text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I happened to borrow this movie from a friend knowing nothing about it, and it turned out to be an outstanding documentary about a journey on an ancient vessel across vast expanses of the ocean. Thor Heyerdahl had developed a theory that the ancient Incas in Peru managed to travel thousands of miles across the ocean to Polynesia, based on certain relics that are found in both places, certain types of ancient sea-going vessels that we know they had available, analysis of ocean and wind currents, and the knowledge that the Incas did, in fact, travel in some undetermined amount at sea.<br /><br />In order to test his hypothesis, Heyerdahl and his crew construct a vessel as closely as possible to what the ancient Incas had available, using only balsa wood and other materials available at the time, and set out from Lima, Peru's capital, to try to reach the islands of Polynesia, some 5,000 miles away.<br /><br />His theory, like so much about ancient history, is impossible to prove with 100% certainty, but the coverage of their journey provides for strong support that he is right. The film is really little more than narration of footage taken during the 100+ day expedition, but it is a very detailed description of what it was like and the trials and tribulations that they faced. I often wish that Academy Award winning documentaries were easier to find, and this one from more than 50 years ago is still as interesting and informative as I am sure it was when it was first released. | 1 |
The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the "cult of Lance", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.<br /><br />But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is "Rapid Exchange", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.<br /><br />Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both. | 0 |
This fantastic whodunit is an early prototype of what soon became a very popular film genre. I was happy to see William Powell handling a detective story with charisma and charm, and without the silly attitude of his Nick Charles character (from the "Thin Man" series). While the story is good on its own, I think what really makes this movie fun to watch is Michael Curtiz' fantastically imaginative direction. From a visual point of view, this is a richly textured movie, with Curtiz showing an incredible command of the medium; from split screen images, to weird camera angles and imaginative flashbacks, Curtiz demonstrates that he was one of the best Hollywood directors. Highly recommended if you are fan of this type of movie. | 1 |
I was hoping for some sort of in-depth background information on the Apollo 11 mission and what I got was some decent interview material with Buzz Aldrin Gene Krantz and other people involved in the mission, linked by over-hyped disaster-predicting sensationalising voice-over in the worst tradition of TV production.<br /><br />If you could cut out the voice-over and change the spin of the program to a positive testament of how people can overcome setbacks to achieve a goal out of the ordinary then this could've been great - but I feel I've wasted about 45 minutes of my life whilst watching a 60 minute programme. I want those minutes back. | 0 |
Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's St. Ives, the film tells the story of a dashing young French Hussar captain (Jean Marc Barr) during the Napoleonic wars. Captured in battle he is sent to a prisoner of war camp in the Scottish Highlands, run by Major Farquhar (Richard E Grant) In short order he falls in love with a local girl (Anna Friel), strikes up a friendship with the Major, and discovers that his long lost grandfather, who fled from France during the revolution, lives just up the road! Spirited performances from all the cast and some memorable lines make this an above average offering. | 1 |
There have been very few films I have not been able to sit through. I made it through Battle Field Earth no problem. But this, This is one of the single worst films EVER to be made. I understand Whoopi Goldberg tried to get of acting in it. I do not blame her. I would feel ashamed to have this on a resume. I belive it is a rare occasion when almost every gag in a film falls flat on it's face. Well it happens here. Not to mention the SFX, look for the dino with the control cables hanging out of it rear end!!!!!! Halfway through the film I was still looking for a plot. I never found one. Save yourself the trouble of renting this and save 90 minutes of your life. | 0 |
spoilers<br /><br />This movie is not action packed; it's slow and boring. It's not funny or exciting, it's predictable and plays on cheap sentimentality and vague patriotism. The special effects are not imaginative or impressive. They are noisy and uninspired.<br /><br />The acting talent is wasted on hopelessly stupid one-liners and clichés. These are spouted by characters they ought to just be called `gentle giant black man,' `eccentric genius who is about to crack,' `square jawed hero coming of age,' `by-the-book coward,' `luckless gambler who lives by a code of honor,' `impulsive princess' and so on.<br /><br />And the writing! How many undramatic countdowns did they think they could fit in this thing? Does a scene where people have to defuse a bomb by cutting one or another wire even count as fiction anymore? The drama of the last 15 minutes of the movie depends on the audience caring if some jerk can put aside his personal differences with Ben Affleck and say bye bye to Liv Tyler in time TO SAVE THE EARTH. All the work is done; we just have to wait a couple more seconds for Harry Stamper, the jerk, to toss off a few cotton candy lines. I know Bruce Willis is a generally charismatic guy, but his Harry Stamper character is an obnoxious bore. I thought he earned the Golden Razzy he was awarded for this role.<br /><br />Since the movie is so long, the plot so obvious, and the dialogue so disposable, one can't help but notice the lame inaccuracies, inconsistencies and plot holes. 800 feet into something the size of TX is less than a pinprick. Try walking 800 feet into TX and see how close to the center you are. After all the discussion about the artificial gravity on the Russian station, it appears to be arbitrary once inside. Actually, gravity comes and goes throughout the movie. Does it make any sense that anyone besides Michael Bay would give these morons a couple shuttles and send them to blow up an asteroid threatening the earth?<br /><br />The sentimental phone/insurance/cola commercial style montages were revolting.<br /><br />I do like action movies. Really. This one is boring, stupid and really stuck on itself. It deserves hatred and scorn because it's everything Hollywood's most expensive efforts have become - a bunch of cheap cliches running from one expensive explosion to another. Oh yes, the whole thing is permeated by a Neanderthal conservative outlook on sex, politics and so on. | 0 |
This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did. | 0 |
I watched this movie the night it premiered on MTV. Usually to me MTV Movies are kind of stupid but this one was so good. Summer Phoenix is an amazing actress and I thought that Nick Stahl was good too. If MTV started showing more movies like this I would probably enjoy the channel a lot more. | 1 |
