text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
This delighted audiences at a number of film festivals, and it is not hard to see why. Director Yang Zhang, with the help of some very nice work by the three principle actors, Xu Zhu as the father, Master Liu; Quanxin Pu as the elder son, Da Ming; and especially Wu Jiang as the irrepressible and lovable younger son, Er Ming, spins a tale that will warm the coldest heart.<br /><br />The film starts with a man taking a shower in an automated booth in the middle of Beijing. He puts some money in a slot, opens the door, takes off his clothes and puts some of them on a conveyor belt to be cleaned, steps into the shower and gets cleaned with brushes and squirts of water and soap as though he's a car at the car wash. This is the future symbolically speaking, and the old bathhouse we will see in the next scene is the past. Agrarian China is giving way to industrial China.<br /><br />Pollution? Cultural revolution hang-over? Industrialization blues? No way. What we have here is a celebration of people and their kindness and love for one another, a celebration of goodness in the hearts of men. Yet I wonder how the Chinese government views this film. On the one hand, it clearly presents a pleasant view of China and its people. It is stringently nonpolitical without criticism of the present regime expressed or implied. Yet there is the slightest sense that the good old ways are going to be replaced by something that may not be as good. I think Yang Zhang had the wisdom to just let that be as it may. Tell a story about old men at the bathhouse where they get back rubs and massages, where they tell tall tales and reminisce about the good old days, where they can relax and play Chinese chess and stage cricket fights, where the Master is a spry and wise old guy and his assistant is his son, who may be retarded or autistic, but who does his job with glee and an infectious spirit of fun and good will.<br /><br />Enter back on the scene the older son, Da Ming, who is polished, well groomed and taciturn. He is uncomfortable with what he sees as the unsophisticated behavior of his father and brother. He represents modern China with his tie and his briefcase, his cell phone and his education. He has only returned because he thought his father was dying. When he sees that this is not true, he packs his bags and is set to return to his wife and his career. But then a crisis ensues and it is during this crisis that Da Ming sees the value of the natural, people-centered life that his father and his brother have been living.<br /><br />And so Yang Zhang reconciles the old and the new, and does so in such a charming manner that I will not object, especially since his style is so neat and so carefully expressed. One of the nice things he does that I miss in most movies is the way he dovetails the subplots within the larger story so that they are resolved before the picture ends. The bathhouse regular who sings "O sole mio" in the bathhouse as the water showers down upon him, much to the delight of Er Ming, finds that he can't sing in public because of stage fright. Near the end of the film he loses his stage fright and sings thanks to some inspired help from Er Ming. And the bathhouse regular who is losing his wife because...well, he tells a tale to Master Liu before he confesses the real reason. But Liu understands and again before the movie is over, husband and wife are reconciled.<br /><br />This kind of "happy ending" movie-making is unusual in today artistic and international films, or in almost any film directed at adults. Some happy endings are so contrived as to embarrass not only their contrivers but their audiences. And some are so blatantly condescending that the audience is offended. Here however the audience is delighted.<br /><br />See this especially for the comedic performance by Wu Jiang whose warm effervescence overcomes any handicap his character may have. | 1 |
Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next.... <br /><br />I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.<br /><br />Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!<br /><br />Why this was renamed "Legacy of Blood" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!<br /><br />Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs. | 0 |
When a friend gave me a boxed set of "12 Amazing Scifi/Horror Movies!" I was understandably a little cautious. But, since the item was a gift, I really didn't truly pay my common sense much heed. After all....movies for free! So what if they are a little ropey. After much consideration, Alien Intruder was the first of those movies. Ironically, it was first choice because it looked the best of the bunch. All I can say is, if this is the best of them, I shudder to think what the rest are like.<br /><br />On the surface, it had some good things going for it. Four (count 'em!) actors that I was familiar with. Billy Dee Williams, Tracy Scoggins, Maxwell Caulfield and Jeff Conaway. I told myself..."Billy and Tracy have been in some good scifi (Star Wars and Babylon 5, respectively) so they wouldn't sign up for a turkey. Max is a veteran soap actor who never really managed to break into film....but not too shoddy an actor. An Jeff....well...he's done the good and the bad as far as films and TV go." I was soon to discover that Jeff had decided to add "the ugly" to his repertoire of movies.<br /><br />The first clue was in the opening scenes. Jeff mugs his way with gusto through an "I'm mad" scene before finally killing himself. An amusing cameo performance, really. Unfortunately this is, without much exaggeration, the highlight of the film. It goes downhill from there.<br /><br />Next up we have the commander of the mission (Williams) who is being sent out to see what happened to Jeff and his crew busy picking his new shipmates from among the ranks of the criminal element. But this assortment aren't so much the Dirty Dozen - more like the Unconvincing Foursome. Plus, one of the crims, a computer hacker, is shown in his cell working away on a laptop computer. Isn't that a bit like letting a murderer run a gun shop in the slammer? Pretty lame prison, if you ask me.<br /><br />When they finally take off the effects are truly horrible. It looks like the spaceship model was knocked up in an afternoon by some bored 8 year old who had parts left over from his Airfix kits.<br /><br />But the horror doesn't stop there. Whilst on route to the area where Jeff's ship vanished, the criminal crew are rewarded for their good behaviour by being given weekends of virtual reality, in which they indulge their male fantasies. All well and good, and the use of scenes from their fantasies serves as an introduction to the "Alien Menace" which begins to appear there. But did they have to drag it out for quite sooooo loooooong? Alien Intruder? Alien Boring, more like.<br /><br />Finally they make it to G-Sector and the alien presence makes them fight against each other for her affections until only good old Max is left. The ending, in truly optimistic rubbish film vein, hints at a sequel - as if! Also making an appearance in this movie is a character I'll nickname the "Sweatdroid". He's supposed to be an android, but apparently that fact was lost on the make-up crew, who provided him with sweaty features at any opportunity. But don't worry, he's just there to make up the body count numbers at the end.<br /><br />Williams and Scoggins, to be truthful, do very little in the film. They only just barely stay awake, let alone act. And, as I mentioned earlier, Jeff gets an early trip to the showers, so his manicness isn't allowed to enlighten much of the film. Max tries his best, as do a couple of the other cast members, but the movie is just direly atrocious, to be honest.<br /><br />The one, and only, half-way imaginative thing this movie offers is the ship naming convention. They are all named after musicians - Holly, Presley, Joplin. The rest of the film is bland and uninspired.<br /><br />Made in 1992, I had thought, on initial viewing, it was one of those 80's straight-to-video jobs. Looks like they still made crap movies well into the 90's, it seems.<br /><br />It's best avoided. Even as a beer n chips movie this film is a stinker, but at least you can fast forward it, I suppose. | 0 |
In this glorious telling of a weekend shared among literary greats. Mary and Percy Shelly,Lord Byron and others created a entrancing group. Showing their quests for sexual enlightenment. Personal freedoms from political to moral. Liberal drug use for both stimulations and as addiction. Their creative views of life and writing. Describing without boring the viewer how each writer seeks to find their muse. Along with the distractions and affections each share. With breathtaking scenery that does not detract but very much enhances the story. Well created characters from grim to loving then angry to peaceful. With some of the most lovely and scene enhancing costuming to be had. | 1 |
Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.<br /><br />More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.<br /><br />Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.<br /><br />Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny. | 1 |
The most enjoyable pet movie since Scooby Doo and Garfield. The story revolves around a 23 year old inventor named Brian Foster whose systems at his boss's company seems to keep failing, Brian is also dating the boss's daughter named Casey. But Brian secretly invented a robotic dog named CHOMPS, modeled after his own dog Rascal. But CHOMPS is no ordinarily dog, he is as fast as a cheetah, he has x-ray vision, can leap about 6 feet, and has a strength of 20 men. The new invention impresses his boss, and makes his business a success. But when the company rivals hear about CHOMPS, they try to find a way to capture him. Can CHOMPS outwit them before its too late. This movie is a classic for all ages. | 1 |
As many of the other comments I have read have noted, I fell in love with this movie when I was a kid. My sister and I had a copy of the movie on Beta (before VHS) that we wore out. Of course it didn't help when our parents sold the BetaMax at a garage sale. Since then we have been trying to find a copy. I, like another commentator, did eventually locate a rental copy at a local video store. The owner would not part with the copy after any number of attempts to beg, bribe, and cry my way to owning the tape. GOOD NEWS! I bought a brand new, newly released, VHS copy of Midnight Madness for $9.99 on Amazon.com two days ago!!!! Finally, Disney has wizened up. Now, if they'll only rerelease Song of the South... If you love the movie, grab it. If you haven't seen the movie, it's worth a check - totally stupid humor but a lot of fun (Stephen Furst is hilarious). | 1 |
Talk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.<br /><br />Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.<br /><br />From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, "Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge. | 0 |
