but on the whole Ashanti is quite slow-moving. All in all, it is a resistible piece of action hokum - not by any stretch as awful as Caine has frequently suggested, but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let-down from all the talent involved. | 0 |
Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon. | 0 |
If you just want gore, and nothing but gore and torture, you've come to the right movie. If you want a at least a sliver of good acting, logic, story, consistencies, or even a good guy ending, go elsewhere.<br /><br />I couldn't help but to think to myself, "Jeeeez, are those people mentally challenged?" Example, after being chased around and seeing other people mutilated, the main actress meets a police officer and spills out her story to the cop with tears and everything and told him about the psychopath that drives in a yellow truck. THe yellow truck pulls up and the officer just walks to it, talks to the guy and the truck drives off without any trouble. The actress comes out and says why didn't you arrest him? And then the truck runs over the police officer... after being rammed the truck stops on the road about 20 feet way just standing there while the actress tries to drag the cop away but he's too heavy. (At the time) At that time the truck backs up and runs over the cops leg twice. The truck then drives off. Why didn't the actress get the gun is beyond me. (WHich later she shoots the cop in the head twice because the psychopath was about to burn him alive) Once through the mouth, which didn't kill him (Duuuumb) and twice to finish the job. *Roll eyes* Right after that, she turns away to escape the bathroom which was going to explode and when she climbs near the roof, she turns around and the cop isn't there anymore... OK...<br /><br />Another example, The main actress meets a trapped woman in the bathroom, she spits out like a gallon of blood on the floor, covering about 1/3s of the room. (Probably more) After the main actress goes outside to grab a towel, she comes back in and everything is gone. :/ They don't explain why everyone keeps disappearing either. Dumb dumb dumb.<br /><br />I like horror/thriller/gore movies, but this one was just way too dumb. I lost brain cells watching this dribble and you shouldn't too. | 0 |
In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?) | 0 |
I'm a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again. | 0 |
The best screen performance ever by George C. Scott. The screenplay by Chayefsky, the irony-freighted dialogue, is near perfect ('Just where do you train your nurses, Dachau?'). Rigg is wonderful as the rescuing angel who saves Scott from doom, as is the whole cast. It's a hilarious and serious movie. It is a movie of the period, the 60's, but it is not in any sense dated. What it is about, the chaos and irrationality of the system vs. the sanity of the individual, is timeless. And the "We heal nothing. We cure nothing" monologue (delivered, shouted actually, as no one else but Scott could) with its references to cloning and other 'wonders' of modern science could literally have been written this morning.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Just a comment on New Orleans accents...<br /><br />An earlier reviewer noted the following: "This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country." There was also another comment along these lines from an English reviewer.<br /><br />Many people in New Orleans do, in fact, sound "broklynese". I have never found out why. (It's mentioned in "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole.) I always appreciate movies taking place in New Orleans that include this detail, as this one did. Too often it's just the Hollywood version of the standard Southern accent. | 1 |
this western/musical/comedy is not one of the best of the genre i have seen.i found it much too slow.it just plodded along to the inevitable end.i also found it disjointed.i couldn't wait for it to be over.Randolph Scott is the headliner here,and Lloyd Bridges also stars.but for my money money Edgar Buchanan is the best of the bunch.Buchanan appeared in many westerns in his day,many times providing comic relief,as he does in this picture.i also liked Ann Dvorak as Rita.otherwise,though,i can't think of much to recommend this movie.the movie is based on a novel by Ernest Haycock,who also wrote the novel Stagecoach,which was mad into a movie of the same name in 1939,and remade in 1966 and again in 1986.The 1939 version of Stagecoach,is in my mind,one of the best movies ever made.anyway.as for Abilene town,my vote is a 3/10 | 0 |
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-) | 0 |
The story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.<br /><br />The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.<br /><br />I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.<br /><br />The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.<br /><br />Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.<br /><br />It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller. | 0 |
"Hail The Woman" is one of the most moving films I have ever seen in my entire life. I watched it twice in a row and sobbed my eyes out.<br /><br />This silent film masterpiece deserves a much wider viewing audience; unfortunately the sole surviving print is so badly scratched that most people won't watch it all the way through, and they will miss the gem shining underneath the rough. This film could use a digital restoration, to help bring out its beauty, but I doubt it will get it from anyone, since its main theme is Spiritual restoration before Christ of the family unit, and this is not politically correct these days. However it remains a powerful theme for those whose hearts are hurting from the pain of broken family relationships.<br /><br />The cast is magnificent, especially Florence Vidor, who literally glows as Judith, the daughter; ethereal Madge Bellamy as Nan, the poor girl who gets pregnant and is cast aside; Theodore Roberts as the crotchety old domineering father who destroys everyone around him through pride; and handsome Lloyd Hughes, as the son David, afraid of his father, but really of life itself. <br /><br />This is a nice film to watch at Christmas, especially. You will not regret being patient and viewing it in its entirety despite its deterioration. | 1 |
Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books. | 0 |
Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.<br /><br />I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one. | 0 |