I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out | 0 |
This is simply a classic film where the human voices coming from the animals are really what they're thoughts are. I don't know whether my video copy has a scene missing but it never shows how the dogs got out of the pit. It also shows an animals survival instinct and tracking abilities.Put humans in the same position ant the helicopters would be out. For once an original film is improved by a remake as the voice-over for the first has been removed. Only the use of animals can work in a film of this kind because using people would have had to spice out the story by turning it into murder,proving that,after all,animals are more interesting than people | 1 |
There's a lot going on in The College Girl Murders. A mad scientist creates an almost undetectable poisonous gas. Before he can reap the rewards of his discovery, the scientist is killed by a hooded, whip-welding monk. After a co-ed is killed in a church by the gas, Scotland Yard is called in to investigate, but the killing continues. Who can stop this mad killer who seems to be able to come and go as he pleases in and out of the college? <br /><br />What Works: <br /><br />- The Killer. What's not to like about a killer who sneaks around wearing a vivid red KKK looking outfit, complete with red gloves. The white whip he carries and uses very effectively stands out nicely against the bright red gown. Although the idea of a killer in a flaming red, pointy-head outfit sneaking around a girl's school is fairly far-fetched, it's one of the more sinister looking costumes I've seen.<br /><br />- Groovy 60s Music. I really would like to track down the title music to The College Girl Murders. It's got a jazzy, hip, 60s feel to it that I just loved.<br /><br />- Bizarre Touches. Beyond the killer's red gown and hood, the movie features a sliding fireplace, a pit of alligators with a cage handing overhead, poison spraying bibles, a strategically placed mannequin, mini-skirts, go-go boots, and mile high hair. I would describe it as a cross between the 60s Batman TV show and an Italian giallo. The College Girl Murders is a real treat for the eye.<br /><br />- The End. Let's just say that there are more twists than a mountain road. Just when you think the killer has been uncovered, here comes a twist
..and another
.and another
and another.<br /><br />What Doesn't Work: <br /><br />- Chief Inspector Sir John. I know the guy was meant to be comic relief, but his buffoonish character has way too much screen time.<br /><br />- Why Have Alligators? Previously, I mentioned the alligators in the pit. And while they are a nice touch, they serve very little purpose. Why go through all the trouble and not use them? <br /><br />- Plodding Plot. Some of The College Girl Murders has no flow or rhythm to it. There are far too many moments throughout the movie when things come inexplicably to a screeching halt. Better pacing would have made this a much more enjoyable movie.<br /><br />I haven't seen many of these German krimis but of the few I have seen (Phantom of Soho, Strangler of Blackmoor Castle, Dead Eyes of London) this may be my favorite. This one has a real funky feel to it that I really go into. Had the plot flowed a little better, I could have easily given The College Girl Murders a 7/10. | 1 |
I'm a big fan of Kevin Spacey's work, but this is a sub-standard film. If you think it looks interesting, or you saw it and liked it, go and check out John Boorman's "The General". It is basically about the same guy, but is far superior in every way (and doesn't suffer from the Hollywood glorifications). | 0 |
wow, i just got one watching this.<br /><br />How CRAPPY post production is on this movie.<br /><br />I kid you not, I literally could've done a better job myself.<br /><br />ALL of post production is flawed, all of it. Whoever cut this film should be banned from the film industry.<br /><br />That aside, the script was a trainwreck. absolute rubish.<br /><br />Not to mention Jack Bauer and his Patchy the Pirate in Spongebob accent. WTF is his character doing there? But to me, the biggest flaw of all was character development, intereaction, dynamics, dialogue. WOW. I cant believe how bad it was.<br /><br />I give this movie a 2 out of 10. 1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.<br /><br />the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.<br /><br />Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.<br /><br />I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production. Poor actors, didn't know what they were getting into... | 0 |
Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.<br /><br />So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.<br /><br />The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).<br /><br />If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition. | 0 |
I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.<br /><br />As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.<br /><br />Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film. | 1 |
Bergman´s tale about how the hell of the war can drive a sensible couple of musicians to the barbarousness. With many memorable scenes throughout the film, I found particularly remarkable that close to the end where Ullmann and Von Sydow go in a boat completely surrounded by corpses of soldiers floating on the sea. A fascinating masterpiece! | 1 |
If you appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.<br /><br />The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum. | 0 |
He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless? | 0 |
Apparently this Australian film based on Nevil Shute's novel exists in more than one form. Beware heavily cut versions sometimes shown on cable or satellite, running anywhere from 95 minutes to 2 hours. Only the full 5 hour miniseries version tells the story properly. It is a very close realisation of the story, suffering only from editorial faults commonly found in TV movies: choppiness and episodic progression. But this excellent cast carries the story forward very well with generally good production values accompanying their work. Yuki Shimoda is notable as "Gunso Mifune", one of the guards assigned to accompany the women on their agonising trek. In the end he becomes a friend. You will agonise with him when his loss of face leads him into death.Helen Morse as "Jean Paget", pretty but not a great beauty (she resembles Sigourney Weaver a bit)registers just the right amount of spunk and winsomeness as the occasion demands. The miniseries properly emphasises the beautiful love stories, three of them: "Joe" and "Jean", "Noel" and "Jean", and "Jean" and Willstown. Gordon Jackson plays "Noel Strachan" appealingly, but as a somewhat younger man than Nevil Shute indicated in the novel. The third love affair I mentioned doesn't get quite the emphasis it is due, and the full significance of the title is diminished. "Jean" is devoted to the goal of bringing businesses to Willstown that will attract young women and girls and their civilising influence to this god-forsaken out back town. She wants to make it "A Town Like Alice"; Alice Springs, that is. We get only a few hints of this in several scenes. If you have the five hours to spare, this miniseries is a truly rewarding experience. Nevil Shute based his novel about the cruelty of the Japanese military in shunting a large group of women and children from one place to another on the Maylay Peninsula on a true occurrence. It happened on Sumatra, according to Shute, though, rather than on the peninsula. The crucifixion of "Joe" by a Japanese officer for stealing chickens to feed the women is probably fiction, but the cruelty of the Japanese in dealing with prisoners is certainly a matter of record. | 1 |