I can understand why others reacted rather unpleasantly towards the climax yielding a twist that really is hard to take seriously. I think, though, that the build-up to it works rather well. The music, quite menacing and spine-tingling, really provides a spooky aura matching the unforgiving sound of a constant ringing telephone that is driving struggling English actress, Joan Matlin(Jean Marsh)bonkers. She's borrowing a pal's nice apartment while attempting to jump-start her career in New York City(..the city buildings outside the window look about as realistic as David Letterman's)and is unceremoniously welcome by a noisy telephone which rings quite a bit, followed by loud slams against the wall. Searching for answers regarding the one responsible for such disregard towards her sanity, Joan discovers that no one rents that room, and that a former tenant had in fact strangled herself. Without help from the manager, Joan will decide to find out for herself who is causing her such anguish. Joan discovers the room empty and the phone with a particular female voice which will haunt her.<br /><br />The episode, I think, is a tour-de-force for Jean Marsh who is a one woman show. She's the only actress visible and we follow her through the crisis which slowly erodes her, the phone and the banging from that other room causing her much distress which grows into fear. Instead of leaving, Joan remains, so shaken by the noise and to the breaking point where she just wishes for the phone(..or whoever is ringing)to stop. The episode provides a possible answer as to who is plaguing Joan and why. A character named Beth comes into the story rather late as Joan struggles to find out whose female voice it was across the other line who knew her name on that dreaded phone she discovers in the room across from hers. The fate of Beth might just tell the viewer why Joan is being traumatized. I think this episode is an exercise in spooks instead of credibility;some didn't particularly like it, but I certainly did. I will admit that the phone, as a physical menace "crawling" towards Joan is hard to take seriously, not to mention it's attack on her, but I thought the intense opening twenty minutes before this were suitably chilling enough to make up for it. | 1 |
The people who don't like this movie seem to have some academic vendetta against it -- those of us who don't hold the original can totally enjoy it.<br /><br />My husband who had never seen the original said "I don't want to see a girly movie." I assured him that "the women" is just a great movie, not a girl movie. He had a great time. He was very glad to have gone and enjoyed it more than the "boy" movie we saw the day before "burn after reading." <br /><br />SPOILER: I even think the new ending is better. Maybe not quite as fun, but it was beautiful. At first I couldn't understand why they had made certain changes to the plot<br /><br />but when I got the end and Debra Messing gives birth and brings the first male into the movie, I cried. That's one thing to love about men they are our sons. | 1 |
Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there? | 1 |
As stated by others, this is a ludicrously horrible movie (NOT A FILM!). It is not bad in a funny way, just painful to try to endure. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />Erika Eleniak is pretty hot, but there is one scene where she is in a bathtub, and you can see the wrap covering her breasts under the bubbles. Also, she's getting fat.<br /><br />The fight scenes are so bad as to be unwatchable, if you know or care anything about martial arts, or even decent choreography, and the editing/effects are abysmal.<br /><br />There is no payoff, it goes nowhere, and sucks getting there. | 0 |
I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.<br /><br />In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.<br /><br />*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: "Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth." | 1 |
'In the Line of Fire' is one of those Hollywood films that shows up on tv quite a bit, but although I've seen it a few times, I usually end up sitting through the whole thing again. Why? - It's GOOD! Clint Eastwood is great as usual, and the character he plays is interesting and more fleshed out than usual. The character, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan, is haunted by the fact that he was on the detail that failed to protect President Kennedy in Dallas, and now he's forced to match wits with a professional assassin that is openly declaring that he will kill the president. However, the film doesn't make him a depressed, brooding, and obsessed character. He's charming and personable, and is realistic as a guy that has experienced a lot in life and is comfortable in his own skin. He's even quite convincing when he flirts with the pretty younger agent played by Rene Russo. The killer, played by John Malkovich at his best, is cerebral, deliberate, and enjoys playing high stakes games of life and death. He even goes by the name of another presidential assassin, John Booth.<br /><br /> The film is consistently enjoyable, and it delivers all the goods - suspense, action, romance, and drama - all in their proper amounts. It's a fun film that is really helped by the great actors in it! | 1 |
So, you've seen the Romero movies, yes? And you've seen Jacob's Ladder, right? And the later Hellraiser movies? Okay, now let's make a movie out of all three, only let's just jam everything together and make a whole big mess of it, sounds like a good idea?<br /><br />This movie is terrible. Absolutely god-awful. Yeah, it's an indie flick, who gives a crap? Is that a pass to make filmic excrement? The film attempts to establish credibility by focusing on character interaction, that much is evident. Unfortunately for the writers, they're not good at character interaction. This isn't Night of the Living Dead; the characters are nonentities shouting their inane lines at each other in a vain attempt to be caught by the microphones on set. The dialogue is never interesting. For a movie that focuses so much on character interaction, you'd think the characters would have something more to say than "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO" "I don't know" "WELL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING" "Well what are we going to do?" "I DON'T KNOW." "We should leave." "LET'S JUST ACCEPT OUR FATE." "No, we've got to leave." "WELL LET'S LEAVE THEN." "No, maybe we should stay."<br /><br />This isn't exaggeration, there are exchanges in this film that reach that level of redundancy and inanity.<br /><br />The worst thing about this movie? Half of it is a dream, and it really has zero purpose. Nothing in the dream has any relevance to anything in the rest of the movie. The writers couldn't decide whether to make a zombie movie or a monster movie and so they just made both. It's patently ridiculous, the cheapest trick in the book, and it's maddeningly insulting, especially since I'm pretty sure they ripped off the idea from Jacob's ladder, which handled the concept a hell of a lot more competently than these jokers could ever hope to do.<br /><br />And then there's the editing. Years of watching MTV and playing horror-themed video games must have inspired the filmmakers, but it's surely a sad thing they didn't realize what made the choppy editing and obfuscation in those pieces of media effective in the first place. In this film, you will be confused often, and not in the good, David Lynch way, but in the bad "Wait I thought she just got killed, no? Then who the hell was that? Wait, who is that guy? Where did he come from? How did they get here?" kind of way. It's constant and consistently bad.<br /><br />This movie is a laughable piece of trash and should only be sought out if you want to get trashed with a few friends and laugh at it.<br /><br />And as a final note: as for the "comedy" people in other reviews are talking about, it's all unintentional. There isn't a single intentional piece of comedy in this film. It's all supposed to be a big serious character study, because the filmmakers want to have credibility in their horror-concept. Sadly, their pretensions don't match up to their ability. | 0 |
PRC which was the lowest of the low actually struck gold with this moody little thriller. They did the same thing a year earlier with "Detour" which is probably one of the finest low-budget films ever made.<br /><br />"Strangler" is basically a one set film, filled with mist and shadows, a technique used by most poverty row studios to hide the sets, or lack thereof. But here, it works well. The ghost of Charles Middleton (better known as Ming the Merciless) lurches around the swamp killing those involved in his wrongful execution for murder and generates some sympathy from the viewer. His final victim is to be the daughter of the ferryman.....he concentrates his wrath not only on those directly involved in his fate but their relatives as well.<br /><br />Rosemary LaPlanche does her usual imitation of someone in a coma that passes for her acting style. She offers herself up to the strangler in order to put a stop to the killing but as a sop to the audience, the strangler sees the goodness of her gesture as a sign that his mission is complete and he returns to the hereafter, somewhat chastened. If Ulmer(who directed "Detour") has directed "Strangler" she would be hanging from the nearest tree and the strangler's job would be done. But who's complaining? It's not the story that is the major attraction but the shrouded sets, lighting and the general moodiness of the piece. It stands, right behind "Detour", as PRC's finest hour | 1 |
Shwaas is awesome ! considering that the producers had a meagre budget, they have done an excellent job. It is a must watch. The small kid has done an excellent job with a lot of emotions flowing through his eyes. Grandfather is at his best. The photography is superb. Technically correct and very creative. It helps in adding a lot of emotions to the mainstream content. The movie will keep u engrossed and don't be surprised if you are shaken after the movie and the story lingers in your mind for a few days.I sincerely hope that they make it to the final Oscar nomination<br /><br />Enjoy and again don't miss it | 1 |
five minutes after watching this i logged on to IMDb to warn all of you out there not to bother with this movie... genre:horror? it had moments of mild suspense and throughout the whole movie i was thinking to myself "somethings gotta happen soon" it did not...when the movie ended i felt so embarrassed for the writer/director i've never been the biggest fan of patrick rea this guy just does not know how to make movies and after watching this sorry excuse of a horror flick i've gone from not been the biggest fan to will not watch another of his works..<br /><br />i was taken in by the plot summary please don't make the same mistake.<br /><br />i gave this movie a 2 for the actors..they were not bad and it wasn't there fault they got such bad direction... | 0 |
The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance. <br /><br />I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.<br /><br />Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War. | 0 |
*I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens. <br /><br />I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.<br /><br />About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.<br /><br />About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.<br /><br />About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.<br /><br />It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...<br /><br />******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).<br /><br />-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.<br /><br />-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.<br /><br />-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will. | 1 |
Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again see it.<br /><br />In the light of present understanding of history we have to sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security as most have thought in the past. <br /><br />The casting for the real life people portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer.<br /><br />The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was especially intriguing to me. | 1 |
