text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
With so many horrible spoof movies, this is sadly a breath of fresh air to the genre. Compared to classics like Airplane or the Naked Gun, this is awful, but compared to recent spoof movies like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, this is very clever and original. Don't get me wrong, though, this was not a good movie in any way. I laughed a few times, and there are a few inspired gags, but any pop culture reference falls flat on it's face, as does most jokes in the movie.<br /><br />Lambeau Fields (David Koechner) was a bad coach in the past, but now he's brought back to teach college football, and this time he'll do a good job. His wife (Melora Hardin) is feeling distant from him and his daughter is dating a football big shot to spite her father. Spoofs of various recent movies come into play, as do a lot of sight gags and nonstop stupidity.<br /><br />The best parts of the movie are the gags not relying on reference to recent movies. Spoofs of Radio, Rocky, Dodgeball, Friday Night Lights, Invincible and many other sports movies are not funny in the least. It's mainly the smaller gags that get a few laughs, like a bizarre crotch scratching scene, or a chewing tobacco spitting joke. These little throwaway giggles cannot carry the movie, and by the end, it's hard to watch. The last 20 minutes are grueling to sit through.<br /><br />The characters are surprisingly developed for a sports spoof movie, however, I'm sure the characters were built on clichés from the genre. Nonetheless, they're not too bad. David Koechner can pull lead actor in a movie off. Too bad they gave him so much crummy material to work with. Matthew Lawerence has fine comedic timing in a not always so comedic role as a ballet dancing football player with a cross dressing father. Carl Weathers rounds off the cast, once again playing in a sub-par sports movie (Not the Rocky movies...Happy Gilmore!) Overall, this is a goofy comedy. At times, it's funny, but more often than not, it's just very annoying and predictable.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug humor. | 0 |
I admit it now. This is one of the lamest films ever made. But, in Mr Sjogrens defense, the "Not really"-scene wasn't all bad! <br /><br />And you gotta love the effort of going all the way to Sweden just to find a sweet Swedish 15 year old blonde, have her speak Swedish posing as the Jewish mother of Henry (dennis hopper). <br /><br />What makes this scene so perfect is that Henrys father answers the blonde Swedish-speaking(Jewish?) girl in German... <br /><br />The best actor/actress of all in the film must be the nun who takes care of Henrys mother, this is a woman who has had no experience whatsoever of acting, but still puts in the most convincing performance of all!<br /><br />All and all, this flick is nostalgia for me personally, it is after all what gave me a posting on IMDb:s database. :D<br /><br />//Feelin like a movie-star* | 0 |
Some people have made a point of dissing this movie because they question the plausibility of black people in the Old West, Asian people in the Old West or women with guns in the Old West period. Get a grip and read a book. There were quite a few Asians (Chinese), there were quite a few blacks (freedmen) and everybody outside of the gentile class had ready access to guns; it is the second amendment you know. And as far as the use of modern language goes, none of those Westerns people have waxed nostalgic about actually used language that was consistent with the era depicted. Americans had different accents, used different inflections, spoke at a very different pace and used plenty of words and phrases that would be unrecognizable today. Don't blame historical inaccuracy for the fact that you just didn't dig it. Be honest. Maybe you're just uncomfortable with what you're seeing. | 0 |
There are moments when you don't want those deep drama-series. When you don't want series with heavy stories or a must to watch every single episode to be able to hang on. There are moments when you just want to watch a simple series, with lots of action and cool characters. For those moments, you have Cleopatra 2525.<br /><br />I was one of those who actually enjoyed Charlie's Angels. Critics said it was to superficial and silly. But the thing is, that's the point! People who can't relax and expected a serious movie hated it. It's exactly the same with Cleopatra 2525. It is superficial. It has silly and unrealistic characters. And that's why I like it. It isn't like any other series.<br /><br />The first season wasn't very good. The character Cleo was irritating and a little too much. The story was a little lame, and you didn't get to know the characters very much. But hey, they only had 20 minutes in every episode.<br /><br />In the last 5-6 episodes of Cleopatra 2525, they finally gave the series full 40-minutes length. And it was here I started to love it. The series finally started to grow into a very qualitative series. Too bad they had to cancel the series. Because the last episodes of Cleopatra 2525 actually was very good. I will never forget Hel, Sarge and Cleo. Unique characters that only the creators of Xena could have created! | 1 |
I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.<br /><br />We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.<br /><br />Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).<br /><br />I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.<br /><br />... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay. | 0 |
Ego. Seems it's the only reason this movie was made. This movie is so wrong in so many ways that it's below one's dignity to write much about it. Every character was only good at self praise and lead actors (i use this term liberally as has the director) emote in the likeness of stone. the little story, if that, fails on the basic aspects such as logic, feeling and drama. Direction leaves much to be desired. blatant flaws are all over the place (character motives aren't defined, prospective husbands are found overnight, broken car windows mend themselves among other things)<br /><br />Let's face it, Himesh can't act. neither, it seems, can Hansika Motwani. In her defense, she's still a chubby child who looks older than she is thanks to tonnes of make-up. Raj Babbar Overacts and makes his little presence as fake as possible. Darshan Jariwala laughs a bit too much. The actor who plays Himesh's friend is the only natural. <br /><br />a few questions do come to mind: how can such a film cost Rs.500,000,000?? where did the money go??? granted that one chase sequence was moderately well shot and Mallika Sherawat was paid an obscene Rs.15,000,000 for her 15 minute appearance and 2 songs. but the sheer stupidity of the film boggles the mind. (including 3 Mumbai auto rickshaws that show up and jump on a police car)<br /><br />the good: Himesh shows courage by allowing the film to make fun of his nasal voice and trademark "topi." Let's give the Devil his due: Himesh, as usual gives good music.<br /><br />The bad: Direction, Story, Himesh's singing is still hard to ignore<br /><br />The Ugly: Dialogs and everything else!!!<br /><br />Final Word: Painful in every sense of the word! watch this movie only if you loved Subhash Ghai's "Yaadein" | 0 |
The Invisible Maniac starts as a young Kevin Dornwinkle (Kris Russell) is caught by his strict mother (Marilyn Adams) watching a girl (Tracy Walker) strip through his telescope... Cut to 'Twenty Years Later' & Kevin Dornwinkle (Noel Peters) is now a physics professor who claims to have discovered a way to turn things invisible using a 'mollecular reconstruction' serum. However during a demonstration in front of his fellow scientists it fails & they all laugh at him, Dornwinkle goes mad kills a few of them & is locked away in a mental institute from which he escapes. Jump forward 'Two Weeks Later' & a group of summer college students discuss the tragic death of their physics teacher when the headmistress Mrs. Cello (Stephanie Blake as Stella Blalack) says that she has hired a replacement, yes you've guessed it it's Dornwinkle. The student don't take to him & treat him like dirt, however Dornwinkle has perfected his invisibility serum & uses it to satisfy his perverted sexual urges & his desire for revenge...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by Adam Rifkin wisely hiding under the pseudonym Rif Coogan (I wouldn't want my name to be associated with this turd of a film either) The Invisible Maniac is real bottom of the barrel stuff. The script by Rifkin, sorry Coogan & Tony Markes is awful. It tries to be a teenage sex/comedy/horror hybrid that just fails in every department. For a start the sex is nothing more than a few female shower scenes & a few boob shots, not much else I'm afraid & the birds in The Invisible Maniac aren't even that good looking. The comedy is lame & every joke misses by the proverbial mile, this is the kind of film that thinks someone fighting an invisible man or having Henry (Jason Logan) a mute man trying to make a phone call is funny. The Invisible Maniac makes the Police Academy (1984 - 1994) series of films look like the pinnacle of sophistication! As for the horror aspect that too is lame. It's also an incredibly slow (it takes over half an hour before Dornwinkles even becomes invisible), dull, predictable, boring & has highly annoying & unlikable teenage character's.<br /><br />Director Rifkin or Coogan or whatever does absolutely nothing to try & make The Invisible Maniac an even slightly enjoyable experience. There's no scares, tension or atmosphere & as a whole the film is a real chore to sit through. He does nothing with the invisibility angle, just a few doors opening on their own is as adventurous as it gets. There is very little gore or violence, a bit of splashing blood, a few strangulations & the only decent bit in the whole film when someone has their head blown off with a shotgun, unfortunately he was invisible at the time & we only get to see the headless torso afterwards.<br /><br />The budget must have been low, & I mean really low because this is one seriously cheap looking film. Dornwinkles laboratory is basically two jars on his bedside cabinet! When he escapes from the mental institution he has all of one dog sent after him & the entire school has about a dozen pupils & two teachers. The Invisible Maniac is a poorly made film throughout it's 85 minute duration, I spotted the boom mike on at least one occasion... Lets just say the acting is of a low standard & leave it at that.<br /><br />The Invisible Maniac is crap, plain & simple. I found no redeeming features in it at all, there are so many more better films out there you can watch so there is no reason whatsoever to waste your time on this rubbish. Definitely one to avoid. | 0 |