What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?<br /><br />Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their characters<br /><br />My humble opinion = 0 / 10 | 0 |
If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only. | 0 |
This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! <br /><br />What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.<br /><br />The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field. | 0 |
Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.<br /><br />The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.<br /><br />Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie. | 1 |
I enjoyed this film. It was lighthearted, delightful, and very colorful. You can see that MGM was showing off Technicolor. There are hardly any colors that do not appear in this film. Every scene is packed full. The choreography was great. Gene Kelly is a wonder. He is so talented. The dance numbers in this film are all perfectly executed, and perfectly designed. He understands that the dances can tell the story as much as anything else. The last section of the film, the grand dance sequence, is very impressive. What makes this film very special is Gershwin's music. Few American composers have had a better gift for melody. I very much enjoy Gershwin's music. It is enchanting. Ira Gershwin is definitely one of the greatest lyric writers. He is so witty and charming. This was a highly entertaining film. | 1 |
Several story lines are interwoven here around different women characters. The shoes they wear serve as an indication of their troubled lives. All are transformed at the end of the movie. Adela (Antonia San Juan) leads a brothel; Her daughter Anita (Monica Cervera) is retarded and has a restricted life. Leire (Najwa Nimri) is a shoe designer with problems and loses her boyfriend; Maricarmen (Vicky Peña) has lost her husband and now raises the children from his deceased former wife. Isabel (Ángela Molina) is a bored rich lady.<br /><br />Other characters are used to connect the five main women characters. In storytelling not everything is given away in the beginning: Some connections are established surprisingly late in the movie and that adds to the experience. The shoe-theme is driven to extremes: For example when Leire as a shoe-designer and working in a shoe store where she steals her shoes faints, she breaks one of her heels.<br /><br />In editing small connections are made between the scenes. A telephone rings, a cigarette is lit, a song, etc. are used to make the connection and fast cuts. Frequent change of storyline keeps it from being boring or reaching TV-levels. It is strongly music-driven to set tone and atmosphere. The cities of Madrid and Lisbon serve as the backdrop for the stories, and shots of those cities are used to extend the story beyond the characters. One of the more moving shots is when Anita, who makes the same walk every day, widens her walk and restricted life from the relative calm of her street to the busy main road: How the restriction of space is visually translated is well done. As with most Spanish movies a lot of storytelling is done visually, using the soap-like stories as the simple backdrop. There is a poetic ending that is somewhat romantic and sentimental but is still beautiful.<br /><br />As Ramón Salazar is too much in love with his own material it is overlong. Some scenes are kitsch and on the soap level, including the acting (Adela's love life, Isabel's doctor). The shoe-theme is exaggerated and is a weak metaphor.<br /><br />This is often compared to Magnolia because the structure is the same. But they are different. Magnolia is more technically competent, but somewhat mechanical. This has more the ability to translate emotion and atmosphere visually. After seeing this, you are inclined to immediately move to the new movie-city: Madrid. | 1 |
While my kids enjoyed the movie (and announced afterward that they want to buy it later) I think I got more out of it that they did. The scene in the airport shop at the beginning is real life (I did not use the cutting comment aloud, but I thought it). It is a feel good mid-life movie, a bit sappy and some scenes work less well than others (why does the kid stay with Bruce Willis after he knows his Mom is dying?), but all in all and good time. It also gave our family something to talk about - did my kids think my life was boring? What do they expect at 40? How can you not like a movie that gets a good conversation going with your kids? | 1 |
I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man. | 0 |
Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through. | 1 |
A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened. | 0 |
First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.<br /><br />One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.<br /><br />It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.<br /><br />It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.<br /><br />Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this! | 0 |
Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.<br /><br />In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.<br /><br />The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp | 1 |
Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.<br /><br />From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans. | 0 |
All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given. | 0 |
With NBC's "Thank God You're Here", the network may be trying to replicate the successes of ABC's improv sitcom, "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" in which host Drew Carey would judge the performances of a handful of cast regulars asked to improvise scenes of some kind. In the NBC show, Dave Foley and co-host Dave Alan Grier oversee a handful of notable comedians who must improvise their way through various scenes which all begin with "Thank God You're Here." It takes itself far too seriously (why must viewers be repeatedly reminded that the actors have never seen the sets before), both co-hosts seem less then enthused. After watching the continuously sub-par, unfunny attempts by the actors to solicit some laughs, I am left wondering whether the live audience is genuinely laughing at what transpires, or whether they, too, are improvising. Expect this time slot filler to be a very short-lived one. | 0 |