The director is sweet, as is his co-directing wife Shira Geffen, but their movie sucks. It has its moments (and some pretty girls), but there is too much of everything: "Amélie" meets "Breaking the waves" meets "Pauline at the beach". You walk away wanting to know more about the wedding photographer, and about the girl who likes it best when nothing happens, be it in movies or in real life. Instead, you get a suicidal writer, a neurotic actress and an illegal-immigrant-come-social-worker with a heart of gold. It feels like there's more than one truly touching story hidden in the script, but at face value it's a truckload of wasted story lines and sentimental bullshit. Hard to sit out as it is. | 0 |
A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film! <br /><br />And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?<br /><br />Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!<br /><br />If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead? | 0 |
This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring. | 1 |
I hope she can keep acting and directing. She's surely up to the task and could easily develop that visionary streak into a long career of unconventional and rare works of art. Her work has a rare kind of generosity and her timing is spot-on! Oy I'm kvell | 1 |
Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their "immorality" at a camp.<br /><br />Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.<br /><br />* out of ****.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use. | 0 |
This film is a wonderful movie based on the life of a man called Grey Owl in 1930s Canada. I found it to be similarly riveting and heartfelt as 'Rudy' and 'Awakenings'. It picks up late in Grey Owl's life and follows him through his most tumultuous and influential period.<br /><br />The film is about a Canadian Indian trapper who finds himself promoting the plight of the over-trapped Beaver. He also predicts the decrease in natural lands and the overuse of Earth's resources. This is an outrageous concept in the 1930s and surprisingly well received. He becomes a well known speaker and the masses are ready to listen.<br /><br />The casting of Pierce Brosnan seems rather odd, but is not outrageous. Anyone wanting to argue that point must first watch the movie to understand. Brosnan provides a wonderful performance as does Annie Galipeau. Galipeau is a strong actress whose place beside Brosnan is refreshingly natural compared to the forced pairings in recent Bond films.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to anyone interested in good drama, beautiful scenery, or environmental causes. It is a movie for families as well, however children under 10 (depending on maturity) would have trouble following the plot. | 1 |
Elvira(Cassandra Peterson) is the host of a cheap horror show. After she finds out that her dead aunt has left her some stuff, elvira goes to England to pick it up, hoping it will be some money. But to her horror, elvira finds out that all her aunt has left her is her house, her dog and a cookbook. Elvira decides to settle in the house anyways, but with her striking dark looks and her stunning features, she will not be able to live in peace. All the neighbours are now turning the whole town against her, and with Elvira's outrageous attitude and looks, everyone better watch out, because Elvira is on Fire! I really enjoyed this movie, it's really fun to watch get Elvira into all these adventures, she's just great. The whole movie puts you into a halloween mood, sure, it's silly and the jokes are cheap but it's a pleasure to watch it. I would give Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark 8/10 | 1 |
Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.<br /><br />I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.<br /><br />Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little. | 0 |
I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie. | 0 |
When it comes to the erotic genre, I'm lucky to get through the first 20 minutes of the plot without getting up or looking for something else to watch. This movie is different. Julie Davis (I love You Don't Touch Me) directed two very strong lead actors Kira Reed and Doug Jeffery in this enthralling thriller. Kira is convincing as "Kim" a sweet innocent romance novelist that gets caught in the web of seduction of Doug Jeffery's "The Man" a handsome stranger. Kira loses control of her inhibitions in the role, and as actress, giving what could have been simply another T and A depth and believability. I believe it to be her best performance yet. And Julie Davis' direction is a great gift to erotica. | 1 |
Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.<br /><br />Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.<br /><br />The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.<br /><br />The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.<br /><br />I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned | 0 |
Touching and sad movie. Portrays the trials and tribulations of a writer trying to come to terms with paralysis caused by a cycling accident. The film centers on his relationship with his married lover, whom he is often very hostile towards, and his interactions with other accident victims, particularly a black down-and-out and a white-supremacist biker. The film is often humorous, often sad, and always believable. Get out the box of kleenex and watch this on a cosy Sunday afternoon with your partner. | 1 |
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary. | 0 |
I was looking forward to watching this film and was therefore extremely disappointed when I found it to be complete and utter rubbish. Akerman's direction is both heavy handed and cliched (how much more cliched can you get than Paris at night?). The male cast seems to have been chosen entirely for their resemberlance to Egon Schiele's angst ridden self portraits. Yet the themes of jealousy and betrayal which should have been the primary focus of a film of this type are left virtually unexplored. What is left is a turgid melodrama which takes an age to get started and even longer to finish. The only advantage with this sort of film is that it makes you realise how good Goddard and Truffaut really are. | 0 |