There were at least a half dozen silent-film versions of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," and there have been several television productions. But no one has ever gotten around to making a big-budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. Given the nature of the play/s most memorable character, Shylock the Nasty Jew, it's a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in Europe in the late 1930's and 1940's may have dampened filmmakers' enthusiasm. Sure the main motivation for Michael Radford's new film is to provide Al Pacino with a chance to shout, bray, brood, mutter, and be tormented - all of which he is quite good at. Like Richard III, the role of Shylock is a scenery-chewer's dream. It is ridiculous to call Shakespeare an anti-Semite, since he never met a Jew. Jews were banned from England from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death; and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. On some level, Jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. But, while Shakespeare may not have been anti-Semitic, his play certainly is. Pacino gives Shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of Yiddish. Unfortunately, the result is a 16th-century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of Fozzie Bear. Radford's version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of Jews and then spot Antonio (Jeremy Irons) gratuitiously spitting on Shylock (Pacino), who's really just standing around, minding his own business. Will buy it when it comes out on DVD, for sure! Sarge Booker | 1 |
This is the best of the 43 films that Rainer Werner Fassbinder made; his most successful at least. He was one of the leading directors in the New Germany after WWII.<br /><br />Hanna Schygulla was magnificent as the cold, calculating Maria Bruan, who lost her husband to the War, found him after she took an American soldier as a lover, lost him again after he went to jail for her, and found him agin at the end. Her day and a half marriage before he disappeared was longer than their time together at the end.<br /><br />Such is life. Things come and go, and you do the best you can. You can give up or adjust you way of thinking to survive. Even though Maria adjusted her thinking and did what she had to do, she never stopped loving Hermann, which makes the end such a tragedy.<br /><br />Excellent drama. | 1 |
I can't remember exactly where i heard of them first, but i listen to a little of one song and liked it. Went and bought the cd and had finally found the type of music i like. I heard about this video and knew i had to have it. It has a lot of clips from them playing in concert. Let me tell you, watching this video doesn't even compare to them in concert. I've seen them twice in concert and don't want to ever miss a chance to see them again. The other two things it has is some interview, and even a video for one of their biggest songs. couple little side notes...i saw them at ozzfest 2001 and they ruled there, but seeing them in a smaller inside stage was much better (they had some really cool things to do with being able to cut out the lights) the other, in case anyone wonders, votary means a devout follower. | 1 |
Hammer House of Horror: Witching Time is set in rural England on Woodstock farm where stressed musician David Winter (Jon Finch) lives with his actress wife Mary (Prunella Gee) & is currently composing the music for a horror film. One night while looking for his dog Billy David finds a mysterious woman in his barn, calling herself Lucinda Jessop (Patricia Quinn) she claims to be a witch who has transported herself from 300 years in the past to now. Obviously rather sceptical David has a hard time believing her so he locks her in a room in his farmhouse & calls his doctor Charles (Ian McCulloch) to come examine her, however once he arrives & they enter the room Lucinda has disappeared. Charles puts it down to David drinking too much but over the next few day strange & disturbing things begin to happen to David & Mary...<br /><br />Witching Time was episode 1 from the short lived British anthology horror series produced by Hammer studios for TV & originally aired here in the UK during September 1980, the first of two Hammer House of Horror episodes to be directed by Don Leaver (episode 13 The Mark of Satan being the other) I actually rather liked this. As a series Hammer House of Horror dealt with various different themes & were all unconnected to each other except in name & unsurprisingly Watching Time is a sinister & effective little tale about a witch, the script by Anthony Read benefits from it's slight 50 odd minute duration & moves along at a nice pace. The character's are pretty good as is the dialogue, there are some nice scenes here & I liked the way it never quite reveals whether David & Mary are going crazy or not. I think it's a well structured, entertaining & reasonably creepy horror themed TV show that I enjoyed more than I thought I would.<br /><br />Being made for British TV meant the boys at Hammer had a lower budget than usual, if that was even possible, & as such there is no gorgeous period settings here as in their most well know Frankenstein & Dracula films although the contemporary English setting does give it a certain atmosphere that you can relate to a bit more. Another TV based restriction is that the exploitation levels are lower than you might hope for, there's some nudity & gore but not much although I didn't mind too much as the story here is pretty good. It's well made for what it is & Hammer's experience on their feature films probably helped make these look pretty good, the acting is good as well with genre favourite Ian McCulloch making a bit-part appearance.<br /><br />Witching Time is a good start to the Hammer House of Horror series, as a 50 minute piece of British TV it's pretty damned good, now why don't they make show's like this over here anymore? | 1 |
Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson were great in this movie / musical. The opening song by Ms. Andrews, "Whistling Away the Dark," will always be in the back roads of my mind. The plot line during World War I, is great and suspenseful one. If you are a romantic, you will love this movie. This is a movie that I always enjoy to see again and again. | 1 |
I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.<br /><br />The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick. | 0 |
Pierre Jolivet plays a Don Quixote character, unable to speak, living in a world incompatible with modern life. He trusts to his homemade weaponry - helmet, sleeves, and spear - made out of hubcaps, seat cushions, and discarded office furniture. Just as Don Quixote rode Rocicante, "The Man" rides his contraption (literally) transcending the lost lives caught up the harsh and demeaning modern world - soaring above the earth, away from the plight of modern man. Both characters ride in search of adventure in an effort to right the wrongs of the world. Both characters are guardian knights of values unfamiliar to most of the other characters in the story.<br /><br />Unlike Cervantes's tale, in this movie we identify more directly with the anachronistic ideals of the main character. We can only compare this alien and forbidding landscape to the lush and beautiful world we live in. Our frame of reference is the fantasy realm which the lone knight perhaps remembers. Our vision would be one which expects the main character to triumph, to vanquish, to change his world (for the better) back into a world of plenty that no longer exists.<br /><br />We look at this movie and see a true knight among a world of humans-as-animals. Don Quixote considered himself a true knight among animals.<br /><br />With Cervantes's tale we can only see the dreamer, without really understanding the scope of his anachronistic displacement. In Besson's and Jolivet's tale we see the new world from the eyes of Don Quixote, because we value the same visions and ideals as the crusading main character. | 1 |
Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff. | 0 |
This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film. | 1 |