I haven't really seen too many of the Columbo films... actually, I think I've only watched one or two, apart from this one. I've always liked Columbo, though, somehow without even having seen that much of him. Peter Falk is and has always been the perfect choice for the character, because of his looks, his voice and his charm. The perfect proof of this is that though the series started all the way back in 1968, the latest(and probably not last) of the films was made in 2003. That's 35 years. And Falk was 40 back when he made the first one. The series consists of 68 films(unless my count is off), all of which are made for TV. Everyone knows the character, even though no one has ever seen a film featuring him in the cinema. That is quite an accomplishment, if you ask me. The plot is pretty good. The only problem I have with it is that the killer and murder is revealed at the very beginning(though that may be the same for all of the Columbo films), leaving no mystery but how Columbo solves it, making it somewhat dull(since there's not much to look forward to at the end of the film). The pacing is good, there's hardly a scene where you're bored. The acting is very good, particularly that of Falk and Ruth Gordon. They have some great exchanges of dialog in the film. The characters are well-written and credible. The dialog and script is unusually good for a TV-movie. All in all, the film is, yes, surprisingly good for a TV-movie, and definitely worth watching for any fan of Columbo and/or crime/mystery flicks. 8/10 | 1 |
The Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like "Yousef Shahin" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See This Movie.. | 0 |
Dan Burgess is a nice guy. He happens to be a Christian. Dan can't get a date with a girl and thinks that all of his friends are having all of the fun. He is constantly being bothered by non-believers and being made fun of.<br /><br />Dan prays one night, and wishes he was never a believer in Jesus.<br /><br />His prayer is answered for one day. Things get hairy from there. An angel appears to Dan and explains his prayer is granted.<br /><br />So, all of the impact that Dan has had on starting a Christian club.<br /><br />He be-friends Scot Parks and making a difference, is erased for one day.<br /><br />Dan's eyes are opened. His life really did make a difference. | 1 |
A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing. | 1 |
This is a harrowing movie, and it moves relentlessly. Still it is utterly unique among war films in that it focuses exclusively on the civilian experience, the loss of humanity ordinary people undergo during wartime. The two young, married musicians undergo a slow, battering process of degradation at the hands of both sides of a civil war. Utterly stripped of sentimentality, the film offers a bleak vision of the modern world, and one I believe particularly recognizable to many Europeans. With brave, intense performances by Liv Ullmann (never better) and Max von Sydow (likewise). For my money, the most indelible film Bergman ever created. | 1 |
I was so offended by this film that I had to write SOMETHING about it, so please humour me.<br /><br />Its only redeeming virtue, outside of some good acting, is that it doesn't go on past 107 minutes. Even that length is about 30 minutes too long.<br /><br />Comparisons have been made here to the brilliantly dark 'The Grifters,' but I can't see it. They are two different films altogether. The closest 'Swindled' comes to an existing film is 'The Sting,' made in 1973. It borrows (sorry, STEALS) liberally from this splendid George Roy Hill 'entertainment,' which is exactly what is was. I enjoyed it because it didn't pretend to be anything else.<br /><br />There are so many red herrings in 'Swindled' that I thought I was in a fish tank. It's very confusing, but that's only one of its many problems. The principal one is this: if you make a film where everyone lies to everyone else, where everyone is conning, we have no 'anchor' to ground us. The inevitable result is a mish-mash of very sloppy seconds from other caper flicks.<br /><br />Just about everyone in this film is conniving and objectionable. Surely a basic Film 101 class would tell us that the audience has to 'care' for someone. We can't 'care' for anyone here: they're ALL swines. It might have worked as a rakish comedy, but it plays it straight from beginning to end.<br /><br />IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM, READ NO FURTHER. BIG 'SPOILER' COMING. SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO DO IT.<br /><br />There's so much fake blood and so many fake killings that it doesn't strain credulity -- it destroys it. The ending is absolutely ridiculous -- a 'murder' in a crowded airport that isn't really a 'murder' at all? And the 'murdered' guy, blood-soaked, simply stands up, brushes himself off, and walks away, fake blood dripping, with the booty? All while the police and hordes of people are looking on, and no one intercedes? The director must have a lot of cojones if he thinks we're supposed to buy into this. Noirish B-movies from the 1940s did better. <br /><br />I'm a great fan of European flicks, but this confirms that schlock doesn't always come from Hollywood. As far as 'Swindled' is concerned, my judgment lies with a famous line from the oft-misspoken producer Samuel Goldwyn, who knew all about schlock: 'Include me out'. | 0 |
All the characters in this cartoon were hilarious. Norman the Viking guardian had some memorable phrases and the skull master, the bad guy, would always be vowing to kill Max with some insane cackling. The writing is the best. <br /><br />I was glued to the set when this would come on when I was younger. If they came out with a DVD of all the episodes they made I would be forced to buy it. This and a Conan the Barbarian cartoon are the ones I miss the most from childhood. I think these cartoons are the most unappreciated out of all the great cartoons. I used to watch these cartoons on channel 13 in the Los Angeles Area. <br /><br />I remember the owl was always afraid, warning Max that he was in trouble and that he was the chosen one. Max didn't believe that he was the chosen one and always gave the owl trouble. Norman was less talkative but his simplicity was funny. He would say things like "I eat monsters for breakfast" when he was battling them. And then when he was battling zombies he would say "I eat zombies for...nevermind." Classic cartoon comedy and action.<br /><br />I vote that they re-air Mighty Max. | 1 |
I had never heard of this movie, but I like Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown and the story sounded interesting, so I figured I'd give it a shot. I found it to be very enjoyable. Heath Ledger plays a 19 year old who works a kind of crappy job and wants to start making some serious dough, so he goes and asks for work from mobster Bryan Brown. I won't go into details but things go very bad for Ledger and gets into big trouble with Bryan Brown. From their on the movie just gets better and better, with one scene involving Ledger hooking up with a pair of bank robbers. And lets not forget the beautiful Rose Byrne, who plays Ledger's love interest. I would definitely recommend this movie. | 1 |
I was fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top it. | 0 |