Excellent performance. There still are good actors around! Also great directing and photography. Very true to Shakespear, and a 'must' for all Shakespear fans. Macbeth (Jason Connery) moved me to tears with his final monolog (out brief candle, out)He gave the sphere of moral decay and dark forces a human face, which makes it the more interesting. Helen Baxendale is a very credible lady Macbeth who can be very cheerfull at times and sometimes she just looks like a naughty girl, but deadly in her taste for blood and evil. If you love death and decay, and Shakespears lyrics... this is the one. | 1 |
I've been watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added "drama" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just "something terrible"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...<br /><br />One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 0 |
Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between "The Last Don" and " Godfather 2".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have been a rival for both Godfather movies. | 1 |
It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle. <br /><br />Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed "The Indian Runner".<br /><br />In "The Evil That Men Do", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five "Death Wish" flicks. <br /><br />Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!! <br /><br />Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that "The Evil That Men Do" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?<br /><br />No stars. Watch "Death Wish" instead. At least IT was topical. | 0 |
When you want to celebrate life and love, especially for precious little daughters, you have to shout it from the countryside. And what gorgeous countrysides! There are so many tears of joy even God joins in. See this movie.<br /><br /> | 1 |
When seeing this movie you should take notice to that it´s not a normal movie. It has no real story just characters, a bunch of gangster characters who come together in a perfect harmony. The dialogue is wonderful, you can just lay back and listen. The movie stands out thats why it´s hard to find a right way of describing it.<br /><br />Thats why the user comments on this movie is so mixed.<br /><br />I for one love the movie and recommend it to all who love one-liners and things that differ from the "normal". You can´t really put the finger on what´s so wonderful about it it´s just a comical world where gangsters rule. A place of love and danger. A movie that you can see more than one time. | 1 |
"Unhinged" is one strange little film, a forgotten slasher from the golden age of the genre. It's hard to really write a satisfying review of this film simply because of the fact that the film is so unique. It's plot is fairly overdone--three young women on their way to a rock concert get in a car crash and end up stranded at the mansion of an eccentric old woman and her spinster daughter. Very quickly, the ladies realize something is not quite right when they hear strange breathing and noises from the attic. On top of that, the mother and daughter seem to have a very, very strange relationship, as they quarrel intensely in front of their houseguest at dinner. The old mother even goes as far as calling her daughter a whore and slut and accuses her of sneaking guys in at night to sleep with them. Halfway through the film, when one girl finally decides she better wander off to find help, the killing begins. <br /><br />As far as the acting goes, this film is at the bottom of the barrel. NONE of the three stranded girls can act, particularly the "lead" girl. It is almost unbelievable to hear them deliver their lines in the same, wooden tone throughout the film. The mother and daughter are better, but not much. The film is also quite dull in parts and really, really drags. The killings are gruesome, but nothing we haven't seen before. However, as mentioned on here, the film really gains points with it brilliantly disturbing and gory ending. It comes totally from left field and has the same shock value as the ending the the camp classic "Sleepaway Camp." Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a bore and suffers from horrendous acting and boring, boring pacing. The isolated, creepy looking mansion and the dark, foreboding lighting does give the film a grainy realism, but that is quickly shattered when one of the characters attempts to act. It may be worth it if you can stick it out until the end, but I say you are better off just fast forwarding to the last 10 minutes. 4 out 10 | 0 |
"Thieves and Liars" presents us with a very naturalistic depiction of the levels of corruption that affect many Puerto Ricans and force them to make difficult if not impossible choices about their and their loved ones' lives. The cast is excellent, considering that some are non-professional actors; an excellent choice that augments the level of reality in the film. The photography propels the story without intrusion, as it should be in this type of film. The script captures the idiosyncrasies and attitudes of the "Boricuas" in a very deep way. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a documentary! Watching this film you feel as if you've secretly entered the real Puerto Rican society and stand invisibly watching it implode. I loved it! | 1 |
This is a bit long (2 hours, 20 minutes) but it had a a lot of the famous Pearl Buck novel in it. In other words, a lot of ground to cover.<br /><br />It was soap-operish at times but had some visually dramatic moments, too, capped off by a locust attack at the end of the film. That was astounding to view. Considering this film is about 70 years old, the special-effects crew on this film did a spectacular job.<br /><br />Paul Muni and Luise Rainer were award-winning actors in their day and they don't disappoint here, both giving powerful performances. The only problem is credibility as all the Asians are played by Caucasions and some of them, like Walter Connolly, just don't look real. I'd like to see a re-make of this movie with all-Asian actors, not for PC reasons but to simply make the story look and sound more credible. | 1 |
Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing "Que Sera, Sera" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10. | 1 |
I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.<br /><br />The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.<br /><br />In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations. | 0 |
Like most people, i was drawn to buy this film because of the pictures of the mighty Bolo Yeung plastered all over the box, and the assumption (from the aforementioned pictures and the title of the film) that this film is all about the Beast from the East kickin' ass for 90 minutes.<br /><br />However, to my disappointment, Chinese Hercules is to Bolo Yeung what No Retreat No Surrender was to Jean Claude Van Damme and Fearless Tiger was to... erm, Bolo Yeung - maximum exposure on video box, minimum actual screen-time! Oh well! <br /><br />The storyline is pretty basic stuff, but it was well done - peaceful kung fu fighter (played by Chen Hui Min) accidentally kills a man and promises never to fight again. He then runs away to work as a labourer on a pier where he impresses his co-workers with his heavy sack lifting prowess, causing them to suspect him to be a formidable fighter (dont quite know how that works but never mind). Meanwhile, the corrupt boss of the pier does a deal with gangsters, giving them exclusive use of the pier. As a result, the workers are thrown out on their ear and forced to live on the beach, where they unite against their boss, the gangster boss, and his hulking henchman Bolo Yeung.<br /><br />While the film was quite watchable (mainly through waiting for the next glimpse of Bolo), i had a few problems with it - firstly, the bad dubbing, but of course thats a given in old kung fu films. But also, the film tended to drag between the various fight-scenes. And as for the fight scenes themselves, i found them to be over-long, badly choreographed (apparently by Jackie Chan!), badly shot and at times performed by people who didn't seem to have any martial arts ability.... in fact, most of the fights in this film weren't 'fights' at all, just people getting beaten up without offering any resistance!<br /><br />Finally, the hero - played by Chen Hui Min. I've never seen any other films with this guy in, but at no point was i rooting for him. Not only did he look wimpy and on the verge of tears at all times, but i found his insistence on not fighting infuriating! I understood his reasoning, but he could have saved a lot of people a lot of pain if he had done earlier what we all knew he was gonna do eventually, and fight! A bigger mystery was why this entire community of people were pinning their hopes on a guy they've never even seen fight! <br /><br />Really, the big saving grace in this film was the presence of Bolo Yeung. Not only is he as huge and brutal as ever, he has some great, funny lines and gives the rest of the cast a master-class on how to fight on film. The guy oozes screen presence and you can easily see how he became a star. The guy scares the life out of me, but i'm sure i wasn't the only person to have watched this film who was rooting for Bolo all through the end fight! <br /><br />All in all then, a below-average kung-fu film lifted several huge notches due to you-know-who. I've never met a person who didn't think Bolo Yeung was great. The man's a legend!! | 0 |
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and a couple of embarrassing performances. Somebody forgot to tell the writers that "Fool's Gold" refers to the genuineness of the gold, not the people who are looking for it. 3/10 | 0 |
I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.<br /><br />The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.<br /><br />Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.<br /><br />Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies. | 0 |
I was watching an NFL game and started surfing during a break and found this on one of the HBO type channels. I missed the beginning but when I started watching Deadly Voyage the clicker was put down and not even thought of until the credits rolled. You will find yourself rooting against the villans and on the edge of your La-Z-Boy throughout this one. If you get the chance take the time to watch it. Every once in a while I think about having the cable company take off my Movie channels but when you stumble across great ones like this you know why it is worth paying extra for them. Happy Holidays to all from Cape Cod !!! | 1 |
John Sayles, what have you done?<br /><br />"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.<br /><br />I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.<br /><br />The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.<br /><br />Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental. | 0 |
First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....<br /><br />Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time. | 0 |
PAGE 3 **** out of 4 Stars<br /><br />Madhvi (Konkona Sen) enters her boyfriend's house and its empty. She looks here and there and then goes in his bedroom and you get the picture - 'Ah! another girl
that two-timing baddie and yes indeed he his two timing her but it's a GUY this time around. And i say 'Brilliant!'<br /><br />END OF SPOILERS (The above scene is not a spoiler really ... but for me it was so i didn't want to take a chance)<br /><br />When asked upon as how was this film, my friend answered 'oh, it just an exposé of the P3 people' which made me believe that ill be watching a stupid movie if nothing more. When I went to the theater, I thought to myself '' I better get a pen and a paper to jot down the bad things about this film'' but I was proved entirely wrong