This comes close to the worst movie I've ever seen. The writer starts you out in a way that you'll side with Jasper (Josh Hartnett). When he did absolutely nothing wrong, Sam (Leelee Sobiesky) leaves him for Kelley (Chris Klein), in a way that leaves you mad at Sam. You aren't let in on what she feels, so her feelings with Kelley aren't real to you, and their relationship is phony. It drags you in either direction, and it gets rather exhausting and annoying. The only good thing about this movie that I saw was the cast.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I am very sorry to say this but "Thunderbirds" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a "spoof" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film. | 0 |
The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie! | 0 |
William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's "The Sopranos" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since "Fargo." Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences. | 1 |
I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost. | 0 |
There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question. | 1 |
Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.<br /><br />Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying. | 0 |
In 1850 in Yorkshire, a boy chimney-sweep is falsely accused of theft by his crooked master and runs away. He falls into a treacherous local river and is transported into an underwater realm, where he makes many friends and rescues the mythical Water Babies from an evil shark.<br /><br />Based on a book by Charles Kingsley, this is a lovely children's film, half live-action and half animation, which is both a grim and evocative depiction of Victorian times and a terrifically enjoyable undersea adventure. It really is two films in one, which somehow complement each other and combine into a much richer whole. The animation by Tony Cuthbert, Jack Stokes and Miroslaw Kijowicz is wonderful, as is the photography by Ted Scaife and the music by Phil Coulter and Bill Martin. Pender has a great rough-diamond quality as the (literal) fish out of water - I love the moment when he's on top of the mansion, sees all the chimneys and shouts "Blimey !!" at the top of his voice. Mason and Cribbins are the filthiest, nastiest bullies you could hope to see in a costume drama (if you want to see real Victorian values, don't watch Sense And Sensibility, watch this), and Whitelaw, Pertwee (who does umpteen voices) and Percival are all excellent. This is how a good children's movie should be - good old singalong fun, but also just a little bit thoughtful, sad and frightening. High Cockallorum !! | 1 |
As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom. | 1 |
I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10! | 1 |
Okay, I seriously CAN'T think of anything worse than the PR series. There are many bad things in life...traitors, liars, etc. But seriously, Power Rangers has GOT to be at the bottom of this list. Can you think of anything more stupid than five-six teenagers (who don't even act like a normal teen) dancing around in identical suits WITH DIFFERENT COLORS SO THAT YOU CAN TELL THEM APART? Fans, have you ever come across a real person who gets flung against a mental wall and gets up almost immediately and continues to fight without getting injured? Power Rangers are for five-year old boys, and believe me, I never liked this show even when I was five.<br /><br />I guess you can say Dino Thunder is an exception. The teens actually ACT like teens, and Tommy Oliver actually acts like a mentor, or no, a teacher. It's got teen-humor, though the fighting is lame, I don't hate Dino Thunder.<br /><br />Many people say Power Rangers are crap, but I wouldn't. It would be an insult to crap. So face it, five year old boys, Power Rangers is rubbish. | 0 |
This is the middle cartoon of the three (between Rabbit Fire and Duck! Rabbit, Duck!) and is the weakest of the three, while still being quite funny. It simply depends on one gag for too much of the action. Still a good cartoon. I feel a definite sympathy for Daffy in this one, which is rare for me. Daffy is so clearly overmatched that it almost becomes painful to watch at times. Good cartoon in an excellent series. Recommended. | 1 |
The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS "plot" and "character". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help? | 0 |
This is my first CG animated film that I've ever seen. Usually, the look of other animated films made me reticent to see them. Not Ice Age. I wanted to see it the moment I saw the trailer with Scrat, the hilarious sabertooth squirrel.<br /><br />Ice Age was sporadically funny and overall fun film to watch. The story is basically an animated version of Three Men and a Baby, set 20,000 years in the past. The visuals were great. Simply beautiful. It's one thing to create convincing aninmation, it's another thing altogether to create visually arresting stuff and Ice Age is great to look at with its stylized visuals. Blue Sky Studios is a company to look out for in the future. | 1 |
A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.<br /><br />Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.<br /><br />Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.<br /><br />I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way. | 0 |
Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.<br /><br />The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.<br /><br />The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.<br /><br />The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.<br /><br />Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! <br /><br />In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film. | 0 |
This is about the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie does match the quality of such movies as "THEY" & "Cabin Fever", but even those had name actors where this one fell short. The "eye candy" of this movie looked to be a 50 woman with a bad face lift. (just an example of the quality). I would have rated this movie in the negative if possible. Ladies I have to tell you that the men were not bad to look at, but not much either. If you were planning on going to see this movie I would strongly recommend saving your money. | 0 |
Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************<br /><br />Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:<br /><br />1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.<br /><br />2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.<br /><br />3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.<br /><br />4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.<br /><br />5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.<br /><br />6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.<br /><br />7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)<br /><br />8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out "I think she* kept people up here".<br /><br />9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.<br /><br />10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:<br /><br />CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.<br /><br />DUDE #1: Actually says to himself "Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.<br /><br />CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.<br /><br />DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.<br /><br />11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named "Charles".<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************<br /><br />Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.<br /><br />Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....<br /><br />All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)<br /><br />Random thought: I believe the producer says "The 'footage' you see is real". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.<br /><br />I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.<br /><br />The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I really liked BATMAN: DEAD END, I thought that it had a theatrical feel to it and that given a chance Collora could make a fine film. This trailer didn't quite give me the same impression. The story line, or potential story line, was quite good but due to the acting and special effects left me feeling like this would have made a good TV movie or television show.<br /><br />First, Michael O'Hearn is not that good a Superman. I actually thought he, in his brief appearance, made a decent Clark Kent. Sorry, I just don't think of SuperMan as being that buff. The suit Kent wore masked his size. Batman may have the body of a bodybuilder but not Superman. Supes is toned no doubt but not bulk. Anyway, I didn't care for all his posing and his transformation from Kent to Superman seemed cheezy. Now this may not be just O'Hearn's fault, Collora may have to take some of the credit for poor scripting and direction.<br /><br />Second, the special effects for flying were cheezy. Superman flies through the sky. If was obvious that this Superman flew close to the ground, with the telephone cables and buildings visible above him. I don't think there were any full body shots of Superman flying. Evidently the harness and rigging supporting O'Hearn must have been located on his lower torso.<br /><br />All in all it was a good trailer. I'd probably pay to see a film, if ever made, and would be sure to catch it on television. The story line, an alliance between Lexcorp and Wayne Industries, Superman jealous of Lois's attraction to Wayne, Lex and Twoface teaming to beat Superman and the joining of forces between Batman & Superman is a good one. I'm sure with a larger budget and approval for a full film Collora and company, even O'Hearn could deliver a decent film. Certainly one better than the most of the comic based crap coming out of Hollywood lately. | 1 |