This is one of the most daring and important of the so-called "Pre-Code" films made in Hollywood during the 1930s. Unlike some Pre-Code films that occasionally dabbled in subjects that would have never been allowed after 1934-5, this film fully immersed itself in a very sordid yet entertaining plot from start to finish. The conventional morality of the late 30s and 40s was definitely NOT evident in this film, as the film is essentially about a conniving woman who sleeps her way to the top--and with no apologies along the way. This "broad" both enjoyed sex and used it on every man who could help her get rich--something you just never would have seen in films made just two or three years later.<br /><br />The film begins with Barbara Stanwyck working in her father's speakeasy. In addition to being her boss, he is also her pimp and encourages her to sleep with a local government official so that he'll allow the illegal bar to operate with impunity. While not especially clear here, it appears as if Daddy has been "renting" his daughter's body out for a long time.<br /><br />However, after nearly being raped and attacking this man by breaking a bottle of beer over his skull, Barbara has had enough and heads to the big city. It doesn't hurt that the still blew up and killed her father, but her feeling that she was whoring herself out and had nothing to show for it appeared to be the impetus to move.<br /><br />Despite the Depression, Barbara uses sex to get a job at a huge mega-bank. She starts out at a pretty menial job as a file clerk, but in the space of what seems like just a few weeks, she sleeps her way from one job to another to yet another--until she is sleeping with the head of the bank and his future son-in-law!!! This all ends in tragedy, but Babs doesn't seem too shook up over the deaths of these two men. In fact, some time later, she is able to insinuate herself into the life of the NEW CEO and once again she's on top (perhaps in more way than one).<br /><br />Now so far, this is a wonderful movie because it was so gritty and unrepentant. Barbara played a 100% sociopath--a woman with no morality and no conscience--just a desire to squeeze as much out of life as she could no matter who she hurt in the process. However, the brave writers and producer "chickened out" and thought it important to tack on a redemptive ending. Considering that this woman was so evil and conniving, her change of heart at the end was a major disappointment and strongly detracted from the film. In many ways, this reminded me of the ending of JEZEBEL--as once again, a wicked person somehow "sees the light" and changes at the not-too-convincing conclusion.<br /><br />My advice is to try watching RED-HEADED WOMAN and DOWNSTAIRS. RED-HEADED WOMAN is much like BABY FACE but features no magical transformation at the end--the leading lady really is a skunk down deep! In DOWNSTAIRS, a film very much like RED-HEADED WOMAN, the roles are reversed and a man (John Gilbert) plays a similar conniving character. Both are classics and a bit better than this film.<br /><br />This film is an amazing curio of a brief period of often ultra-sleazy Hollywood films and in this light it's well worth seeing for Cinephiles. Also, fans of The Duke take note--John Wayne plays a very small part in the film and it's very unusual to see a very young Wayne playing such a conventional role. | 1 |
Douglas Sirk's inaugural "women's-picture" weepy for Universal, based on a preachy, dogmatic, didactic novel by the intolerable Lloyd C. Douglas (author of that other beloved piece of crap, *The Robe*). Rock Hudson, in the role that catapulted him to stardom, plays Bob Merrick, a drunken playboy worth untold millions who is more interested in chasing skirts and racing speedboats than in finishing his medical degree. In the first scene, he wrecks his boat on a sumptuously photographed lake. The accident nearly kills Merrick, and thus he requires a rather mysterious "resuscitator machine" to keep him alive . . . meanwhile, across town, beloved surgeon Dr. Phillips finally drops dead from a heart condition. Since the local hospital can maintain only one resuscitator at a time, Phillips dies so that the louse may live. When Merrick learns of this, he tries to make apologetic overtures to Phillips' family, especially to the widow (Jane Wyman, coiffed and clothed in matronly hauteur), but indeed anyone and everyone who knew the surgeon spits at Merrick like a brace of cobras. One doctor on the hospital staff even calls it "a total waste" that the playboy lived instead of the Christ-like surgeon. Hippocrates might have had something to say about that!<br /><br />These early scenes are where you'll find the typical Sirkian iconoclasm: the director rubs our faces so much in the unpleasantness of middle-class, mid-century America, that one finds oneself rooting for the wastrel playboy to put whoopee-cushions under the ramrod fannies of these moral hypocrites. But, alas, no: the risible plot of the novel must proceed, and Merrick soon finds himself getting converted by God, in the guise of pipe-puffing Otto Kruger, an artist who claims that Phillips made him a better man and even a better painter. (Why don't we see any of this amazing art?) We learn that the intolerably ubiquitous Dr. Phillips would often refuse payment for medical services rendered (though who exactly qualified for these "magnificent exemptions" is never made clear). This is supposed to provide our hero with a whole new outlook on life and an example of personal conduct. Kruger even tries to make it all sound very illicitly exciting: "Once you start this thing, there's no way out of it! It's an obsession . . . a MAGNIFICENT obsession!" So Merrick tries it out by AGAIN pestering the widow with apologetic overtures, but he somehow causes her to get hit by a car. She loses her eyesight. Apparently, Merrick will have several more stations-of-the-cross to trudge past before he can be accounted a decent fellow.<br /><br />But Sirk continues to sneak in his revenges even as the movie grows more and more preachy. The most obvious bit has to be the presence of Agnes Moorehead as the head hospital nurse and Wyman's friend and unrequited lesbian lover. Note the disappointment on Moorehead's face when Merrick, finally redeemed as a doctor, shows up to save Wyman's life near the end. Hudson's own homosexuality, an open secret in Hollywood at the time, is also used to great ironic effect. He and Wyman -- dowdy and fifteen years older -- generate absolutely zero erotic heat in their scenes together, which, by the way, are purposefully few, presumably because any more scenes between the stars would hopelessly expose this whole enterprise. (One thing we feel certain of: if Rock Hudson was obsessed by anything, it certainly wasn't Jane Wyman.) It's a chronic case of *Tea and Sympathy*. Sirk seemed to enjoy tweaking everyone's noses by having this gay actor -- who was attractive to the innocent ladies of the era -- coolly drift through these exquisitely-colored "women's pictures". In fact, the director worked with Hudson 6 or 7 more times, to best effect in the follow-up to this film, *All That Heaven Allows*, which re-teamed Hudson with Wyman but was also accompanied by a realistic plot. In *Obsession*, meanwhile, we must endure God/Kruger gazing beneficently down from an observation-window onto Merrick and his medical team as they prepare to save Wyman's life, in tandem with a musical score of swelling vocals from a cheesy Hollywood choir.<br /><br />But to see why Sirk is considered an auteur, check out the scene wherein Wyman explains to her grown daughter that she can in fact tell the difference from night and day. The entire frame is blackened, here: the daughter is barely visible, and Wyman's face is faintly silhouetted against a faint light. She goes on to say that she hates the night because "I know that Dawn will never come again". A great, chilling moment that deserves a much better movie than *Magnificent Obsession*.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10. | 0 |