and then some because I could muster only the goods. This film was great. Great, not because it is offbeat and noncommercial cinema like storyline but because of the cleverness in the screenplay and how this movie tells you how to handle a movie brilliantly which could have been a dumb and senseless movie if given in the wrong hands.<br /><br />Konkona Sen Sharma is grace. She is so damn beautiful who has nailed her role perfectly as if she was born to play this part. One of the most charming actresses I've ever seen. But this is not the only performance which is good in the film, there's Sandhya Mridul, Boman Irani and Atul Kulkarni. Particularly Sandhya Mridul who just fires up the screen. (And guess what even the unusually accented Tara Sharma speaks normally)<br /><br />The movies stars off with some silly old parties of the hush-hush celebrities of the film industry et al and you get the idea of what this movie will be about. And for about half hour through the film you feel just about the same. But then the movie picks up the pace grabs onto a good storyline and never lets go of it. Even Boman Irani agrees to that statement 'It was a good story, Madhvi'. (Thank you). The great thing is that it tackles the issue of how silly these people are with style and does not make it over done and also tackles the social issues and does not make them boring. In the end its all a roller-coaster ride and Madhvi informs us that by just smiling at all these people. Just the reason why I love watching films. Ecstatic film-making. The screenplay is beautiful, clever and witty. | 1 |
The story is incredible, it begins with a new kid in town named Roy, while on the bus to school, he notices a kid running with no shoes, and on that same day he breaks the big bullies nose who is trying to fight with him. Roy soon discovers that kid is a runaway, and he and his step sister are trying to mess a construction sight, that could kill all the beautiful owls that live there. Roy decides to help them him there fight, Can they win this fight before the smart but bumbling cop Dave Delinko(Luke Wilson) Stumbles on to them. An enjoyable film, funny and adventurous. I do admire Luke Wilson for taking this role. I don't think his brother Owen would even take this role. | 1 |
This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.<br /><br />I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.<br /><br />I do agree with an earlier post that the "women" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.<br /><br />Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!<br /><br />To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!! | 0 |
Or if you've seen the "Evil Dead" trilogy and/or "Bubba Ho-Tep", then you should know that his movies are total farces. With "Man with the Screaming Brain", he goes all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin in "All of Me".<br /><br />Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from "Evil Dead" director Sam Raimi's brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper.<br /><br />So just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit disappointed. I liked it, anyway. | 1 |
If you first saw this movie with Mary of the Fourth Form, then it's perhaps possible for the haze of nostalgia to encourage your charitable side. If not, it doesn't stand a chance. The young things' hipspeak is complete nonsense, people may have used the occasional word you'll hear here, but not huge batches of them in sentence after sentence. It doesn't so much date Dracula AD 1972 as blow it to pieces, from the moment anyone under thirty opens their mouth it's impossible to take the film seriously and as for it being a laugh, it's not even a smile. The idea of throwing Dracula into modern times is a good one and worthy of a far stronger script than Don Houghton can provide. The River Thames and Chelsea Male are no match for puppet bats, model castles and terrified extras, but you can't help but feel that with better writing it would have been so different. | 0 |
I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.<br /><br /> What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)<br /><br /> The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!<br /><br /> This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.<br /><br /> The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.<br /><br /> Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!" | 0 |
Where to begin, there's so much wrong and horrible about this movie I am not sure where to start. Okay, the two stooges who wrote this crapper. Joseph Green and Rex Carlton, first they couldn't make up their so-called minds for a name. My guess they split the difference, that's why the main title is BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE, but the end screen says HEAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE. Neither one knows anything about the Medical profession. After all Doctors take oaths to "do no harm". Killing a woman for a head transplant would be considered "harm". Plus, a little thing called blood and tissue matching. Rejection would spell death for Jan in the pan. Plus who keeps a patch work monster. What medical school did Bill graduate from, FRANKENSTIEN UNIVERSITY? Old FU, or MAD SCIENTIST TECH? The monster had no name, that bugs the hell out of me. Plus, the brilliant surgeon Doctor Bill Cortner doesn't know how to keep a patient sedated? All and all a disaster of a movie, it's incredibly stupid and unwatchable, except on MST3K. I give it THE THANKSGIVING TURKEY. | 0 |
I usually talk a bit about the plot in the first part of my review but in this film there's really not much to talk of. Just a mish-mash of other FAR better sword & sorcery epics. Lack of cohesiveness runs rampant as does banality. Even the main villaness refusing to wear clothing other then a loincloth is pretty boring as she pretty much has a chest of a young boy.Mildly amusing in it's ineptitude at best and severely retarded at it's worst. Lucio Fulci was scrapping the bottom of the barrel here and it shows.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Posters & Stills galleries; Lucio Fulci Bio; and US & International Theatrical trailers <br /><br />Eye Candy: Sabrina Siani is topless throughout (some may consider that appealing, I did not); various extras are topless as well | 0 |
This is an early film "Pilot" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around "exterminating" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!<br /><br />Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.<br /><br />Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals) | 1 |
I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit. | 0 |
This docu-drama is what you would expect from Richard Attenborough, the man who gave us "Gandhi": beautifully photographed, compellingly casted, well written in the measured, literate manner that Hollywood discarded in the 30's, and scrupulously accurate. It stands out as a genre film, excelling in its portrayal of native American (or, more appropriately for its Canadian setting, "First Nations") culture and standing with "Black Robe" as a wonderfully photographed piece of Canoe Country and its culture (here, circa 1934). This idyllic portrait derives drama from its subject: Archie "Grey Owl" Belaney, a Scot raised in Hastings (England) by maiden aunts who became so obsessed with the "red indian" tales of his childhood that he went to Canada, disappeared into the woods, and became a trapper and adopted son of an Ojibway band. He was a vain man with a habit of marrying and abandoning<br /><br />Indian brides, none of whom seem to have thought less of him for it, for he was also an extraordinarily charming and picaresque character. One of his wives (one smarter than he, by most accounts) propelled him into fame as a writer and early advocate for protecting the wild country of the North, and this forms the focus of Attenborough's tale. The chemistry between Brosnan and Annie Galipeau (as Grey Owl's wife Pony) is engaging and, if not firey, is nonetheless quite touching. A good film when you need some time from the madding crowd. | 1 |
There are a few aspects to Park's movies, and in particular Wallace & Gromit, that I would say make them so great. The first is subtlety and observation, the flagship of which is the character of Gromit. He doesn't speak, he doesn't make any noise, all he has are his eyes, brow, and body posture, and with these he commands the film. Park manages to give us everything we need from this silent character through his expression. The comedy and the emotion is conveyed through the subtlest of movements and it works superbly well.<br /><br />Watching the movie you have to be aware of the entire screen. Normally you'll be guided to things in the movies, the screen won't be cluttered too much, there won't be many things to take your eyes away from the main clue or action. Park seems to need to look the other way with his movies. He throws extra content at his audience, there's action in the background, to the side of the screen, even off screen, and there's just about always something in the foreground to catch your eye. His movies are about multiple viewing and discovery, they're layered with jokes and ancillary action.<br /><br />Throughout this film there are layers of things happening on screen, jokes in the foreground maybe on a jar label and background shadows that give away action. You can imagine that for Park the movies has always been an event, and the movies he loves are ones which he wants to watch again and again. This is what shows in his movies, and in through his most beloved characters.<br /><br />Then there are the bizarre and wacky inventions which Wallace make, something which is reflected in the storyline and the twists and turns of the plot, everything is bizarre and off the wall, yet it seems so perfectly normal in this world. You can imagine that inside Park is the mind of Wallace.<br /><br />There's also one more thing that make these movies so unique, and that's the modelling and precise hand animation. I must admit I was concerned when I knew Dreamworks was involved in the making of this movie, and I thought that they would bring their computer animation experience to the forefront. What I was scared of was Wallace & Gromit becoming CGI entities, or at the smallest, CGI being used to clean up the feel that the modelling brought to the movie.<br /><br />Not so. You can still see thumbprints and toolmarks on the characters, and far from distracting from the movie, this just adds so much real feeling to it and a feeling of physical depth to the characters and the scene on screen.<br /><br />So what of the movie? Well I must say that the plot twist was something I had thought about well before the film was in the cinema and it came as no surprise, but that did not affect my enjoyment one little bit. Actually watching the twist unfold and the comic timing of the discovery and reactions was everything, and it had me just as sucked in as if it was a thriller, yet all the time I was laughing.<br /><br />Watching the movie was fascinating in various ways. To see the animation completed, how wild the inventions are, how Wallace is going to get into trouble and Gromit get him out, where all the cross references are in the movie, and where all the jokes are! I must admit afterwards talking with my friends I couldn't believe how much I had missed.<br /><br />There's something different in this movie than with the others, there's a new level of adult humour in here, and I don't mean rude jokes (although there are a couple that are just so British you can't help laughing), I mean jokes that simply fly over kids heads but slap adults in the face. The kind you are used to seeing come out of somewhere like Pixar. This just adds even more appeal to the movie.<br /><br />Okay though, let me try and be a bit negative here. I didn't notice the voices in this movie, you know how you usually listen to the actors and see if you can recognise them? Well I was just too wrapped up in the movie to care or to notice who they were...okay, that's not negative. Let me try again. The main plot wasn't as strong and gripping as I'd expected, and I found myself being caught up in the side stories and the characters themselves...again...that's not a bad thing, the film was just so much rich entertainment.<br /><br />I honestly can't think of a bad thing to say about this movie, probably the worst thing I could say is that the title sequence at the end is quite repetitive...until the final title! Really, that's the worst I can say.<br /><br />The story is a lot of fun, well set-up, well written, well executed. There's lot's of fantastic characters in here, not just Wallace & Gromit. There's so much happening on screen, so many references and jokes (check out the dresses of Lady Tottingham), cheese jokes everywhere, jokes for all the family. The characters are superbly absorbing and you'll find that you've taken to them before you realise. There's just so much in this movie for everyone.<br /><br />There's so much I could say and write about, but I know it will quickly turn into a backslapping exercise for Park and Aardman, it would also just turn into a series of "this bit was really funny" and "there's a bit when...", and what I would rather do is tell you that this is a superb movie, to go see it, and to experience the whole thing for yourselves. I will say though that the bunnies are excellent! | 1 |
Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).<br /><br />Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This "uprising" or "resurgence" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.<br /><br />To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed "insight" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10 | 0 |
I have some great memories watching "Robin of Sherwood" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed´s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad´s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It´s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I´ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from "Robin of Sherwood", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery´s "Robin and Marian". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again! | 1 |
One of the worst films of it's genre.<br /><br />The only bright spots were Lee Merriwether showing some of the sparkle she would later bring to the Time Tunnel and Batman.<br /><br />A young Patty Duke also outshone the more established actors.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).<br /><br />I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.<br /><br />The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.<br /><br />My Vote 4/10. | 0 |
Strangely, this version of OPEN YOUR EYES is more mature and more nuanced. Aided by hindsight, Crowe's screenplay is a lot tighter and more fleshed out than Amenabar's original. The Spanish filmmaker should get credit for thinking of the story first, but there's no doubt that Crowe has improved on it -- if just slightly. Notice that you have no idea what the lead did in OPEN YOUR EYES, but you know almost everything about the lead in VANILLA SKY. That's what i mean by more "fleshed out." | 1 |
I don't know where most of you were at, but where I watched the film we didn't have people singing as some have told they experienced, we had people laughing, mostly at the campy plot line, the horrible dance sequences and the singing of the likes of Brosnan. The only people in the audience who seemed to be enthralled with the film were the seventies generation folks who were some how reliving the past with the songs. I was a DJ in the seventies and even went to the ABBA concert at Northlands Coliseum in Edmonton in Sept of 79, so I did appreciate them then and I still do now. But this film should have gone the same way as their marriages and ended in divorce. The sequences were so poorly staged, the dubbing and editing absolutely horrible and this has to be Meryl's worst production. I cannot believe an academy award winner would stoop so low as to do this piece of garbage. So save your money, wait for it to come out on DVD and then maybe spend your money on something better, like cat litter. | 0 |
I really am shocked to see the number of reviews that lambaste this movie. This movie was not intended to be a "deep thought" movie, which is what the vast majority of the reviewers seem to think it should be. In fact, it would appear that if ANY movie doesn't produce a life altering insight, and a deep, twisted, mind boggling plot, they would rate it a 1 or 2. Don't trash a movie because you don't like the genre, people.<br /><br />This movie was an Action/Comedy flick, and that's all it was intended to be. And for an Action/Comedy, it was very well done. I was actually rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did, having never really been a Jamie Foxx fan, and having the over-used plot that it has.<br /><br />The plot was nothing spectacular, using the typical criminal gets out of prison, and is thrown into bad-guy plot while trying to clean up his act (See Blue Streak, Hudson Hawk, 48 Hours, etc. etc. etc.) but it was warmed over with a bit of a technological twist. Now the "bad guys" are actually the "good guys" and the REAL "bad guy" is an uber-geek.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx actually plays a convincingly humorous, while at the same time rather intelligent and serious main character, and didn't try to overdo the humor side of the film.<br /><br />If you're looking for a deep underlying plot such as in "The Matrix" or a drama such as "Of Mice and Men" then this movie isn't for you. But if you enjoy the raw action, excellent fast-paced filming, and an occasional twist of humor tossed in, this movie won't disappoint you. I would normally have rated it about an 8 (on the same level as the Die Hard Trilogy), but instead gave it a 10 to try and bring the score up to what it SHOULD be.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This could be a cute movie for kids My grandson watched it once. he was watching it a second time I was watching some of it with him.<br /><br />When the little bear gets lost on the ice burg and he is in the water he is trying to get to a piece of ice it says "Come back stupid ass fool".<br /><br />I don't want my 3 year old grandson watching movies with words like this in it.<br /><br />That is why its rated for children. Should be child friendly. That is what I would expect. put out by warner brothers and G rated I would expect this to not have cuss words in it. The words don't even fit the movie in most places as it seems added later. And the movie drags out in many parts. | 0 |
I kind of like JAG. It do have it´s charm but lately it´s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.<br /><br />I don´t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.<br /><br />I still watch the show, so it´s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don´t save the world in the future. | 0 |
Well, it definitely is unlike anything else directed by Lynch. No supernatural stuff, no violence, no profanity. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful flick. It's a little slow but perhaps that was intentional because it's the story of an old man's 6-week(that's my best guess for its duration) journey. The characters are everyday people and thus, they are believable. The performances are good and the final scene was incredibly touching. Everyone who has a sibling can relate to it. Lyle and Alvin don't even have to say anything. For a moment they are back in the old days and all the fighting is forgotten. | 1 |
For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! "Prosatanos" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for "human greed" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1/2) | 0 |
The film Classe tous risques directed by Claude Sautet was not a film, to be honest, I had ever really heard of until the Film Forum in NYC said that they would have a 2-week screening of the film, with new English subtitles. When I also read that it was in the vein of the classic French crime films ala Jean Pierre Melville, I jumped at the chance to check it out (at best it would rank up with his great works, and at worst I would get some good popcorn in a great theater). It was well worth the admission, as Classe tous risques is one of those kinds of French films that is just waiting to be re-discovered (or discovered for the first time). With terrific, tense diligence, Sautet keeps the suspense at a tight pitch for the first forty minutes of the film, keeping a good (if not great) middle section, and then ending it up with what is always expected with these films, but with fascinating motivations by way of the characters. With a film in the vein of this sort, you know how it will end, but it's the cool, observant journey that counts.<br /><br />The film features a performance with some real truth and honesty, amid the "old-school" criminal's code, by Lino Ventura as Aldo, who at the start of the film (one of the best beginnings to a film in this genre and country) steals a hefty amount of money with his partner in crime). When there is a sudden, ugly twist of fate on a beach late one night, Aldo is again on the run with two little kids. He gets the aid of Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo, a role in tune with Le Doulos only with a smidgen more humanity and charisma), who is also a thief and drives him into Paris. But there are some problems with some of Aldo's old business partner's, and one old score may be just the right ticket. A couple of times the plot may seem to be leisurely, but it isn't. Like Melville, Sautet doesn't allow any fat to his story, and it's a very tightly structured film, with some good doses of humor here and there (I was sometimes grinning at the audacity of the criminals in the beginning chase sequence, and also with a particular woman who had a finicky thing with her cat and a fish).<br /><br />Along with a fine score by the great George Delerue, exceptional cinematography, and a mood that is seldom met let alone matched now adays, Classe tous risques is a reminder of that bridge between the real old-school film-noir, and the latter day crime films. Gangsters in these new sort of "thug-life" movies have a 1000th of the class and honor of the thieves in this film, and is a second banana to the works of Melville and Jules Dassin (a compliment I assure you). That it has a good realistic, moral edge helps as well. | 1 |
It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10 | 0 |
The Fury of the Wolfman is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, and Pilar Zorrilla! The acting by all of these actors is very good. The Wolfman is really cool! He looks great and he sound like the Looney Tunes character the Tazmainian devil! There are some really hilarious scenes in this film! The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, Pilar Zorrilla, the rest of the cast in the film, Werewold films, Horror, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting classic films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! <br /><br />Movie Nuttball's NOTE: <br /><br />I got this film on a special DVD that has Doctor Blood's Coffin, The Brainiac, and The Fury of the Wolfman from Vintage Home Entertainment! See if you can find this winner with three bizarre but classic films on one DVD at Amazon.com today! <br /><br />If you like Werewolf films I strongly recommend these: Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), Abbott an d Costell Meets Frankenstein (1948), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Silver Bullet (1985), Werewolf (1987), The Monster Squad (1987), My Mom's a Werewolf (1989), Project: Metalbeast (1995), Bad Moon (1996), Werewolf (1996), Dog Soldiers (2002), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004)! | 1 |
Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!<br /><br />------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------<br /><br />"User Comment Guidelines <br /><br />Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title. <br /><br />What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments" | 1 |
After getting thrown out of their last job and finding employment scarce in the United Kingdom, the six members of the Wonder Boys, better known as The Crazy Gang see an advertisement for employment in the gold strike town of Red Gulch in the Yukon Territory. It's from a newspaper clipping and on the back there's a story about Chamberlain saying the country better be prepared for war. Off they go to the Yukon and The Frozen Limits.<br /><br />By the way, it's case of misplaced Chamberlains. The clipping is forty years old and it refers to Joe Chamberlain and the Boer War rather than Neville in the current crisis. But that's typical of how things go for this crew. I can see Stan Laurel making the same mistake.<br /><br />Of course when they get there it's a ghost town inhabited only by young Jean Kent and her grandfather Moore Marriott. He's getting on in years and is a bit touched in the head. Marriott's got a gold mine that he's misplaced somewhere that he goes to in his sleep, that is when he's sleepwalking. The Gang better help him find that mine or otherwise pretty Ms. Kent won't marry stalwart trapper Anthony Hulme, but rather saloon owner Bernard Lee, a fate worse than death.<br /><br />This was my first exposure to the Crazy Gang and I can see both why they were so acclaimed in the UK and why they never made any impact across the pond. The jokes come fast and furious and then were a number of things that the Code in the USA just wouldn't allow. The jokes are also strictly topical British and a lot just wouldn't be gotten over here.<br /><br />The sight gags are universal, the final chase scene is worthy of anything that the Marx Brothers did in America. My suggestion is that if you watch The Frozen Limits, tape it if you have a working familiarity with British history and run it two or three times just to make sure you pick up everything. It will be worth it. | 1 |
This is a great movie. Too bad it is not available on home video. | 1 |
Lemuel Gulliver (Ted Danson) is a doctor who goes missing at sea, leaving pregnant wife Mary (Mary Steenburgen) behind. Eight years later, he turns up, disheveled and seemingly mad - babbling about his adventures in the lands of the tiny Lilliputians, the giant Brobdingnags, the floating island of the intellectual Laputa, and the Houyhnhnms, a race of intelligent, talking horses who have to deal with the Yahoos - a race of bestial humans - among many other adventures. The not-so-good Dr. Bates (James Fox), who has designs on Lemuel's wife, has Gulliver incarcerated in a mental institution, and Lemuel, Mary, and son Thomas (Tom Sturridge) must find a way to prove his sanity.<br /><br />A splendid adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical novel, this film is a magnificent adaptation on so many levels: the story, the satire, the characters, the visuals, the brilliant cast. It's simply a treat to watch, and it's almost amazing considering that it was a made-for-TV film.<br /><br />The film does a brilliant job of capturing Swift's vicious satire, which cuts like a hatchet through British society of the time, but still resonates today. The wise Brobdingnags and the Houyhnhnms are almost perfect individuals who find it virtually impossible to understand why Gulliver speaks with such pride of the vices and corruptions of his society. The scenes where Gulliver struggles to prove himself different from the Yahoos are perhaps the best, with biting satire in describing how they pick their leaders ("they seem to pick the worst among them. . . who rules until they find someone even worse"), go to war ("We only go to war for a very good reason - such as they are weaker than us, or we want all of their land"), etc. The scenes involving Laputa are also effectively done - the intellectuals are so wrapped up in their specialized fields that they have no time for anything else, and really possess little common sense. And the addition of the asylum plot line enhances the story greatly - Dr. Bates is truly nasty character, and when he gives a speech to the inquiry on Gulliver's alleged vices, it's quite clear that he's describing his own faults.<br /><br />The film makes use of beautiful, and fairly convincing CGI effects depicting the very diverse settings of the novel with great effect. The contrast of sizes is done in a very skillful way, and all of the worlds depicted in the story are convincing in their own way. The cinematography (particularly that concerning the asylum) and the costumes are brilliantly done. The editing of the present with Lemuel's memories is a device which could be awkward, but works very well.<br /><br />The cast is truly wonderful; a veritable who's-who of British and American talent. Ted Danson gives an excellent, multi-layered performance as Gulliver, showing effectively his transformation from a person bewildered by his strange surroundings, to the lunatic state he was in when he reappears, to his rational, intellectual personality at the end. Most well-known for his work on sit-com, Danson shows that he's more than just Sam Malone with this wonderful serio-comic performance. Mary Steenburgen is effective as his wife, and James Fox is absolutely repulsive as Bates. The rest of the cast is made up mostly of cameos, with Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Warwick Davis, Kristin Scott Thomas, Geraldine Chaplin, Alfre Woodward, Edward Fox, and Sir John Gielgud being the most memorable - but even the smallest parts are very well-played.<br /><br />While not 100% faithful to the book, "Gulliver's Travels" is a triumph of story and images. It's not to be missed.<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this as my #3 film. I had an initial interest in seeing this being of Swedish descent myself with many of my ancestors coming from the Norrland region of Sweden where this was filmed. Also I grew up in an area of rural north woods America where many small towns were much like the setting of this film. It's nice to see more films using rural locations as their settings like Så som i himmelen. This was a very good film and I'm sure a very hard film to pull together with it's large ensemble cast but Director Kay Pollock really pulled this off after a nearly two decade absence from directing. Helen Sjoholm in her motion picture debut as an actress was fantastic and I would look forward to more of her on the big screen. I enjoyed Michael Nyqvist in the lead of this well-rounded cast. I would highly recommend this film and rate it a 9.0 on a scale of 10. | 1 |
This film was a yawn from titles to credits, it's boring to the point of tedium and the acting is wooden and stilted! Admittedly this was director Richard Jobson directing debut, but who on earth green-lit a script as poorly developed as this one? Looks like another money down the drain government project (Scottish Screen are credited surprise, surprise). I nearly fell asleep three times and my review will unfortunately have to be more restrained than this one. Please, please mister Jobson what ever you've been doing prior to directing this sedative of a film, go back to it! | 0 |
A dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative. | 0 |
During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end. <br /><br />"Dirty Harry (1971)" (which was made about the same time of "The Beguiled") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained. <br /><br />While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona. <br /><br />Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song. <br /><br />A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality. | 1 |
To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness. | 0 |
To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.<br /><br />Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10 | 0 |
Chapter One: Once Upon a Time
At A Table (1941)<br /><br />In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.<br /><br />Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)<br /><br />In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content. <br /><br />Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking<br /><br />In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table. <br /><br />Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking<br /><br />In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.<br /><br />Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table<br /><br />In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.<br /><br />The End | 0 |
From rainy, dreary late winter England of early 1920s...<br /><br />---where there is still sadness and many young widows and disabled vets from the great slaughter of men and killer of their womens' dreams--- known now as World War I...<br /><br />Four women share this lovely small sunny Italian castle on a hill; one a young widow who is drowning her sorrow in frantic partying, two women who will rediscover their own husbands, and a fourth woman who is tired of her famous dead friends...<br /><br />...These four women will come together with two husbands and a former soldier - almost blind - to get a spiritual "makeover" for one great April vacation in early 1920's Italy.<br /><br />NOTE to would-be filmmakers. Study this film for how mood and beauty can tell a story. (Probably not a film to please many men...)<br /><br />NOTE: Stock up on coffee & hot chocolate and invite the girls over on some dreary late winter day...Spring is coming...Enchanted April promises you! | 1 |
The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.<br /><br />To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him! <br /><br />Or something like that.<br /><br />The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.<br /><br />It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.<br /><br />Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.<br /><br />Yeah right.<br /><br />The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending. <br /><br />"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist." <br /><br />I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald. | 0 |
A toothsome little potboiler whose 65-minute length doesn't seem a second too short, My Name is Julia Ross harks back to an English tradition of things not being what they seem -- Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes is one example. Out-of-work Julia Ross (Nina Foch) finds a dream job at a new employment agency in London, whose sinister representative seems very anxious to ascertain if she has living relatives or a boyfriend. After reporting to duty, she wakes up (Having Been Drugged) in a vast Manderley-like pile on the Cornish coast, supposedly as the barmy-in-the-crumpet wife of George Macready, who displays an alarming interest in knives and ice picks. His doting, enabling mum is the irresistible Dame May Whitty (this time a model of bustling efficiency on the other side of good-vs-evil than she occupied in The Lady Vanishes). The nightmare vision of this tale unfolds claustrophobically; we know what's going on but are powerless to tell poor Julia. This movie, curiously, is regularly accorded a place of honor as one of the earliest (and very few British) films noirs. I think it's closer to the Gothic old-dark-house tradition than the American one of wet cobblestones and urban corruption; it does, however, evince a more modern, psychoanalytic cast of mind. Whatever you call it, it remains a sharply satisfying thriller. | 1 |