it brings to mind the writings of Stephen King and the remembered childhoods filled with terror from stories like IT - as the exact opposite. There is no terror in these childhoods that any of the friends - who are still friends 20 years up the line - remember or seem to suffer from. Up the line all is described as friendly jostling, maybe periodically described as "picking on" one or more of them, but all is forgiven. There is no *angst* embedded as the film and the participants in later life describe the relationships - all we see are young people having grown up to be basically the same persons. More mature, but basically still the same people, and the same power structures.<br /><br />Totally amazing! Not just for the fact that people can in fact grow up relatively unharmed by social conventions - but also that friendships can in fact last. In this respect this movie is a tiny Pearl - as one assumes this has been the intent of the film: A portrait of unforced emotions binding people together. Which, when seen in opposition to films of later years portraying the dark sides of childhood - the violent inhibitions in Bowling for Combine is what easily springs to mind, but since mid 80'ies along with the growing adoration of children and childhood (accompanied by 1000s of commercials, animations and series directed straight at children) several movies and documentaries have had success with portraying the dark sides of growing up - the abuse, the loneliness, the push to excel - resulting in adults with dark and twisted minds.<br /><br />And here comes a film, that says: It IS possible to have a happy childhood, look'a'here!<br /><br />Thank you for that. OR the counterweight illusion ...<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
A disappointing film.<br /><br />The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.<br /><br />Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?<br /><br />Technically, a disgusting shot film. | 0 |
This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R | 1 |
this movie was horrible. I could barely stay awake through it. I would never see this movie again if I were payed to. The so-called horror scenes in it were increadably predictable and over played. There was really nothing about this movie that would have made it original or worth the $7.50 I payed to see it. Don't go see it, don't rent it, don't read about it online because any of these things would be a complete waste of your time. Sarah Michelle Geller gave a lackluster performance and really should be ashamed of herself for sullying her good name with this movie. Shame on you Sarah for being associated with this horrible, horrible movie. Horrible movie, no need to ever see it. | 0 |
While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly. | 0 |
When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world. | 0 |
In the Old west there are always the men who live breathe violence and the women who hold their breath. A famous ¨town tamer¨ named Clit Tollinger(Robert Mitchum) comes hired by the citizens to rid the gunslingers ( Leo Genn, Claude Atkins, among others), Baronland's hoodlums. There he meets the blacksmith (Emile Meyer) , his daughter (Karen Sharpe), her boyfriend(John Lupton), the marshal(Henry Hull) and the Saloon owner (Ted De Corsia). Clint as lawman is appointed deputy to bring peace and puts some cartels saying the following : ¨ Warning , wearing of guns or other weapons in town is banned. Check all hardware at the marshal's office ¨. Clint finds his ex-girlfriend, a local madame (Jan Sterling) in charge of the Saloon girls( Angie Dickinson, Barbara Lawrence, among them). But the town council afraid the raw methods carried out by Clint . At the end the kingpin landowner appears and attempts to murder Tollinger with his own hands.<br /><br />This is a tremendously exciting story of a sheriff-for-hire who had only one more killing to go. It begins as a slow-moving Western but follows to surprise us with dark characters and solid plot. The tale is almost grim , a pacifier comes to a town just in time to make sure its citizenry but later the events get worse . The highlights are the burning at Saloon and the climatic showdown at the ending. Phenomenal and great role for Robert Mitchum as avenger angel and bitter gunfighter, he's the whole show. Vivid and lively musical score by Alex North (Spartacus, Cleopatra), Atmospheric cinematography in black and white by Lee Garmes. The motion picture is stunningly realized by Richard Wilson (Al Capone , Three in Attic) who made good Western as ¨Invitation to a gunfighter and ¨Zane Grey¨ episodes. Watchable results for this offbeat Western. | 1 |
I would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and "Superman") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.<br /><br />I'm not sure that comparisons of "Deathtrap" with "Sleuth" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But "Sleuth" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in "Sleuth" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in "Deathtrap". And "Deathtrap" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose! <br /><br />I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go "all pear shaped". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.<br /><br />Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy "Deathtrap" immensely. | 1 |
Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out? | 1 |
This little-known comedy from the hit play by Ruth Gordon is a delight. The script, based on the play, is spicy, rich, and completely undated. Ditto the cast but I must underline the work of the leading lady,Irene Dunne. Irene is simply superb - as usual - and lights up the screen with every frame she's in (and she's in it a lot, thank heaven). In addition, director Vidor has given her some unusual close-ups that are mesmerizing. What a gal! I know of no other Hollywood actress from any era who has her versatility and is so convincing in every film. Why she remains so little known is a mystery. I have seen most of her films and this one was a surprise, even for a solid ID fan like myself. See it, everyone! | 1 |
This is a Very Very Boring and uninteresting action film, and without Chuck Norris it would have been unbearable!, plus the low budget shows big time!. Some of the fights were good, but the story is laughable, and there no menacing villains at all.The dialog was laughable I had some trouble finishing this film, but Chuck Norris, made it somewhat bearable. I really have nothing more to say, since i was only paying half attention,because it was so incredibly boring however it did pick up a tiny bit towards the end. The Direction is terrible. Don Hulette, does a terrible job here, with lousy photography, an awful pace, and overall the film looked dull!. There is no gore. The Acting was terrible. Chuck Norris is very good here, he kicks that ass, and he made the film almost bearable(Chuck rules!). George Murdock, is terrible as the main villain, and very unconvincing. Terry O'Connor, is decent here, and had okay chemistry with Chuck. Michael Augenstein, is decent as Chuck's brother. Overall It's quite simple AVOID! * Out of 5 (Chuck saves it from the BOMB rating). | 0 |
Never see this movie.<br /><br />It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.<br /><br />It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.<br /><br />Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it. | 0 |
Red dust is both well acted and well made but what the movie is about i think will bore many viewers as it did to me. There was a film that was out earlier called "in my Country" with Sam Jackson and it was not that well received and both films were about nearly the same exact thing, I do think Red dust was better because of the more interesting performances especially by future Oscar winner Chiwton Ejofor but the plot is just to lacking, it starts off pretty strong but then the film hits the viewers with countless un-interesting court room sessions, this could have been a great film if the writing was not so lacking. But see if for the performances. | 1 |
Very poor script and acting. I was very surprised that the director was able to convince his cast with his empty story that tells us nothing new. All is in the cliché of the "mentor" and the "talented immature pupil". The characters aren't' even interesting nor sympathetic. Artistically it is as empty and insignificant. The colours are very impersonal and light. Only the poster may be appealing. Al Pacino tries very hard to give depth to his character with no success. Too bad because the sport betting can be a really interesting subject to which many could relate. But I can't have a complete comment on this movie any way as i got out from the theatre 20 minutes before ending. Everything was so predictable that it was a waist of time... | 0 |