Vincenzo Buonavolunta, a man that has spent years working at a steel mill, as a maintenance man, that the Italian owners are selling to the Chinese, comes at the end of the meeting where the purchase is being arranged because he wants to tell the new buyers of a flaw he has discovered and he thinks he has the solution. He doesn't exactly endear himself to the Italian old management, or to the new Chinese owners. He even fights with the translator about the exact term he wants to use in expressing his concern.<br /><br />The next thing we see is Vincenzo arriving in China trying to contact the new owners. To his amazement, there is someone new in charge, as Mr. Chong, the man he tried to warn in Italy, has been fired. His next quest is getting to the woman that was the translator, Liu Hua. He finds her working in a library, but she tells him, in no uncertain terms, she blames him for being fired from her position. Liu, who sees the desperation of Vincenzo, agrees to accompany him to find his steel mill plant. <br /><br />Thus Vincenzo and Liu begin a voyage through some of the bleak countryside that involves traveling by train, steamship, bus and truck, to remote parts of the giant country. Finding the correct factory proves to be elusive, at best, but Vincenzo discovers a life that is completely alien to him, as well as finding a kind soul who doesn't hesitate to help the Italian man, in spite of her initial distaste for him.<br /><br />Gianni Amelio's film is a sort of travelogue. He takes the viewer into unknown territory. Some comments compare Vincenzo to Marco Polo, the great Italian traveler, although the similarities are not quite tangible. The film keeps our attention in the early stages of the trip, but it starts getting somewhat less enjoyable as Vincenzo gets stranded after separating from Liu. Mr. Amelio is an interesting director, as he clearly demonstrates with this film for which he worked on the adaptation of Ermano Rea's novel, which we haven't read.<br /><br />Sergio Castellitto is the sole reason for watching the film. This versatile actor brings a lot to the movie, which, in a way, is a tour de force for him, as he is seen in almost every frame of the picture. The combination of Amelio and Castellitto proves to be a winning combination. Ling Tai, who is making her debut as Liu Hua, has some lovely moments and shows good chemistry with her co-star.<br /><br />Luca Bigazzi photographed the Chinese landscape in all its bleakness. We see a China that is not picture post card pretty. Mr. Bigazzi captures all the greyness, so typical of the areas where the film is set. Franco Piersanti's musical score serves the film well. | 1 |
A huge disappointment from writer Hamm and director Dante. Their previous collaboration on the first season's "Homecoming" was twisted and darkly hilarious in all the right ways. This poor handling of an intriguing premise left me bewildered. The supposed "payoff" showing generic aliens extracting something from the brains of the infected psychopaths was completely unsatisfying and explained nothing. If the point of the story was an extraterrestrial "cleaning" of the planet of it's human infestation, why did they go about it in such a gratuitously sadistic and misogynistic fashion? Why not just unleash a completely lethal virus a la Stephen King's "The Stand" instead of having the male population butcher the females? I kept hoping the episode would improve as I kept watching but it just got more pretentious and preposterous. The religious subtext simply seemed forced but it was clear Sam Hamm must have thought it was profound by the weight he gave it. I like a lot of both Dante and Hamm's work but this was just unwatchable. | 0 |
These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, "uhh okay?" but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch. | 1 |
Wow. I just saw Demon Wind a little while ago, and I don't think I'll ever be the same. It has the power to inspire nightmares, but for all the wrong reasons, actually.<br /><br />Never before has humanity seen such a gratuitous change in make-up, for no damn reason. Or, similarly, so much bad zombie (?) makeup that makes you hungry for those Halloween green marshmallows.<br /><br />Or so much naked old lady, for that matter. But then, there was "The Shining."<br /><br />The plot here is so amateurish that it actually almost holds a little bit of charm, as does the dialog. The last shot of the film is just so silly that its beyond description. It's like some drunk college student got together with some pals and decided to throw Bruce Willis type dialog together with (I guess?) teenybopper dialog from some Elm Street film. The result is jarring, and it'd be truly funny if it was intended that way.<br /><br />Ah, what the hey. I'll laugh anyway.<br /><br />Hell, get together with your friends and watch this. But make absolutely sure you're drunk first. Or, you may go insane. Particularly if you're a college film student.<br /><br />Cheers. | 0 |
Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as "An American Werewolf" movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to "London".<br /><br />*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!<br /><br />But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*<br /><br />The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.<br /><br />However there were a few things that saved this one from total "turkeydom", there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word "moon" in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.<br /><br />But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.<br /><br />**1/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.) | 0 |
A real sudsy soap opera here as Spencer Tracy tackles the role of an illiterate until the age of 20. He marries the woman who teaches him and her ambition and his drive leads him to success.<br /><br />Success but no happiness here. A n'eer-do-well son and a faltering marriage leads to disaster and tragedy. Tracy buys a railroad and succeeds only to be subjected to a disastrous rail strike and the death of 406 workers.<br /><br />The film appeared at the beginning to be uneven but is rejuvenated thanks to the excellent use of flashbacks here.<br /><br />A double separate suicide here. We know that riches can't buy happiness but this is a little too far fetched. Nonetheless, we have riveting performances by Tracy and Colleen Moore. Ms. Vinson, as the 2nd wife, is also quite effective. | 1 |