I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! <br /><br />It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.<br /><br />Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes! | 0 |
An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!) | 1 |
A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.<br /><br />It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.<br /><br />This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.<br /><br />Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films. | 1 |
Sarah Silverman is like a totally manic Zooey Deschanel and I think I'm in love already. Yeah, if you loved Jesus is Magic, you'll love this. If you didn't, what the heck is wrong with you? Kudos to the Comedy Channel for shoving this in my face. My life finally has meaning, and "Your car smells like farts" is my kind of humor. I'm a happy guy. The first episode had me laughing hysterically and I'm hungrily looking forward to next week. This is like Grease meets South Park. Completely outrageous. Sarah Silverman is someone I could watch reading the phone book. Her delivery is precise and oh so funny. She never skips a beat. Come to think of it, it's not so much her choice of material. which is some really good stuff by the way, as it is the way she chooses to deliver it. Thank you, Sarah Silverman! Thank you, Comedy Channel! | 1 |
Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I have loved this movie ever since it's debut in 1981! I have lost track of how many times I have seen it! It never fails to make me laugh or cheer me up if i am feeling down. The three leads are fantastic and the script is priceless, plus how do you not get nostalgic hearing the theme song? I think I quote this movie without realizing it. I basically know the entire script, so when someone is watching it for the first time I have to hold back saying something about how funny the next line it. I can't even narrow it down, although, Sir John's character probably gets the most memorable ones. The famous "I'll alert the media" when Arthur announces his intention to take a bath is still priceless, but the list is truly endless. The scene's at Arthur's soon to be fiancé's father's house are a scream, particularly his interactions with the moose. Do yourself a favour and see this movie! | 1 |
Im sorry to myself, you know why. I feel pained from the viewing of this movie. I went to the theater with some friends to see this movie, and still did not give it the satisfaction of watching it in entirety ( i left with about 20 minutes left... hoping to god it might make me at least comfortable for a moment. ) most movies now, even this bad ones... when i watch them, there may be a small part in the movie where I feel some joy at times because of maybe a quirky joke or a good line... this movie on the other hand made me feel uncomfortable and mad at myself the whole time, especially since i wasted money on it. It was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, and definitely poorly acted...<br /><br />please, for the good of humanity, do not see this movie, even if your some guy who wants to say he has seen like every movie ever... just don't... | 0 |
This is a classic action flick from the '80s featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most memorable roles. Set in a futuristic police state where the government controls everything, including the television networks. One of their most popular TV shows is "The Running Man", where convicted felons are hunted down and killed for the entertainment of millions. It's set up like a game show, where the audience votes for their favorite "stalkers", trained killers who hunt down and kill the show's unlucky "contestants". Audience members also win prizes for correctly predicting who will be killed by whom. And the host is played by none other than Family Feud's Richard Dawson, who's game show experience makes him well suited for this role. When Ben Richards (Arnold) is falsely accused of mass murder, he is forced to play this sadistic game.<br /><br />This movie is chock full of classic Arnold one-liners, such as his famous "I'll be back" right before he enters the arena. And he taunts a stalker armed with a flamethrower with "How about a light?" I could go on and on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It's funny stuff!<br /><br />Whether it was intended or not, this movie serves as a great parody of today's "Reality TV" craze. Already there are numerous programs that show people enduring pain and humiliation for the entertainment of viewers, and even court cases are televised for their "entertainment value". Running Man demonstrates what would happen if reality TV hit rock bottom, and it is a scary picture. One can only hope that the networks have the common sense not to let it go that far.<br /><br />Overall, this is a fun film & I highly recommend it. 9 out of 10! | 1 |
After a love triangle story in Har Dil Jo Pyaar Karega these 3 stars were again chosen in this controversial flick. The film would have been considered as hit if there was not a controversy with the production values from Bharat Shah. Here director duo Abbas-Mustan did a very different and unique job as compared with their previous and after directorial ventures. They are considered as thriller makers of Bollywood. But in this CCCC they proved that they can equally handle to make a romantic family drama. Hardly there is a single action scene when Preity was being raped by Salman's colleague in her apartment, Salman slapped him.<br /><br />The movie has almost all the standards and ingredients like song, story, casting, performances etc. which are required to make a movie hit. But of course for Salman's fan this was something a surprise gift from him. Why? Because for so long he has been doing roles where he has a scene to show his open body and dance la-la-la all around. His role as a rich young businessman who has no-nonsense nature and of normal attitude is really impressive. After all Madhubala, a prostitute role performed by Preity is amazing. Later when she too turns out thoughtful about her life she deserve proper attention. Her facial expressions and body language become more attractive, and focus mainly goes to her. Her previous role as a pregnant woman in Kya Kehna was not that heart-touching as it is here. Of course, this can be termed as improvement. Then Priya, a very innocent and helpless wife of Raj who only depends on him for a better result. She has nothing powerful influence in the story as the main ingredients are in the hands of Preity.<br /><br />Finally, the main point of the story which is something rare and unique in itself. In real world of this age it is not totally impossible to happen such step of searching for a surrogate mother. Perhaps, many are happening in this large world where these are kept secret. And in this way the scriptwriter of CCCC has uncovered a hidden truth which is taking place in others daily lives. But still then it is a doubt. | 1 |
The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage. | 0 |
In the midst of a documentary about his parents, the filmmaker's mother dies, but he continues making the documentary, discovering a story he did not anticipate. The result is an absorbing drama that has the quality of fiction in the best sense of that word, where a likable but unknowing narrator unwittingly privileges the audience. The narrative thus has a double weave, the story of the documentary and the story of the documentary-maker.<br /><br />Our admiration is with the filmmaker, not only for doggedly pursuing his story though it risks his entire notion of his parents' relationship, but also for never giving in to sensationalism or melodrama. Although the stuff of Hollywood lurks in the details, Doug Block treats the story as he would everyday life. For those of us who have always speculated about our parents' life before we came on the scene (or after we arrived, but while we were too self- absorbed to notice they had a life independent of ourselves), 51 Birch Street gives fair warning: There are wondrous things back there in fatherland, but beware if you choose to enter there.<br /><br />But that caution is for the audience to go slow wandering about in the details of their parents' past. It is not a warning for those offered a glimpse into the life of Block's parents. The film is a marvel at making the mother come alive as a vibrant and passionate yet introspective person who makes her own conscious decisions during the 50's. The filmmaker's particular success is to make the viewers actually see the young woman behind the elderly parent and grandparent. We all know our parents were once young and vigorous, but in 51 Birch Street, the mother is. The father who has been distant while the filmmaker and his sister were growing up ultimately remains distant in the film, but that is due more to his own elusive nature than to his portrayal. This biography turned autobiography is dramatic, intense, and unforgettable, sure to send viewers scurrying for a closer look at their own family albums but more hesitant about looking at the backs of those photographs. | 1 |
I was expecting a lot from this movie, and I can say I haven't been disappointed. First of all, this movie, as a world tour of wine making, let the spectator enjoy beautiful places. The people interviewed are really interesting and funny too, in particular Hubert de Montille. The shooting may be confusing, the camera always being unsteady and often focusing on secondary elements in the backgrounds. You may not like it, but I don't consider it as a defect.<br /><br />The themes raised in the movie may be kind of confusing as well, since globalization isn't the only issue discussed. But Nossiter managed to give his movie a consistency all along. A great achievement of this movie is revealing all the characters involved in the wine industry as they really are, avoiding a cliché "Good against Evil". This could be the main difference between "Mondovino" and Michael Moore's documentaries; Nossiter's point of view appears in a subtle way, through opinions expressed by his favorite characters. The richness of this documentary relies mainly upon the characters, the history of long-time wine-making families, such as the De Montilles, the Mondavis, the Antinori and the Frescobaldi. Nossiter lets the spectator discover that wine is somehow related to families, rather than just being a business and an industry. This movie doesn't make you want to drink wine, but certainly make you want to discover vineyards and wine-makers.<br /><br />I watched this movie as a student in Enology, and let's just there are many ways to learn. I give this documentary 10 out of 10, despite his technical particularities. | 1 |
Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.<br /><br />It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.<br /><br />There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.<br /><br />I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling. | 1 |
I don't know how this film went unnoticed for so long.<br /><br />I saw this film on TV, i was flipping through the channels and came across this unexpectedly well made film. i missed the first, probably , 10 minutes, but that does not matter..this film literally gripped me, it is a real spine chiller.<br /><br />The absence of well known actors in the film adds on to the effect,u do not know what to expect from the actors because they are new. U never know when they will get killed or what they are up to. so it is all the more tense.Even though there are many new faces their performances were top class.<br /><br />The filmmakers play with your mind, just revealing enough gore to make imagine the rest. The shock, fear, horror and helplessness are also brought out well by characters in the film.<br /><br />The well written situations n twists,fast camera movements, slick editing and superb direction makes it an excellent suspense thriller. This film actually switches between the genres - horror and suspense thriller leaving the viewer clueless and tensed. Undoubtedly comparable to Hitchcock. <br /><br />I could not even move from the TV even during the commercial breaks .. i was the helpless MUTE WITNESS to this superb film. | 1 |