This afternoon we took the kids to the movies and saw Neil Gaimans Stardust and all I can say is Wow.<br /><br />It is rare that I am completely taken aback by anything but this is quite possibly the greatest fantasy movie I have ever seen, maybe even the best movie of any kind and it is all Neil Gaiman's fault.<br /><br />Sure, I could have been sucked in by the wonderful dialog which was smart, flowed smoothly,and made the characters completely believable.<br /><br />I could go on for days about the spectacular acting, Charlie Cox is perfect as Tristan, Claire Daines is Brilliant as Yvaine, and Robert Di Nero almost steals the movie as the Deeply in the Closet Pirate Captian Shakespeare.<br /><br />The pure joy brought about by the humor which managed to be Laugh our Loud funny, Intelligent enough to make the first Shrek look like an 80's Sitcom, and blend in perfectly with the rest of the movie alone would have made this a great movie.<br /><br />Special Effects were near perfect, true this was no LOTR or Star Wars SF Extravaganza but where they were use they were exactly what was called for, not too much to distract you from the movie itself and blended into the story perfectly.<br /><br />Then there is the story? What can I say. How often do you come across a story containing all of the classic fairytale formula components that doesn't just come off as another cheap Princess Bride knockoff. It manages to be Familiar and comfortable and yet completely new and refreshing at the same time.<br /><br />Any one of those things would have made this a good movie, all of them combined make it a great movie but they pale in comparison to the rich enchanting world that those elements combine to bring to life well. Once again Neil Gaiman has done it, he has driven another dagger into my heart by creating a world of fantasy that is so beautiful and enchanting that I would do almost anything to live in it and only given me a short glimpse into it. I didn't want it to end, I wanted to be sucked through a vortex to the land of Stormhold and get to meet Tristan and Yvaine in person, to travel it's fields and valleys, Stroll through it's marketplaces and meet it's residents both dangerous and friendly and stay there forever. It is a feeling that I have noticed whenever I have read anything by Gaiman, The Sandman, American Gods, Coraline all left me with a deep sense of sadness when I finished reading them because it was over, I could not see anything more into the worlds he had created which seemed to be so much more vibrant and alive than the one I am forced to live in and watching Stardust was no different.<br /><br />In the end I'm sure that Neil's writing and this movie won't have the same effect on everyone but trust me when I say you will not regret the time or money spent watching this movie, it is easily one of the top 5 movies I have ever seen and I can guarantee that anyone at all with a soul will at least like it. | 1 |
I really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.<br /><br />I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible | 0 |
Riff Randell is a wildly, obsessed fan of the rock group; The Ramones and so are most of the students in the school. But a new tyrant of a principal, Ms. Togar thinks rock 'n' roll is a bad influence on the students, especially the music from The Ramones. So, when Riff finds out they're performing in town, she skips class for a couple of days to get tickets for herself and her friends. But when Ms. Togar discovers why she really took those days off she confiscates the tickets. While, this is happening Tom Roberts is totally love struck over Riff, but Riff's friend Kate Rambeau feels the same way about Tom. But Riff has her eyes set only on the lead singer Joe Ramone and hopefully in getting to that concert to get them to play her song.<br /><br />Fun! Fun! Fun! Yep, that's right 'Rock n Roll high School' doesn't drift away from it main focus
a boisterously, daggy romp! It wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. Everyone participating in this dandy project looks like they're having a great time and the relaxing nature of it shows on screen with the energy providing such a glowing spirit, which makes it a priceless experience. That's not to say I think its art and the plot is as pointless as can be. But watching this passionately, crazy ride that escalates into some good harmless high jinks, I just couldn't wipe the grin off my face. It's tacky, very cheesy, densely chaotic, but damn it's funky-dory! <br /><br />This low-budget, b-grade feature from producer Roger Corman and John Dante who was co-writer ( and plus he co-directed some scenes when director Allan Arkush was hospitalised on the last day shoot). Is basically a glorious homage on the rocking 1950s flicks by sticking with the fruitful clichés and throwing into the stew the teenage rebellion tag because of the generation gap between them and the adults (who always know best). These features might not be particularly fresh, but they do rack up some appeal because of the dynamically, gusto treatment. The film has just one thing on mind, to go out on a bang! And they manage to do that. Courtesy of 'The Ramones', who play themselves. Really, you could say its one big trendy video clip, since it's all about the Ramones
well, most of it anyway. I see a lot flack towards The Ramones' acting ability. These are musicians not actors, which means it's not about their acting here, it's the music we're suppose to dig. They're here to perform! Which, they deliver in that front with some kick ass tracks that peppered the film to create a totally upbeat vibe. Especially, their flamboyant concert performances. The buzzing soundtrack also had some killer tunes from some other artists such as Devo, The Velvet Underground, MC5, Fleetwood Mack, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Alice Cooper. But these jumping tracks fitted in well with the carefree feel and even the score was worked in rather well. Especially in the scenes involving Ms. Togar with the score grasping the right mood that surrounds her mind set. The playful mood of the film is pretty much like a roller coaster ride with such a racy pace between the electrifying tunes and comical segments ranging from scattered slapstick routines to it's sometimes clever, tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Thrown in for good measure is a variety of light and heavy gags, which I found very pleasurable and it gave it such a wider range to express itself.<br /><br />What else gave the film an added boost had to be the divine PJ Soles (better known for her performance in Halloween), who gave such a bang up performance as the peachy Riff Randell. Other exemplary performances were Dey Young, as the extremely cute Kate Rambeau, Vincent Van Patten as the gawky Tom Roberts and the go to man Eaglebauer who's stupendously played by Clint Howard. Also some top drawer Corman regulars pop up with great send up performances by Mary Woronov who's excellent as the demanding Ms. Togar who's pushing her unfair reign on the students, Paul Bartel as Mr. McGree and a small support role from Dick Millar towards the end. The enthusiastic acting is pretty campy, but that goes down well with the material and there's a certain likability stemming from these characters, but we totally despise Ms. Togar and her hall monitor goons.<br /><br />There's no beating around the bush here when I say 'Rock 'n' Roll High School' is an intoxicating hoot, of a rad time! | 1 |
first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.<br /><br />How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.<br /><br />Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope. | 1 |
I didn't expect a lot when i went out to see this, but my god what a disappointment. The original was kind of fun within it's genre, but this is so bad, i felt abused when i left the theater. There's no plot, it's not funny, it's not enjoyable to watch, it's straight out embarrassing. After an hour i hoped my patience would be rewarded but now i regret not leaving the theater. Do yourself a favor and ignore this one, see it when it comes to the small screen. Or see it on budget DVD, whatever you do don't waste any money on it. Don't say i didn't warn you. | 0 |
This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.<br /><br />One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with "Rent-a-Cop", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.<br /><br />Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this turkey. | 0 |
This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner. | 1 |
I live in Mexico City, so I have to suffer throug the trailers for every piece of trash that comes out from all these stupid Mexican filmmakers. You want to admire a Mexican guy for making great films? Take a look at something by Guillermo del Toro (specially The Devil's Backbone), or maybe Alfonso Cuarón (though I really don't like his films, but I respect them).<br /><br />Mexican filmmakers often produce some of the most terrible utter trash ever (Por la Libre, El Segundo Aire, American Visa), but this is one of the lowest points in Mexican films ever. If you respect your brain, please avoid this piece of **** at all costs. It would be more intelligent to watch some video of a wedding or to watch Britney's reality show. That's got more IQ than everyone in this 'film'. | 0 |
Perhaps I missed the meeting when the meaning of "B-movie" was explained, but what I just saw was ridiculous. You want a good synopsis of this movie? Take Aliens, replace the xenomorphs with vampires, then remove everything that was good about it, and that's pretty much it.<br /><br />5 minutes into the movie, the "V-SAN squad" (that's the dumbest acronym I've ever heard) checks out a "base" thats been massacred by vampires and then they climb down (DOWN? What?) a ladder obviously attached to a billboard with an obvious present day train in the background. When is this supposed to take place? 2210. Okay...(hold on, I'll get back to that)<br /><br />Yeah. the characters. Wow, well there's the token lesbian Asian chick, the redneck cowboy wannabe, the weathered captain, the goth vampire/Hot Topic part-time cashier, and the wussy noob second in command. All of them are played by their respective actors with the same lack of ambition. It almost pained me to see Micheal Ironside in this flick. Isn't he getting enough money being the voice of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell? Pretty much the only thing original about Vampire Wars is about how bad it is.<br /><br />Watching this afterbirth of a film, the only amusement I got was from the feeble attempts at set-making. Since when does taping PCI computer cards on a wall count as a ready room on a starship? The money required to do this film could have been put to much more better use. | 0 |