This is a great movie for first time ninjas who are dating. If you're trying to impress some cute little ninjette I would highly recommend playing this masterpiece. Its one of those special movies that allows you to miss large sections of it without interfering with the plot.<br /><br />Also I was wondering, where does a Teal ninja hide? Are ninjas color coded like this? Is this normal? If I were attacked by one of these yellow or orange ninjas I would die of laughter before succumbing to his sword.<br /><br />And I finished my black star ninja test the other day, it was multiple choice, It went pretty good. I found there were a lot of questions on how to "sneak" around and look evil. Its all about the eyebrows and the attitude. <br /><br />Basically, the movie could have been better if: 1. There was no color coded ninjas (or the color coded ninjas could combine into a super ninja). 2. Joe died in the first two minutes and Patricia had to avenge him 3. Miscellaneous monkeys were scattered throughout the file 4. Patricia didn't talk and Patricia was replaced with another character 6. The French guy was also a black star ninja 7. Chris Tucker, Whoopi Golderg, and Chris Rock were added as "comic" relief 8. Ninja strengths came from miticlorians. | 0 |
When Precious Bane aired in America, I was stunned by this beautiful story. All the actors were brilliant; Clive Owen really understood the character he played. I went right away to a bookstore and ordered the original novel, which is even more beautiful, and which went out of print just after I bought the book - although I've seen it online a few times now. I had also hoped with the Oscar won by Janet McTeer and the huge popularity of Clive Owen the BBC would naturally get this fine production on DVD...I cannot believe all these years later we still have no DVD. It has to be the only production ever created by the BBC that is NOT for sale. Come on BBC - you have money to make off us fans here. Get this on DVD please! | 1 |
This movie, one of the best I've ever seen, talks about incommunicability. It does it plunging ourselves in a livid Taipei, stained in cold colors, where the rain falls incessantly; a DAMP world. It does it displaying us the story of two persons living in this world, a man and a woman. a coincidence, or the fate,links their existences, but they're not able to open one to the other with words. Characters are the mirror of the difficulty of our society concerning interpersonal relationships. An incommunicability that here is taken to the extreme limits. all the characters exchange only a few words during the movie, dialogues are nearly absent, and when some words are spoken they're often weak and empty, far away from describing people's real feelings. So, the progression of the story, the revelation of character's feelings is developed (brilliant idea!) by the musical digressions, only apparently meaningless, that speckle the movie. The proceeding of the sentimental event, and the drama of female protagonist, lead us to a splendid ending, heavily symbolic. A movie totally different from the usual, a clever realization by a great-talented director. PS. Forgive me for my bad grammar!! | 1 |
L'OSSESSA, also known as THE TORMENTED or THE SEXORCIST, or the ridiculously titled THE EERIE MIDNIGHT HORROR SHOW, is a forgotten EXORCIST rip-off which contains one of the best horror moments I've ever seen. The scene is when the crucifix comes alive. This great spooky scene is unforgettable and totally effective (great FXs). It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't maintain the level of creepiness exemplified during that scene.<br /><br />This is one of the most frustrating movies ever. Imagine the producers deciding to to make an EXORCIST copy but while making it, they actually succeed in creating something truly original (a possessed sculpture of crucified man, which is shocking when you think about it) but then completely forgets their original idea in order to make a boring and uninspired EXORCIST rip-off. Had the film continued with the possessed sculpture concept (with the characters trying to destroy it, etc), this film would have rocked. But once the girl becomes possessed by the spirit of the sculpture, she never tells anyone from where the demon came from. She, and the script, completely forgets the haunted crucifix, which is STUPID!!!<br /><br />If you like so-called "Euro-cult" movies, the first 45 minutes deliver unlike any other Euro-cult movies. But after the scene when the girl has a vision of being crucified and she gets stigmatas, the remaining 45 minutes SUCK. Boring. It goes nowhere fast as it tries to emulate (badly) THE EXORCIST. So, watch the first 45 minutes of L'OSSESSA and enjoy the 1970s fashions, the sleaze and the amazing statue-comes-alive-to-ravish-the-girl scene but after the first 45 minutes, press stop and eject, and might as well go clip your toenails. | 1 |
"Five Characters In Search of An Exit" clearly has to be one of the more clever and better "Twilight Zone" episodes ever made because of it's abstract ideas and thoughtful plan where the characters have to search to discover identity and it ends as a surprise. You have a military major, a female dancer, bag pipe player, a clown, and hobo who all awake together in the bottom of a wall and none know how they got there and they don't know who they are. So the episode starts out with very interesting drama and suspense from the very beginning making it so soul searching for the viewers interest to want to know the characters true identity and backgrounds. Plus the episode even adds more intrigue for the fact it places different types of characters with different views and lifestyles all with one goal in common to escape and find identity, and peace that's very compelling for the viewer. Only in the end I don't want to spoil for those who haven't seen a surprise fall happens! Proving that many times you might want to stay where you are away in your little sheltered world and be away from the masses of other people's world as you will see the characters are loved in a different way by people in a much different form. Really great and cleverly done a real shock twist surprise that makes the viewer see the unexpected and cruel fate that happens sometimes when you search and seek. | 1 |
*Please note: (The below text is taken from the Irish DVD Release). Some of this summary MAY be wrong:<br /><br />Edge-of-your-seat chiller, in which The Legacy of an ancient Witch and her bloodthirsty coven causes a deserted island hotel to become the embodiment of evil two Centuries later.<br /><br />When an inquisitive photographer (David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, Knight Rider) and his virginal fiancée (Linda Blair, The Exorcist) creep onto the island to research its gruesome history, they are joined by an unwit- ting estate agent and his prospective buyers.<br /><br />Gradually the group find themselves falling victim to the ancient evil that lives on in the mysterious old woman who roams the hotel, seeking fresh victims for Satanic rites, human sacrifice and demon- ic possession...<br /><br />Check in at the Witchcraft hotel... we hope you enjoy your SLAY!<br /><br />Additional Info. on the movies contents:<br /><br />Violence: Some gruesome, sexual violence - VERY STRONG!<br /><br />Sex and/or nudity: Some strong, as well as innuendo.<br /><br />Bad language: Some, strong.<br /><br />Other: Some drug use and references. | 1 |
Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S. journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott, William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was, despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known. The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a rough background. | 1 |