To sum this story up in a few sentences: A teenage girl (Amy) uses her hot body and "supposed" virginity to entice a young troubled guy (Matt) with a potential football scholarship to provide her a "Full Ride" out of town. Come to find out she has quite the reputation & has slept with many football players in the past hoping they would offer her the same deal. Both of these kids have come from troubled & dysfunctional homes. Matt's mothers a alcoholic who repeatedly embarrasses him in front of his friends & Amy's mother had a bad reputation herself & got pregnant with Amy at a a young age. Matt falls in love with Amy & tries to straighten out his life for her. Very predictable ending. The actress that plays "Amy" is actually 33 years old trying to play a teenager! | 1 |
Well, I fell for it. I saw the box for this at the video store, and mistook it for "Girlfight", which I'd heard was great. In my own defense, the titles are similar, and they re-did the cover art for the box so it looked almost identical. Anyway, to sum it up, they obviously re-did the whole cover packaging/promo to capitalize on the buzz/success of "Girlfight". I popped it in and got a bad feeling when they started showing trailers for low budget straight-to-video flicks, and even worse when a music video of the main song for the movie, which sounded like elevator music and featured corny slomo clips from the movie preceded the main feature. When I saw the first few minutes and Maria Conchita Alonso showed up, I knew I'd fallen for it. (don't get me wrong, she's a talented actress, but I knew she wasn't in "Girlfight", the movie I'd been under the false impression I was renting).<br /><br />So, apart from me feeling sort of cheated and mad at myself for not looking closer, the movie was OK. The plot involves Belle, a young Latino woman who is the daughter of an ex-champion boxer. One of her close friends is a female boxer, who--and I could see all this coming sooo far ahead of time it was really a drag--gets seriously injured during a match with a mean champ named "The Terminator", who resembles a female version of a bigger, more pumped up Ike Turner. Of course, Belle decides that the only thing to do is to become a boxer herself and avenge her friend. She lives with her caring, supportive yet protective Dad (her mother died of cancer when she was younger), who just happens to be a cop. Her love interest, also caring and supportive yet protective, is also a cop who works with her dad. Hmmm, they both have jobs that put their lives in danger in the line of duty...wonder what's gonna happen? She starts training and meets a sleazy manager who of course, pretends to care about her but just wants to exploit her. The actor they hired looks like a very low-rent Cary Eweles and is so young he barely manages to have a mustache. His acting was also really, really bad. I'm not even going to go into the plot any further because anyone who has seen Rocky, or almost anyone, knows exactly where this movie is going and how it will end.<br /><br />This was not a completely terrible movie. Most of the acting was OK, and the lead actress was very good. There were good, strong female Latino role models. The final fight scene did get me sort of interested, even though I knew everything that was going to happen long before it did. The actress that played "The Terminator" did a great job of being unlikeable enough that I really did want Belle to kick her a$$, and rooted for Belle-again, although there were absolutely no surprises. My favorite moment (maybe the only moment where I wasn't mad at myself for renting the movie by mistake) was when Belle slaps her sleazy manager after he's shown his true colors, yells at him, and then turns away only to suddenly fake a punch and watch him cringe back in fear, showing that she is really the one in charge.<br /><br />The dialogue was really, really bad, my main complaint. One of their attempts to be witty was someone discussing boxing saying "size doesn't matter" and the female replying wryly, "now where have I heard that before?" Other lines that are supposed to have dramatic impact are "The doctors told me I may never walk again!" "Come on, you know you can trust me!" and "Your mother would have been so proud of you". I could go on and on. Nothing you haven't heard a million times before in bad soap operas or movies-of-the-week. <br /><br />Maybe I'm being too mean-the filmmakers did make an effort, and I did sit through the whole thing voluntarily...but only because there was nothing else to watch while I worked out. You could do worse (especially if you are looking for a movie with strong female characters) but you could also do much, much better. | 0 |
This is one of the most atrocious rewrites I've ever viewed. If they want to make a movie with a lousy story, they should refrain from giving it a title of a fine book. There is hardly a relation between Wolfe's book and this movie other than the title. I don't mind changes if they help a story flow on screen. At least the changes shouldn't hurt the final product. The last scene in the movie is painfully unconvincing. The actors are miscast. The director and/or screen writer obviously could not decide whether to make a lame comedy or preach an unconvincing sermon.<br /><br />If you've seen this movie and disliked it, try the book. If you've seen this movie and liked it, read the book. | 0 |
WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.<br /><br />I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.<br /><br />Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.<br /><br />The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right! | 0 |
i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either. | 0 |
Kevin Kline offers a brilliant comic turn in the 1997 comedy IN & OUT. Kline plays Howard Brackett, a small town history teacher who excitedly sits down to watch the Academy Awards this year because one of his former students (Matt Dillon) is a nominee. He is nominated for his performance in a film where he plays a gay soldier and when he wins, he thanks Howard in his speech for inspiring him because Howard is gay. Now this floors Howard because he as no clue why thus guy would say this on international television. Howard is even engaged to be married (to Joan Cusack, in an Oscar-nominated performance)so he has no idea where Dillon;s Cameron Drake got the idea that he is gay and finds he has to defend himself to everyone at school but is shocked that no one seemed terribly shocked by what Cameron said on the Oscars. Howard has a birthday party where he is given birthday presents like the soundtrack to YENTL and ends up explaining to his guests why Barbra Streisand had to make FUNNY LADY. His parents (Wilford Brimley, Debbie Reynolds) are shocked but promise to support their son, even if he is gay. He also gets a visit from an out of town reporter (Tom Selleck) who wants to do an article about him because he's gay too. The moment when Selleck plants a big kiss right on Kline's lips is a classic. But all of these little things have Howard actually questioning