The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.<br /><br />Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.<br /><br />Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.<br /><br />At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though. | 0 |
This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!! | 1 |
Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.<br /><br />Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacksBrennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.<br /><br />As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.<br /><br />To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).<br /><br />If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it. | 0 |
When I saw the commercial for this, I was all about seeing it. Now, forgive me, but it's been so long since I've seen it that I don't recall how it went. Suffice it to say, the movie I saw bore no resemblance to the "movie" they sold me on.<br /><br />I was bored, annoyed, and incredibly disappointed by this movie. And if it wasn't bad enough, they had to sink it even further with that awful reggae music. Not exactly mood-setting music for a horror movie, eh mon? I guess if you never saw the commercial (or trailer, I suppose) you may think this is some hot stuff. For my money, the commercial was way better. | 0 |
It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.<br /><br />Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.<br /><br />The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.<br /><br />It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.<br /><br />I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!<br /><br />If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit! | 0 |
Terrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez! | 0 |
Look, this film is terrible... the "plot" involves twins who are neglected by their self-absorbed parents, and left in the care of a succession of nannies and babysitters, all of whom the children drive away by being completely obnoxious. Eventually the kids engineer ex-convict Beverly D'Angelo to be their new nanny, do you care why? And D'Angelo watches a TV talk show about selling children and decides she will try to sell the twins... and, well, oh, you don't want to know. It's all very unpleasant, and not at all funny. In fact the announcer slated this film before it came on the TV channel I was watching! Just don't bother wasting a single moment of your life on this pile of complete trash, y'hear? | 0 |
When I was growing up, Voyage into Space was my most favorite movie. I remember the time when KTLA (Channel 5) ran the movie for the whole week and me and my sisters watched it every single day! I still remember every part of that movie. The ending was so sad when Giant Robot got blown up along with Guillotine and then watching Johnny Sokko with all the tears running down his face calling for Giant Robot. There should have been a sequel to the movie, in which Giant Robot somehow survived the explosion. :) I can't believe that there are so many other Voyage into Space fans still out there. I really want to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD, but my sister said that the ones out there now are bootlegged and probably bad quality copies of the movie. I don't know why they haven't released it yet, since it's been over 40 years now. I think Voyage into Space was made back in 1968. Only now, my second favorite Japanese monster movie of all time (The War of the Gargantuas) is finally coming to DVD and being released on Sept. 9th and I can't wait! :) Now if only they would do the same with Voyage into Space. Giant Robot, Johnny Sokko, and Voyage into Space will never be forgotten! In my eyes and probably many others too, it will always be a childhood classic to me! :) | 1 |
I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.<br /><br />But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate. <br /><br />Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.<br /><br />Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.<br /><br />If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it. | 0 |
You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.<br /><br />The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.<br /><br />Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.<br /><br />Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.<br /><br />Just bad. | 0 |
Marco Poloni (Costas Mandylor) was born into a baking family in the Bronx. Although the Polonis have been well known for their confections over the decades, the business has fallen on hard times. Meanwhile, Grace Carpenter (Lauren Holly) is a most talented dessert maker in Manhattan but, she can not seem to land a prime confectionery position because of the glass ceiling. An accidental meeting between Marco and Grace results in a conversation about a possible solution for them both. There is a high profile bake-off, The Golden Whisk, taking place in the near future and Marco wants Grace to partner with him. There is a hefty amount of "dough", haha, at stake for the winners, enough to set Grace up in her own business and save the Polonis eatery, too. Reluctantly, Grace agrees. But, there are complications. Some of the judges and fellow contestants may have past issues with both Grace and Marco. Then, too, although Marco and Grace both feel some sort of attraction for the other, Grace has a long standing, very rich boyfriend. Can Marco and Grace win the contest? This is a lovely film for the romantic at heart. First, there is the nice cast. Holly has always been a lovely actress with a notable husky voice that furthers her attractions. In this film, she is perfectly cast as the determined but beautiful Grace. Mandylor, a newcomer, delights, too as the good-looking rival baker. The rest of the actors, including the wonderful Brenda Vaccaro as Marco's mother, is quite nice. As a Hallmark movie, the costumes, sets, and production amenities are beyond reproach and the script still manages to seem fresh and funny, despite some familiar themes. Treat yourself, romcom lovers, to a most sweet confection by securing a viewing of this film. It is definitely the movie equivalent of a big box of quality chocolates. | 1 |
myself and 2 sisters watched all 3 series of Tenko and agree this is by far one of the BBC better series.The whole cast were very convincing in the parts they portrayed and although the 3rd series was somewhat slower it was compelling viewing and my evenings wont be the same without it.No doubt we will be watching it again as it is a series which I would never get sick of watching.Excellent viewing and full marks to the BBC for such a brilliant series and the casting.First rate in all departments and would recommend this series to anyone although some age limits must be considered because of some adult material.So grateful to the BBC for releasing this series on DVD and Video. | 1 |
AKA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych) <br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.<br /><br />Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world! <br /><br />Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES. | 0 |
1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying "Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.<br /><br />It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). "How so?" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about "stupid"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes. | 0 |
It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.<br /><br />The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.<br /><br />It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.<br /><br />It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.<br /><br />2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be. | 0 |
What this movie is not: Cool, Entertaining<br /><br />What this movie is: Visually Interesting, Difficult to get through, Intentional<br /><br />I feel that this movie puts the viewer (if he or she is willing) through a clip of time where they experience a world without language. Much like how animals must experience the world. You don't really watch this movie as much as you witness an awful series of events in what "feels" like real time.<br /><br />Consistently, it goes on much longer than is comfortable. This movie could be edited down to a 20 minute short and it would be a totally different movie. It would be cool and entertaining, but the experience would be lost. I have seen a lot of cool movies, but I have never experienced one like this. If you can get your head in the right place for this one, you should be able to really appreciate (but likely not "enjoy") what they accomplished here. 10 out of 10. | 1 |