Before the Internet this movie could never have been made but the idea that the Web is full of evil is the idea behind it.Unfortunately thats all it was-the generally opinion that nowadays the Web in the wring hands can create as much chaos as anything in real life. Since the late 90s somebody found out that you could create a virus which would disable a computer.The point? Just to do something plain evil by remote control so its the cyber equivalent of robbery with violence.Which is basically what spam is without the violence-its conning you into parting with your money and has been going so long its a wonder anybody takes any notice of it nowadays so they get cleverer and use real names as doing something illegal isn't a priority, We see the Internet get worse by the week-the social networking sites or chat room which lead to evil and the child porn sites which ARE illegal. So the idea of a movie which invites people to click a name is just the same old thing-there actually IS a site called Horrorvision which is a porn site-but this one KILLS the people who enter its portals. The story though is so disjointed its boring with it and comes to no conclusion. The definitive movie on this theme of destroying an Internet Service Provider has yet to be made but clearly many DO need destroying as they won't be shut down when there's money to be made. Calling this a horror film is rather misleading as it bores not frightens | 0 |
A multi-millionaire marries a female doctor. He hasn't worked in a day and she is devoted to her profession. He sees her off each day. Something has got to give.<br /><br />Our hero, Henry Fonda, finally decides to do something with his life. He becomes a salesman in a department store but is soon fired as poorer people need the job. In the meantime, Dr. Helen Hunt, (Barbara Stanwyck) has given up her practice? What's there to do?<br /><br />Kirk (Fonda) buys a bankrupt hospital and the two shall now be happy aiding others while they eke out an existence.<br /><br />What's with the writing here? When annoyed with her husband, Dr. Hunt says, "You've been acting like gestapo." This is supposed to be a comedy. Hogwash. <br /><br />A very boring, tedious film. Very little going on here. | 0 |
Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now. | 1 |
Before I'd seen this movie I've heard a lot of praise about it and quite many exclamations about how "horrific" it was. Not to take any credit away from this movie, I think it wasn't all that horrible or even shocking. It's just a movie about people living in the darker side of the town. And a good one at portraying the point.<br /><br />There's some great acting here and a well-thought of manuscript. Paavo Westerberg is a renowned writer in the Finnish movie scene and he's the best in what comes to describing the contemporary Finnish culture (albeit he's not the only one writer for this movie, but I dare say he's the main-writer anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong).<br /><br />The casting is excellent, except for Jasper Pääkkönen (the pseudo-main character, who in my opinion should have stayed in the soap opera scene), and the sets, the cuts and sounds are very well done as well and give great atmosphere to this movie.<br /><br />This movie is a story about loosely interconnected sad destinies that according to a famous Finnish band's very well known song (Eppu Normaali's "Tuhansien Murheellisten Laulujen Maa", which VERY roughly translated to "Paha Maa") throughout the whole Finnish society lead to a sad, dark end accompanied with booze, lonesomeness and the bad choices. And it's the side of everyday Finnish life about 80% of the population have no awareness of, unless movies like this are made. | 1 |
Maria Braun got married right in the middle of combat all around her and her husband Hermann. An explosion ripped through the building, to begin with, and she and Hermann had to sign the papers on a pile of rubble on the street. Perhaps this may strike some as a heavy-handed metaphor for what's about to come: marriage on the rocks, so to speak. It's a betrothal where the husband goes off to war and is held in a Russian prison camp, unbenownst to the helpless but hopeful and proud Maria, who keeps standing by the depressing rubble of the train station as some come home, others don't, with a sign awaiting Hermann.<br /><br />Trouble arises, as happens in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's melodramas, and as its one of his best and most provocative, we see as Maria (uncommonly gorgeous Hanna Schygulla in this role) will do a two-face: she'll stand by her man, even if it means working at a bar for American GI's and, even still after she hears from a fellow soldier that Hermann has died will still stand by him as she sleeps with a black GI and comes close to bearing his child (that is, naturally, until he reappears and a murder occurs and he takes the rap so she can be safe), or working for a German businessman (effectively sympathetic Ivan Desny) and becoming his sometimes mistress and rising star in the company. Maria will do whatever it takes to be successful, but she'll always be married.<br /><br />It's hard to say there's anything about Maria that isn't fascinating. Money, sex, power, all of these become interchangeable for Maria. She's like the feminist that has her cake and eats it with a sultry smile: she gets to have a husband, more or less (actually a lot less until the last ten minutes of the film) while obtaining things- a man who dotes on her whenever he can, a new and expensive house with servants, a secretary, money- that others around her aren't getting due to already being with a man or too weak in a position to rise anywhere (such as the secretary, played interestingly enough by Fassbinder's own mother).<br /><br />Maria is sexy, confident, and all alone, with an idealized life going against a life that should be made in the shade. She says of the two men- the American soldier and poor old and sick Oswald- that she's fond of them, and at the same time will stick by those roses the confused and soul-searching husband Hermann sends from Canada, after being released from prison. She's casts a profile that a feminist would love to trounce, but understand where she's coming from and going all the way.<br /><br />Fassbinder employs this inherent contradiction, and moments with Maria appear to go against the conventions of a melodrama (for example, Hermann walking in on the jubilant and half-naked Maria and GI is just about a masterpiece of a scene, with Maria's reaction not of surprise or guilt but pure happiness to see that he's there let alone alive), while sticking to his guns as a director of such high-minded technique with a storyline that should be predictable. But it isn't really. It's like one big metaphor for a country that, after the war, couldn't really move on to normalcy. A few times Fassbinder puts sound of the radio on in the background, and we see Maria walking around her family house, hustle and bustle going on around her, and the radio speaks of a divided Germany, of things still very unsettled, of a disarray. Maybe the only way to cope is excess, or maybe that's just my interpretation of it.<br /><br />It's hard to tell, really, under Schygulla's stare face and eyes, anyway. It's such an incredible performance, really, one of those showstoppers that captures the glamor and allure of an old-time Hollywood female star while with the down-and-dirty ethic of a girl of the streets. Most telling are the opposing costumes one sees in one scene when she finally is with her husband, where she stars in one of those super-lustful black lingerie pieces and high heels, and then moves on to a dress without even thinking about it. That's almost the essence of what Maria is, and Schygulla wonderfully gets it down, a headstrong but somehow loving figure who is adored and perplexed by the men around her, sometimes in a single sentence. This is what Fassbinder captures in his wonderful first part of his "trilogy"; while I might overall prefer Veronika Voss as a masterpiece, Maria Braun is perhaps just as good as a character study, of what makes a woman tick and tock with (almost) nothing to lose. | 1 |
First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here. Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it. and i highly recommend it to anyone. | 1 |
Her Deadly Rival (1995): Starring Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts, Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair, Sean Bridges, Robin Dallenbach, Wilbur Fitzgerald, Dale Frye, Stan Kelly, Deborah Hobart, David Lenthall, Lorri Lindberg, Chuck Kinlaw, Amy Parrish, Melissa Suzanne McBride, Ralph Wilcox, Al Wiggins, Jeff Sumerel, Daria Sanford....Director James Hayman, Screenplay Dan Vining.<br /><br />Actor Harry Hamlin (of LA Law fame, Clash of The Titans and other films) seems perfectly cast in this "Lifetime" type film directed by James Hayman and released in 1995. He and his wife Lisa Rinna would later work on a film about sex addiction. "Her Deadly Rival" is, at first glance, similar to the better known Hollywood box-office hit "Fatal Attraction". In "Rival", happily married couple Jim and Kris Lanford move into a new home in the typically beautiful suburbs. They have the seemingly perfect marriage- they are deeply in love, despite a routine lifestyle. But then a mysterious admirer sets her eyes on Jim. Her identity is never revealed, despite an attempt by Jim and even investigators to discover who she is. She constantly harasses Jim through phone calls and letters. His marriage nearly flounders as his wife begins to think he's having an affair and trying to cover it up. While Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts and the rest of the cast - Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair- each seem to be straight out of a soap opera. But this is a very suspense-filled drama and has its good moments. There is a twist at the end. Spoiler Alert. All I have to say is "her deadly rival" was only herself. Based on a supposedly actual case, Jim's wife Kris suffered from multiple personality disorder and that was what ruined her marriage. Even if the story is not terribly impressive, even if the acting is only a step above soap opera acting, this film has its moments. Especially moving are the intimate scenes between Jim and his wife and the final scene in which, when Jim learns the truth, he can't believe what he has just heard. The movie is probably a little too long and boring in some parts but it's the kind of TV movie that usually does well, especially on Lifetime, which continues to produce films of this kind, of the "domestic thriller" type, or seduction stories. Trashy but everyone likes trash. | 1 |
This film is absolutely horrific. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The story does nearly not exist, the characters are full of stereotypes and the Special-FX only make you laugh. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the guest appearance of the Rapper Coolio as some kind of police officer.<br /><br />If this film was supposed to be a comedy I didn't quite get the point. If you want to watch this movie: please get yourself drunk first and then prepare for some good laughs...especially when the first Special-FX appear on the screen.<br /><br />But if you like trash movies made on the cheap: this film is a must-see for you. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.