his sexuality and wondering if he really is gay...much to the aggravation and frustration of his fiancée, Cusack, who is beyond confused. The scene where she leaves a bar in her wedding gown and stands in the middle of street screaming about the lack of single straight men in the world is a classic. But what I like about this movie is the way Kline fully invests in the role and was not afraid to look foolish or look gay. There is a fabulous scene, probably the most famous from the film, where he buys a record, on how to be macho, and the guy on the record is talking about how real men don't dance and a disco tune comes on (I WILL SURVIVE if memory serves)and the narrator on the record says no matter what you do, don't dance, but Howard can't help himself and he ends up shaking his groove thing all over the room. It's hysterically funny and Kline plays it with sincerity and gusto. The film is not pro or anti gay...it's just a deft and amusing character study about a man trying to figure out exactly who he is. Wonderful film. | 1 |
German emigree and uber-hambone actor Paul Muni who never saw a scene he didn't want to chew up goes "blackface" to play a humble Mexican immigrant living in Los Angeles and working his way up in the world. If this creaky vehicle reminds anyone of Al Pacino's minstrel performance as an uncultured Cuban in the remake of SCARFACE, don't be too surprised. The characters are quite similar, and both get wildly pop-eyed when the script calls for it. Hispanics everywhere should be greatly offended by Muni's over-the-top performance as this giddy Mexican living the American dream, consequences be damned. I guess Benicio DelToro's grandfather wasn't available. A young, bleached-blonde Bette Davis plays one of Muni's love interests; she eventually goes insane for love of Mr. Meh-hee-can Muni. An absolute hoot, Davis is the sole reason to watch this racially offensive claptrap. There is an absolutely delirious near the end when Muni asks the gal of his dreams to marry him -- a white gal of breeding with one of those stilted, stage-like '30s accents that Hollywood loved so much -- and she calls him a savage and a brute, of "a different tribe." Muni immediately transforms into Mr. Hyde and chases her to an untimely death. In the final scene, a repentant Muni tells his sober-faced priest that he is going back to his own people, his own kind. End of movie. Finis. That's all she wrote. Muni was said to have hired a gen-oo-ine Mexican as a chauffeur in order to study this exotic creature's speech pattern and physical habits. Yowza! | 0 |
On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.<br /><br />The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.<br /><br />It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.<br /><br />I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical. | 1 |
This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, "which Zapatti was which?" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a "huge, blockbuster" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of "splash" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.<br /><br />So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie! | 1 |
This movie is great. Best acting i have ever seen in my life. Ingvar E Sigurðsson is the best Icelandic actor, and of course Hilmir Snær and Bjorn jörundur. Great music and sound. Cold hard reality about a struggle of a man that has a lot of problems and the people in his life. Black humor mixed with great acting and this European art movies style, it works, it comes together in a the best Icelandic movie ever made. I say to you." See this film, you will not regret it". I gave it 9 stars. If you see one Icelandic film in your life...See this one | 1 |
Words can't describe how bad this movie is. I can't explain it by writing only. You have too see it for yourself to get at grip of how horrible a movie really can be. Not that I recommend you to do that. There are so many clichés, mistakes (and all other negative things you can imagine) here that will just make you cry. To start with the technical first, there are a LOT of mistakes regarding the airplane. I won't list them here, but just mention the coloring of the plane. They didn't even manage to show an airliner in the colors of a fictional airline, but instead used a 747 painted in the original Boeing livery. Very bad. The plot is stupid and has been done many times before, only much, much better. There are so many ridiculous moments here that i lost count of it really early. Also, I was on the bad guys' side all the time in the movie, because the good guys were so stupid. "Executive Decision" should without a doubt be you're choice over this one, even the "Turbulence"-movies are better. In fact, every other movie in the world is better than this one. | 0 |
Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.<br /><br />- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.<br /><br />- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.<br /><br />- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.<br /><br />- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead. | 0 |
This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.<br /><br />For John Kobal's 1987 book, "The Top 100 Movies", his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.<br /><br />The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.<br /><br />The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!<br /><br />John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.<br /><br />Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable. | 1 |
I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though. | 1 |
I have seen the movie Holes and say that it has to be the best movie all year long. It brings out the child in everyone. I mean who would come up with the idea of having troublesome boys dig holes as their punishment? Louis Sachar thats who. Although the movie was different from the book it was still very good. For example Caveman/Stanley was supposed to be the biggest one there. Weight wise and height wise but ZigZag/Ricky was taller and Armpit/Theodore was bigger. Also X-Ray/Rex was supposed to be one of the smallest boys but wasn't. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was that the flashbacks were rather persuasive and long. I would have rather seen more of the present than past but thats just my opinion. I especially like the work of the boys though. Like Squid/Alan who was played by Jake M.Smith was supposed to be a moody and tough kid. Jake M.Smith performed just that and did a great job at it as did almost all of the actors in Holes. So I would say if you havent seen Holes yet then you should definatly see it when it comes out again or you'll be missing out on a whole lotta fun. | 1 |
The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be "Something About Mary," but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies. | 0 |