A very different Jerry Lewis film, not like all those more famous films that everybody knows. Lewis deals with the difficult task of WW II and National Socialism in Germany in a rather unconventional way. But even more interesting and important, he does it in a very un-American way. And as with so many things in the world and especially in the film industry un-American means more sophisticated, more subtle, more intelligent or simply better. That is the reason why the film was no success in the US but a very great success in Europe.<br /><br />All in all, Jerry Lewis has proven by this movie, that he is able to do much more than simple slapstick comedy. | 1 |
This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.<br /><br />I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages. | 1 |
Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché "there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back" with some justification! | 0 |
The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock<br /><br />I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.<br /><br />All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10 | 0 |
A good film with--for its time--an intense, sprawling, rather dark story somewhat reminiscent of John Ford's "The Searchers" though not so brutal. The story starts fast and doesn't let up, with several scenes of really good dialog between (Stewart's) Jeff Webster, Ronda Castle and Sheriff Gannon. This film is in some ways reminiscent of "Bend of the River" (1952), also a Mann-Stewart work, but I found it far less sentimental and more interesting. There are a few caveats: a too-quickly wrapped up (and rather sentimental) ending; 24-year-old Corrine Calvert is not very convincing as a naive French teenager, and of course the film takes place in the Mythic West, a land of fable where the real laws of nations and physics don't apply. But these are trivial concerns. James Stewart is surprisingly good as a dark, disengaged man who thinks he cares for no one but himself, and the mountain scenery can't be beat. A fine Western costume drama. | 1 |
As I recall, my family made a point to stay home on the night "Nichols" was on (Mondays? Tuesdays? NBC?). It was a superb vehicle for James Garner, very well written, great ensemble cast. His character very much like the "Support Your Local..." films: Retired gambler with mysterious past settles into town and has adventures every week. In fact, it seemed fairly obvious that it was the same character. It was just a charmer of a TV show. A sleeper, like "My World And Welcome To It", which may have been its contemporary--I forget. I dearly wish these shows would be made available on DVD. It was Just Good TV. Perhaps "Briscoe County Jr." come close, but only by a mile. | 1 |
I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry! | 1 |
The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell is really good film. It has good acting by the cast including Richard Crenna and R.G. Armstrong.The music is spooky and gives that devilish chill!I liked the effects on the dog and I think the creature itself looked really cool with its horns,frill like part on his neck, and acted really viscous!If you like horror films and haven't seen The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell before and are able to find and buy this rare film then do so because its a good movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed! | 1 |
Best Years of Our Lives perfectly captures the era of my youth, and the feelings of that time. The cast was uniformly wonderful. This was possibly Dana Andrews best role of his career and he should also have been nominated for an Academy Award. There are so many wonderful scenes in this movie it is almost impossible to list them all. The cinematography is among the best of any film. This movie is a time capsule of what is was like in the 1940's. A must see movie for any true movie fan. Some critics have said this movie has aged. I disagree. The theme of human desires is timeless. And the obstacles faced by veterans returning from war will always be with us. This is just a great movie - one that can be watched over and over again. | 1 |
There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.<br /><br />So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end. | 1 |
Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.<br /><br />An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, "Kadosh" clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)<br /><br />There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural "shifting objects in space", and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget "Kadosh" is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.<br /><br />It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found "Kadosh" way too Nadosh (Hebrew for "trite"). | 0 |
Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.<br /><br />The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.<br /><br />N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right! | 0 |
What can I say? I ignored the reviews and went to see it myself. Damn the reviews were so right. What a waste of money considering it's budget.<br /><br />Good thing, I went to see Kill Bill after this one.<br /><br />To see a really scary movie, would be Crossroads!<br /><br />Bottom line-- I like "Girl in Gold Boots" better than this crap. | 0 |
Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi made many films together, but on the whole (interestingly enough) Karloff usually is the better man of the two. The real exception is "The Black Cat" (1934) where Karloff is playing the evil head of a devil cult, and Lugosi is seeking revenge on him for destroying his life. But more usual is "Black Friday", where (whatever his motive) Karloff is trying to improve brain surgery while Lugosi is a murderous thug. In "The Raven" Lugosi is a sadistic surgeon, who blackmails Karloff to assist his evil plans until Karloff finally has had enough. Rarely are they both negative characters totally. In "The Body Snatcher", Karloff does kill Lugosi, but Lugosi is trying to blackmail him.<br /><br />The one exception where they are both extremely sympathetic but at cross purposes to each other is this 1936 film, which I feel has rarely had the audience acceptance of some of the other movies I have mentioned. In it Karloff's Dr. Janos Rukh is a hard driven scientific genius who has been sneered at by the "official scientific community" for his theory that a rare form of Radium is in Nigeria on a meteorite that landed centuries ago. He has finally gotten the support of a well financed expedition led by Sir Francis Stevens and his wife Lady Arabella Stevens (Walter Kingsford and Beulah Bondi), and has another scientist, a Frenchman named Dr. Felix Benet (Lugosi), Rukh's young wife Diane (Frances Drake) and a friend and protégée of the Stevenses named Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton).<br /><br />Before they leave, Rukh is warned by his mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) that he is possibly seeking wisdom that he shouldn't and it may end in tragedy. He tries to dismiss this, but he is worried by what she says, his scientific standing, and whether or not he is going to get his due credit.<br /><br />What he gets is a disaster. He finds the substance, but is infected by it's remarkable radioactivity. He finds that he is slowly burning up, and if he tries to touch people or animals they die. He's actually built up a friendship or understanding with Benet, who figures out a type of radioactive fighting cocktail for Rukh to use to counter the danger. But there are two things that are unbeatable here. The antidote can only last for a certain amount of time, and has to be replenished. And the radioactivity has affected Rukh's brain. He is increasingly jealous of Diane's friendship with Ronald (encouraged, unfortunately by Sir Francis and Lady Arabella), and he is equally upset that (due to his having to pretend to have died - the effects of the radioactivity are like that) Benet and several others are collecting the kudos of the wonders that "Radium X" is giving to man. Soon Rukh is on a murderous rampage that destroys many lives, ending with his own.<br /><br />The film certainly picked up on science to an extent. Madame Curie had died recently from cancer she got due to work with Radium. Few fully understood the dangers of radioactivity in 1936, but some idea of it was coming out. The wave of murders by Rukh cause the newspapers to talk about a "curse" on the expedition. Of course, with the idea of a "cursed" expedition (on the continent of Africa) for a hidden treasure buried centuries ago, financed by a titled Englishman, we have entered archeology not physics or geology (paging Howard Carter and Lord Carnaevon).<br /><br />On the other hand, Benet tries to settle the cause of the string of deaths, and reverts to an idea that was actually demolished in 1888 in England. During the Whitechapel Murders, Sir Charles Warren ordered the retinas of several of the dead victims to be photographed to see if the last image on the retinas was Jack the Ripper. It turned out he only got the photographs of the retinas of dead prostitutes. But the idea did not die. Jules Verne used it in his novel "The Brothers Kip" in 1899, and here Dr. Benet uses it. As this is a science fiction story, he finds the image of Rukh on the the plate, but Benet drops the plate accidentally and it shatters.<br /><br />The film is good on many grounds, the most interesting that for a change Karloff and Lugosi are not unsympathetic towards each other. There is a type of tragic fatalism in this story that is missing from their other films. The other performances are good as well, in particular Ms Kemble Cooper. She is best remembered as Basil Rathbone's frightening sister (Jane Murdstone) in "David Copperfield". Here her final act is the only way to bring this tragedy to an end, and who can say it did not hurt her more than her target. | 1 |