I sort of liked this Columbo movie its atmosphere, which was real thriller like and its approach even at times reminded me of film-noir, in the movie its first 30 minutes or so. It's really nice and done in a good old fashioned way, with the right camera angles and use of light. It doesn't mean instantly that this movie is a brilliant one though but its solid enough to consider this a good late Columbo movie entry. It's definitely a better movie than the average 'later' Columbo movie entry.<br /><br />26 years after his previous Columbo movie appearance, George Hamilton returns once again to play the main lead opposite Peter Falk, again as the murderer, in a total different and new role of course. I liked him in his role and he was a good Columbo 'villain', who gave the good old Lieutenant some good competition. They had some nice sequences together. Problem with the 'modern' new Columbo movies always sort of had been that it didn't feature a good well known actor opposite Peter Falk. This movie obviously doesn't suffer from this problem. But I must say though that this movie doesn't feature Peter Falk at this best. He has certainly played the character better and his performance isn't quite consistent enough within this movie, which is probably also due to he movie its director Daryl Duke, who also directed the really dreadful movie "Tai-Pan", among many other projects.<br /><br />It has a rather good and enjoyable story but the fact that the same sort of plot to cover up the murder had been used before in an earlier Columbo movie also doesn't help of course. It got used before in the 1975 movie "Columbo: Playback". Nevertheless it of course also still has plenty enough 'original' moments of its own with its story, even though of course in essence every Columbo movie is more or less the same. But oh well, that is what made the Columbo series so great and consistent. If it ain't broke don't fix it.<br /><br />It also is true that within this movie more clues than usual are left out for the Lieutenant, which doesn't mean that the movie its murderer is more stupid or sloppy but I more see it as the writers being more overly enthusiastic than others. It doesn't make the movie or story bad and it in fact perhaps even makes it more enjoyable, to see Columbo hard at work and discovering all kind of small but important clues. Luckily the movie is also filled with some enjoyable effective relieving Columbo-comedy.<br /><br />Simply a good late Columbo movie entry.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo? | 0 |
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:<br /><br />Not good. The movie differed completely from the book(Not that the book was exactly a classic but it really was very good.)<br /><br />I guess Demi Moore was OK. Actually, I don't really remember to much about her performance one way or the other. However the big disappointment wasn't with Ms. Moore.<br /><br />WHY did whoever did the rewrite decide to suddenly make the millionaire have a heart? (I'm referring to him as "the millionaire" because he also had a different name in the movie then the book version-just another change.)<br /><br />People who didn't read the book obviously won't know anything's different but in the BOOK version this guy is much more ruthless as well as complex overall. He is also fascinating. The fact that such a big change was made in the movie alters the whole plot. It was almost like seeing a completely different movie.<br /><br />I know MANY movies vary widely from the books. But I also thought Redford's character was a bit of a wimp. This ISN'T Redford's fault(He's a great actor and could have played ruthless well) but without those qualities he becomes just another dazzled man in love hence the story becomes just another cliché love story involving 1 woman and 2 men. That wasn't really the point of the book.<br /><br />This could have been a lot better. Even if I hadn't read the book version I wouldn't have liked this all that much, but changing so much around definitely takes it, for me, a few points down. | 0 |
I thought it was comedy!! What a hoot! I can't believe Forsythe or Reynolds would actually appear in this piece of trash..And then there's the beautiful Erika Eleniak or whatever this piece of eye candy is called..Appears she put on a few pounds since her Playboy centerfold..Like about 50!! The story line is ludicrous, the acting absolutely horrendous, and the tired old cliché's that are run over and over and over again, boy it took a lot of stamina to sit through this dog..The only thing worth it was the LAUGHS!! And there are PLENTY! If you really want to kill say, an hour and a half pick this baby up at the rental shop, but make sure you have a room full of brain dead people to watch it with you. I think that's who it was written for.. it plays like they were thinking of a real low rent, drug induced audience for this one.. | 0 |
First of all, let me underline, that Im not a great fan of political correctness. In fact I like satire or dark humor, even if it makes jokes out of minorities. The reason, why Im pretty sure, that this racist piece of work is not worth a look, is that it doesn't make fun of minorities to demonstrate their condition of living, their social circumstances or the way they are treated by society. Moreover it uses every stupid stereotype and prejudice to strengthen xenophobic feelings and reservations. Its really a pity, but not a surprise, that the other comments didn't get that point, cause we all had a cheap laugh. Congratulations. | 0 |
'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.<br /><br />John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble. <br /><br />In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!<br /><br />Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap "boos" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.<br /><br />Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts? | 0 |
Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.<br /><br />I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all! | 0 |
This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I'm 64 years old and a football fan. I went expecting to see a football movie. About 10 minutes into it, I began to wonder exactly how such a bad movie (particularly the acting) could have gotten into a theater. About half way through, I whispered to my husband that it was awful and he explained to me the facts behind the movie. Although I was a little offended (and can see how some could be VERY offended if they were not Christian) at being preached to in a movie theater, it wasn't that big a deal. It was, however, a big deal to be subjected to such predictability and unrealistic behavior and, above all, the quality of the acting. It is an appropriate movie for a church outing but to be shown in a church auditorium and not in a theater. Do I go to church? Yes. Do I want to go to church when I attend a movie? No. Would I recommend this movie? Absolutely not!!! | 0 |
I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.<br /><br />Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.<br /><br />Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?<br /><br />I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.<br /><br />Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time. | 0 |
Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film... | 0 |
Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. <br /><br />This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. <br /><br />Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. <br /><br />Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. <br /><br />I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face. | 0 |
My family and I enjoy this show and find it a fair thumb nail sketch of what the people went through.<br /><br />My own father spent some time in Changi before going onto the Thailand-Burma Railway in "F" Force. Much as been said about the treatment the POW's received, I will just say that my father was 6 foot 1 inch and 196 lbs when Singapore fell, at the end of the war he was 5 foot 11 inches tall and 91 lbs.<br /><br />No show could truly convey what the POW's went through, but this comes closer than most.<br /><br />As the Ex POW's say, "If you didn't have mates you didn't survive." This show succeeds in getting this message across. | 1 |
With a humor that would appeal to an exclusive, small audience, the average viewer will find it pointless and monotonous. When Cartoon Network advertised this show, it was made to look as if it was a major drama or event, complete with a real rain scene and government officials trying to catch the Sheep.<br /><br />When it came out on the air, I was disappointed at how all the characters were so one-dimensional and a totally bland animation. The only thing that put it to anything close to humor were the names of the characters like "Private Public" and "General Specific", a few vague references to cultural aspects, and how Lady Richington pummeled Sheep with her steel wig.<br /><br />Slightly off topic, but I don't see why would Sheep fall in love with that ball of dirty cotton balls called "Swanky." It was hideous! | 0 |
Michael Dudikoff stars as Joe Armstrong a martial artist who fights ninjas who are stealing weapons from the U.S Army, in this entertaining yet admittedly brainless martial arts actioner, which is hampered by too many long pauses without action, but helped by some high energy action setpieces as well as Steve James' performance. | 0 |
An interesting TV movie based on true fact, betrayed by the description of one of the leading characters, that of a prisoner. Giovanni Ribisi plays his younger brother, who has the delicate mission of deciding if he will appeal to the courts for his brother's death penalty. But when he goes to visit him and enters Elias Koteas, the problem starts. It has nothing to do with Koteas' acting ability. He just looks like the version of a prisoner of proletarian roots according to "G.Q." magazine, with a language too sophisticated for someone who has spent most of his life behind bars. This realization came to me after meeting again an old friend, whom I had not seen for almost 15 years, which he spent in several Panamanian jails. The young man I used to know is gone, not only because he is older, but due to his exposure for a prolonged time to the penal system. There are jails and there are jails, one must say, but this one prisoner in "Shot In the Heart" is definitely out of this world. | 1 |
This has to be my favourite film. The script is sharp and played to the limit by an excellent Miller and fantastic Carlisle! Sharp wit, excellent narrative and no Hollywood polishing; a totally immersible film which has you gunning for the bad guys! Stott excels again as the detestable Chance, while Liv Tyler truly beats her other, lighter performances as the excitement-hungry Rebecca! The soundtrack may not be known to you by name, but anyone who has ever seen Top Gear, watched the football or seen any TV action sequence is probably familiar with it, particularly due to Craig Armstrong's, 'Escape' which must allow him never to work again! The soundtrack on first play may seem out of place in a costume drama/action/comedy, but one re-watching shows it is perfectly at home in giving the the script it's drama.<br /><br />My one gripe about this film is that it isn't shown enough on TV! Where is it? Truly excellent, sharp and classy - you'll not regret watching it - again and again! (exits to switch on DVD player!) | 1 |
This is the funniest sequel I have seen in a long time it is much funnier than the other three and not a bit scary. It has some very gory pieces in the film, but not bad enough to make you sick. In this one he has a female doll companion, hence the name. If you liked the first three then you'll love this, go watch it! | 1 |
What can you possibly say? This is the uncut hardcore, musical Alice! It works too with a large energetic cast seemingly enjoying themselves to the hilt and whilst one could wish for a re-mastered version, I guess we are lucky to even have this video transfer. Pretty much a delight throughout. There are a couple of slightly off moments but this could have been embarrassing all through and it certainly is not. It also could have been and today would have been too camp. No, a very fine effort that is amusing, tuneful and just sexy enough. Fine performances particularly the Kristine DeBell in the lead and was that an unaccredited Richard Prior as the prone Knight being vigorously (if discreetly) ridden? | 1 |
I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.<br /><br />Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.<br /><br />Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad. | 0 |
I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.<br /><br />This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10 | 0 |
A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story. | 1 |
Military training films are becoming so common that they are becoming a genre unto themselves. Among the more prominent we have, `Officer and a Gentleman', `Top Gun', `GI Jane', and now `Men of Honor'. The fact that this one happened to be true doesn't change the fact that the formula is the same. This film is probably most like `GI Jane' since it focuses on the desegregation angle.<br /><br />The story is actually quite inspirational and is probably the best human-interest story among those mentioned above. Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) is unquestionably a man of great courage and principle, and his strength of character shines through brightly in this film. Unfortunately, director George Tillman has tunnel vision in presenting the characters and eschews character development of various characters other than Brashear in favor of showing Brashear in a constant state of adversity. Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro) is a central figure, and except for the initial scene, the fistfight and a couple of scenes with his wife, we don't know much about him. For instance, Brashear sees the scars on Sunday's palms and we are to assume that he worked a plow, but there is no follow-up on that point. Mr. Pappy (Hal Holbrook) gets only one short scene by which we can judge him. The rest of his screen time shows him pacing around and ranting. If a director is going to make a human-interest story, he needs to humanize the characters.