Great characters, great acting, great dialogue, incredible plot twists in plain language one of the best shows I've ever seen in my life. Do yourself a favor and watch this show, you won't regret it. This show re-writes the book on Sci-Fi! | 1 |
I just have to add, in case anyone actually reads this and hasn't completely gotten the point yet. These other reviewers aren't joking around, this really IS the worst colour movie you're likely to ever see. When the movie started I couldn't believe something like this actually made it out for the world to see.<br /><br />They're not just saying it when they said it looks like a home movie. It really does. Like the "director" took the family hi8 camcorder (before DV cameras and computer non-linear editing), no other equipment (lights, sound gear, etc), grabbed some decent-looking acting students, and went out to shoot a movie. No script, just making it up as he went along.<br /><br />When I watched it, it was on my mono TV, so I only have one channel of audio (left of right speaker). At first I thought I'd hooked it up wrong. The movie was silent until someone spoke a couple of minutes in. I got up and switched over to the other channel and suddenly I could hear music and sound effects but then couldn't hear the dialog. They recorded the sound on different bloody channels! I mean, there's movies that can be funny to watch, so bad they're good, kind of thing. I'm not sure this is one of those. I mean, I'll admit to being a bit of a budding film maker. And seeing bad movies just makes you want to go out there and PROVE you can do it better, you know. But watching this just made me feel sorry for whoever made it.<br /><br />As bad as they were, the actors are the only good thing about this. I thought the chick was hot and was disappointed in the brevity of her bath scene. A bit of T and A from her would have raised the score from nothing to maybe a 3 or 4. But alas, no. If you want to make a movie but it's turning out crap, throw in some gratuitous nudity. Worked for Roger Corman. | 0 |
I just re-watched this thriller, one I had previously believed to be one of Hitch's lesser efforts. How wrong can you be! Maybe because I'm older, or maybe because the film gets better with every viewing, but now I think it's amazing. Every bit of suspense is wrung out of the tiniest detail, and that final scene on the merry-go-round is just breath-taking! Perfect in every way, highly recommended. | 1 |
I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating. | 0 |
OK, so I know of this movie because of a friend of mine's in it and I actually visited the set when they were filming, so from a personal stand-point, I was intrigued to finally view this obscure little gem. If you dig at all on info regarding this movie, you'll find it's mired in legal troubles (even over 7 years after being filmed) so, if you are at all like me -- then you'll do whatever it takes to obtain a copy. My source? Ebay. About $15 but I felt ripped because when I got it today in the mail, it was a very rough, grainy copy of a "SCREENER ONLY" release, complete with annoying top mini time-code but alas, I could still enjoy it but not as much as if I had a proper copy, something I suggest you obtain if you want the full impact this film may or may not have on you. From what I have gleaned, it's been released on DVD in Germany & now Spain. With that, good luck & happy searching/bidding...;). The score/sndtrk is worth it alone. Very eclectic and varied (somethinbg rare these days IMHO in film) -- I think that will be my next sndtrk/score to locate, but I digress... <br /><br />Now, onto the review. The film opens as Billy Zane's character is injecting a nurse in the mental ward he is apparently locked up in. He steals her clothes (even shoes) and quickly moves into a series of holding up a bank/loan shop but after escaping with the loot, well, I guess this is where the "plot" begins -- he inadvertently looses it. After perpetrating several campy over-the-top crimes & dalliances to various A to C-list celebs to locate the money, he finds himself somehow in a cemetery where a funeral -- I think for the dead guy he shoots in the loan office/bank, and -- even with 1950's police cars and cops looking all over for him steadily throughout -- he never gets seen or nabbed. (He sees daily newspapers reporting his "crimes") This I liked, because it gave the thin plot an extension. After all, it's a MOVIE (see: fiction) & director Iris Iliopulos does what I think is everything possible to 1) Bring Wood's vision to fruition and 2) Give it an updated feel, yet have shots of authentic 50's police cars intertwined with, ahh, local L.A..99$ stores -- so well hence my 9 rating. If the period and props were authentic -- I would have given it a 10. Now it wraps it self up kinda weird and I won't spoil it for anyone but let's just say the final ending is somewhat disappointing for it, to me, it had promise, action and comedy -- all up till the end, so...with ALL that said --locate a copy at your own discretion.<br /><br />Just realize that, as there is no dialouge (except for some narration and singing) this may be up your alley -- maybe not-- but I definitely think it's worth a watch. The actors all do fine performances and it's only the inconsistency in proper period pieces that really made me long for just that correction -- then I would say by all means check this film out for it's not like anything these studios put out these days (or will in the future, too) I am sure. | 1 |
The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10. | 1 |
This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie. | 0 |
Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history. | 1 |
Ouch, what a painfully BORING Sci-Fi movie! And that's especially saddening because the opening 15 minutes were so action-packed and full of potential! During the intro, we follow a bunch of nervous security officers and hired hit men as they chase a doctor who escaped from a mysterious laboratory with a briefcase full of top-secret files. As he's about to reveal the supposedly horrible & inhuman events that take place in the lab, he's executed. Figures