Oh dear! The first time I heard of this bad show was when one of my friends was yelling like an idiot "JOHNY TEST" while we were playing video games. I thought he was confusing "Johny Quest" (by the way, one of the best cartoons I've ever seen in my life", and changing the "Quest" with "Test". Its something weird that I'm wrong, but actually I was wrong, he wasn't changing nothing, he heard of this show.<br /><br />One day, while watching TV, I heard that Cartoon Network was going to be released. I wasn't sure of what was the plot of this show, so I adventured myself to watch it, and here is my answer "I WANT MY DAMN HOUR BACK" (Because I watched this crap and "My Gym Partner's a Monkey".<br /><br />This is one of the worst shows I've ever seen. First, the beginning, with the most stupid song in the world, then the plot. Oh, where are my manners? I haven't said the plot of this show. Is about a boy who has to AMAZINGLY INTELLIGENT sisters, that have a lab and make experiments with their own brother. OHHH, now I see why his name is Johny TEST, he is the test of his sisters experiments.<br /><br />You know, I honestly miss Dexter's Lab (before it was transformed to the NEW Dexter, a total crap too). This is a bad copy of that old good show, except that this show is amazingly bad. Don't watch it, make something more productive in that half-hour than watch this crap. | 0 |
The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!<br /><br />All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.<br /><br />I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination. | 1 |
This has got to be the most appalling abuse of the word comedy ever witnessed.It is simply not funny and the scriptwriters have obviously just tried to use the name of the TV series in order to make a few quid at the box office. This film makes a carry on seem subtle as far as sexual innuendo goes ( no mean feat), and has all the charisma of a corpse with rigamortis. A complete washout I'm afraid!! | 0 |
People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better. | 0 |
I've come to realise through watching this sort of film that I don't like them very much. Caged Women is yet another 'women in prison' film, and like the most of the rest of the genre; the plot is completely forsaken in favour of simply showing nude women. Now don't get me wrong; I love nude women, but I also like there to be some sort of plot thread to go with the nudity, and since this film has only the basic 'women are in prison' theme running through it (aswell as the essential escape, of course), I got a bit bored before the end. The film is good because there's barely a moment in it where the women are wearing clothes, but that's about the only positive element. Director (and writer, ha ha) Erwin C. Dietrich delights in showing close-ups of the naked female body, but it's never very erotic. The director was the producer on a number of trash flicks, including some directed by Jess Franco. In my opinion, he should stick to producing as his writing talents are non-existent, and he doesn't seem to know how to film a sex scene. This sort of material is rather dry a lot of the time, but I reckon Franco could have made more out of it. Overall, this might suffice for people that are really into this sort of stuff; but I can't say I enjoyed it. | 0 |
I do not see what is the whole deal about this movie. Patricia Kaas sings, yes, and that makes the film charming, but singing is not enough. I mean, if you want to get all benefits of this one, go buy Patricia's CD and enjoy! The plot is simple (if to omit the "dreams"); the main characters seem to love each other instantly, and as well instantly forget their other acquaintances. Relationships appear almost "mandatory", and the little "detective story" thrown in just makes things worse. What at first appeared to be a perfect movie ending, is first screwed up and then comes out as just a dream. I measure movies by how well I would remember them, and for this one, I already started to forget the details. | 0 |
Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"
but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.<br /><br />There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.<br /><br />This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. <br /><br />*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady | 0 |
This Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood strange and hypnotic drama was left by the wayside in 1971 and what a pity. A fascinating character study with some great women for Squint to deal with. Geraldine Page was one of our supreme actresses and she's perfectly cast. Young Jo Ann Harris is a flirty minx, and Elizabeth Hartman (who died too young) is undeniably repressed.<br /><br />A 7 out of 10. Best performance = C. Eastwood. Released the same year as DIRTY HARRY, this did no business, beside getting some good reviews. Seek this out unless you're only into "Explosion" films. Very subtle and frightening, this piece will stick with you. | 1 |
This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.<br /><br />This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.<br /><br />Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:<br /><br />"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man..."<br /><br />"oonga-bunga" <br /><br />"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man" | 0 |
Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.<br /><br />Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.<br /><br />If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.<br /><br />Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!) <br /><br />The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.<br /><br />The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.<br /><br />The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!" <br /><br />And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.<br /><br />It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note. | 0 |
This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".<br /><br />My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.<br /><br />And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.<br /><br />Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women. | 0 |
Choose your fate: The terrible tykes of the fourth form, playing practical jokes that involve axes, or the...ummm...well-developed girls of the sixth form, who discovered some time ago cigarettes, gin, sex and how easily men can be led astray. The problem is that one set comes with the other. They are all there at St. Trinian's, that remarkably easy-going English school for girls led by headmistress Millicent Fritton (Alastair Sim). As Miss Fritton is fond of pointing out, "In other schools girls are sent out quite unprepared into a merciless world, but when our girls leave here, it is the merciless world which has to be prepared." Miss Fritton sounds something like a melding of Julia Child and Eleanor Roosevelt, and definitely has Sim's droll and deadpan comic genes. <br /><br />In The Belles of St. Trinian's, a sly, chaotic comedy from the team of Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat, St. Trinian's is, as usual, on the brink of financial disaster. Salvation may be at hand, however, when a rich sheik sends his daughter to join the fourth form and receive a proper English education. The sheik also is a horse owner and one of his prize racers, Arab Boy, is being trained near the school for a race. It's only a matter of time before the fourth- form girls form a racing pool and bet heavily on Arab Boy, with Miss Fritton adding to the pool what funds the school has left. (Much of the fourth-form girl's money comes from the gin they make in chemistry, then bottle and lower by rope to Flash Harry (George Cole), a Cockney fixer, for distribution. "It's got something...I don't know quite what," says Miss Fritton on sampling the stuff, "but send a few bottles up to my room.") <br /><br />Miss Fritton, however, has a brother, Clarence Fritton (who, by some coincidence of casting, also is Alastair Sim), a bookmaker who not only has placed a bundle on another horse, but who also has a daughter. And he has placed the precocious Arabella in the sixth form to keep him informed. Soon the sixth form has kidnapped Arab Boy, the fourth form has taken the horse back, Flash Harry has joined forces with Miss Fritton, the sixth-form girls are determined that Arab Boy will not leave the second floor of St. Trinian's, Clarence and his Homburg-wearing gang have arrived, parents are driving up for Parent's Day and the Ministry of Education has arrived in the person of a very proper inspector. Total war breaks out at St. Trinian's. It's hard to say which is more dangerous, the African spears or the flour bombs. <br /><br />Alastair Sim as Millicent Fritton turns in a tour de force performance. Miss Fritton is a tall woman with a stately bosom, fond of long gowns with embroidered lace and Edwardian hats with lots of feathers. She takes everything in stride, even a fourth-former pounding at something in chemistry class and, after hearing an explosion a few minutes later, the results. "Oh dear. I told Bessie to be careful with that nitro-glycerine!" She is firm in believing that St. Trinian's is "a gay arcadia of happy girls." Sim was one of Britain's great eccentric actors. Other than the sheer chaos of all the little (and not so little) girls doing terrible things, he delivers much of the film's pleasure. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.