From then on, the 'action' swifts back and forth between two locations, the aforementioned laboratory and the rural mansion of a corrupt senator (or something), and it quickly becomes clear that the experiments are actually the complete opposite of disturbing. More like dull, pointless and vague. Scientists selected four random persons without living relatives and it's really really really really important that they speak the truth even though a giant machine reads the content of their minds, anyway. They all hide dark secrets from their pasts and people suffer when get revealed; yet I fail to see how these tests could ever result in a humanity-threatening device. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it. The interactions between the patients and doctors are even less interesting to follow, as really none of them have personalities. So basically, "The Brain Machine" just handles about a bunch of lame people living in an awfully decorated room. The film also could have been half an hour shorter if it weren't for a THOUSAND stagnant shots of buildings! The relocations from the lab to the villa and vice versa are indicated EVERY SINGLE TIME by a five-second shot of the places. Either the makers really needed the padding or they just assumed that all Sci-Fi viewers are morons unable to notice a change of location by themselves. Staring at a forsaken pool with a mansion in the background for the tenth time in only five minutes becomes quite annoying, I assure you. James Best's performance as the reverend with mental issues is rather decent, but one man definitely can't save this thing from being an absolute waste of time. Avoid! | 0 |
If you "been there" and "done that" you will absolutely love this film. I have and by "there" I mean underground clubs and house parties where there is far more rare to find people just being drunk than it is to find people high to their ears on extacy, speed or LSD. <br /><br />By "that" I mean dancing and sweating like crazy for eight hours or so in a row with out even a brake and , that followed by a way to long morning of no-can-sleep and almost wanting to die, followed by a week of just waiting till the next weekend to do it all again.<br /><br />So even though this film now is one of my absolute favourites I can certainly understand why some people, or most people even, would dislike it. | 1 |
"Slaughter High" is, perhaps, the most underrated slasher flick of the 1980s. It is one of the few films in the genre that is enthralling throughout. That being said, it also relies heavily on the standard slasher formula: A group of young men and women get killed one by one gruesomely until the final showdown.<br /><br />The reason why "Slaughter High" stands above most movies in its genre is that it goes more over-the-top. Marty, the killer, has good reason to hold a grudge against his former classmates. They electrocuted him as he stood naked in a girl's locker room shower, jabbed at his crotch with a javelin, and, to top it off, rigged his science lab experiment so it could disfigure him.<br /><br />So, the victims in this movie are about as unlikeable as you get. When they reunite years later -- at a high school reunion put on by Marty himself -- you realize they haven't matured all that much. They're a bunch of sociopaths.<br /><br />It is mind-boggling why they would not wonder why they were the only ones to show up to the reunion, which, by the way, is held at a school that has since fell into disrepair. And who would think it's a good idea to drink beer and liquor found in the abandoned building in a room that happens to have their old lockers -- as well as Marty's -- on display? There are many leaps of faith the viewer needs to take to enjoy this film. The ending makes little or no sense. And the screenwriters have a strange understanding of how April Fool's Day works: The movie claims that pranks are no longer allowed after noon.<br /><br />In all, the movie is one of the best examples of the slasher genre, despite all of its flaws. It is hard to understand why it hasn't yet found its way to DVD, when so many other run-of-the-mill slasher flicks are graced with special editions. | 1 |
For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the "Man In Black" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.<br /><br />This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more. <br /><br />I have also seen the infamous "Producer's Cut" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.<br /><br />Overall, "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10. | 1 |
I found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.<br /><br />Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.<br /><br />Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.<br /><br />Even then "Sex Lives..." it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.<br /><br />I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste/vagina comparison. | 0 |
Wirey's journey through the final days of bachelorhood, liberally sprinkled with flashbacks to a sexually active and diverse childhood.<br /><br />It's definitely not a feel-good romance movie. It is a romance movie, but one without illusions. Everyone's an adult here, not your cup of tea if you want another Sleepless in Seattle or Notting Hill. | 1 |
If you see this movie, you know you will see an extense video-clip of popular music. But you will find more. Incredible FX, great music and a nice time to enjoy with your kids. If you compare this movie, you have to remember is a pop extravaganza. Clips of "Man In The Mirror", "Leave Me Alone", "Smooth Criminal" and Beatles' "Come Together". | 1 |
A huge cast gathered for this remake which sadly was a box office failure notwithstanding a great sound track. I can't say it was riveting entertainment, nor a cure for insomnia. Nevertheless I enjoyed the film - it provided the escape I was after one afternoon. A good look for those of us looking for the ideal life, albeit a fantasy. Expect some corny moments, few thrills, and an occasional laugh. | 1 |
Just went on YouTube and finally watched this Oscar-nominated animated short directed by Richard Condie. I had previously watched his funny Getting Started there. In this one, a couple are playing Scrabble. The wife keeps shaking her eyes while her husband has nothing but E's on his side. The wife leaves for a while to vacuum her bed and bathtub(!) before catching her husband looking at her side. Briefly before this, the husband catches a TV show called "Sawing for Teens" with the stars sawing something and the husband getting his own saw. That program gets interrupted by a special report of a nuclear war happening (the newsman is a skeleton here) as everyone panics outside though the husband fell asleep during this time and thinks a parade is going on as he and his wife continue arguing about the game...There's plenty of other bizarre things going on before the touching ending comes on. Quite hilarious and well worth seeing for any animation buff out there. Can't wait to see any more animated shorts from Mr. Condie... | 1 |
At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-) | 0 |
This movie is amazing. It is funny, sexy, violent and sick, but it all holds together for a brilliant Troma rendition of Romeo and Juliet. If you don't mind being grossed out a bit (ok a lot, but it's funny grossed out), see this movie. It's worth it!There's not one level on which it doesn't deliver. I've seen it thrice now, and it is still amazing. I recommend it. Go! Get it! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.