<br /><br />Cuba Gooding Jr. gives an outstanding performance as Brashear. This is probably the best I've seen him. This is a role and a character that is far more complete than any part he has played before, and he rises to the occasion. In `Jerry Maguire', Rod Tidwell was a fascinating, but one-dimensional character with the depth of a rain puddle. Brashear is much more complex and grounded, and the issues he faces are life crises, making the part far more challenging. This is an excellent recovery from Gooding's last role in `Chill Factor', a film so dreadful that it was almost an act of professional suicide to take the part.<br /><br />After a stint trying his hand as a comedian (`Analyze This', `The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle', `Meet The Parents'), Robert DeNiro is back to his dramatic roots with an outstanding performance. DeNiro isn't a bad comedian, he is just such a great dramatic actor that it seems like he shouldn't waste his time doing comedy. DeNiro endows Billy Sunday with a rock hard personality belying a tortured soul. It is a pleasure watching him work. <br /><br />It seems every film I watch lately has Charlize Theron in it. I saw `The Legend of Bagger Vance', `Men of Honor' and `The Yards' right in a row and I was beginning to wonder if she had a part in every film in 2000 (actually, she only did five). This was a minor role for Theron, but she carried it off well and managed to stay with DeNiro step for step. David Keith, who co-starred with Richard Gere in `Officer and a Gentleman', has a cameo here<br /><br />The DVD has some interesting special features, including reflections by the real Carl Brashear and some deleted scenes.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film despite the hackneyed plot and the one-dimensional presentation. I rated it a 7/10. I'm a sucker for underdog stories and I have a fondness for stories where strength of character is the central theme. This film is particularly strong in both areas and brings us two memorable acting performances that compensate for some of the director's shortcomings. | 1 |
"When a Killer Calls" is an unusually nasty slasher flick, with some very unpleasant and unsettling sequences. The decision was clearly made to try and cash in on the remake of "When a Stranger Calls" by pretty much putting in -- almost word for word -- the phone call sequences from that movie. They seem very forced.<br /><br />Additionally, the filmmaker commits the cardinal (but all too common) sin of having the heroine's friends being repulsive jerks. So for the beginning of the film, we really like and are rooting for the babysitter (a nice believable job by Rebekah Kochan), but then she's joined by standard slasher-flick teenage friends and the mood is ruined.<br /><br />The flick sort of works, but it probably a lot more unpleasant than you'll be expected, so be fore-warned. | 0 |
This movie certainly deserves to be placed within the genre of horror, but not for obvious reasons. The horror of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not with sudden shocks or large helpings of CGI guts and gore; it is a psychological horror movie which piques the viewer's curiosity from the start and builds a suspenseful aura of mystery and questions throughout. Best of all, the ending does not provide a clear answer, pushing the viewer to analyse what they have seen and make up their own mind about what really took place.<br /><br />Do not be put off by the seemingly slow pace at which the movie begins, and don't expect to be jumping out of your seat immediately. This is not the conventional hack-and-slash movie with orchestral stings designed to make you scared of nothing in particular. "A Tale Of Two Sisters" slowly builds an atmosphere of terror, a terror of the unknown and a fear of things which evade explanation until the very end. Even when the final conclusion is revealed, it is not so heavy-handed and obvious as to make the entire film fall neatly into place. The movie requires its viewer to reflect back on what they have seen and to try and square this with the frightening revelation of the final scene. Some things will still be open to interpretation, and this is one of the joys of watching a film such as this.<br /><br />The true fear of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not in shocks or conspicuous scares; it is a psychological, gut-wrenching horror that defies convention and expands a genre to proportions hitherto unexplored by the traditional horror film. It is no exaggeration to say that this film stands apart even from the so-called 'Asian Horror' genre. Indeed, it would be a mistake to align "A Tale Of Two Sisters" with films like "Ringu" and "The Grudge". This movie can be understood from a variety of standpoints, some requiring no suspension of credulity, others embracing the supernatural wholeheartedly.<br /><br />Whichever way you choose to interpret this film, it is one that demands an open-minded approach, rewarding viewers regardless of their preconceived notions on Asian cinema or horror in general. | 1 |
Yes, people are racist. People are even racist in college. That's a good point, and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. What sets Higher Learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham-fisted and predictable way possible, oh yeah it's in college too.<br /><br />This film deals with this problem of racism the way Frankenstein deals with most problems, it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. Most of the characters are cartoonish, one-dimensional, caricatures (lesbian feminist, angry black man), that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. Instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. The angry black men feel cheated, feminists hate men, etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads "Dead Men Don't Rape." See what I mean?) I don't want to give anything away, but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they'll probably behave exactly how you expect them to. The changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. The big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo-Nazis will act like violent neo-Nazis. I'll guess you'll just have to watch to find out what happens.<br /><br />Another problem I have with this movie is that it's supposed to be "gritty" and "hard-hitting," but they make Nazis the bad guys. I agree Nazis are evil, but that's my point. Everybody thinks Nazis are bad; we're not breaking any new ground here. Nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930's. The film doesn't challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. It just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy, after-school-special like, manner. Being anti-rape, anti-racist, and anti-Nazi isn't exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue.<br /><br />Higher Learning is predictable, cartoonish, and in a word stupid. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed "Linda" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!<br /><br />Watch at your own risk. | 0 |
This thing is really awfull. There´s no charachter with weight, they´re all floating around in the BG´s. The Motion Capture is a fine toy, but this movie demostrates that you really need people who knows animation to do an animated film. THE MACHINE CAN´T DO ANYTHING WELL BY ITSELF. If you see it as a bizarre film, you´ll have fun finding mistakes of continuity... IN A 3D MOVIE!!! It´s funny to watch the princess dress move around like a thing with diferent phisics. You need animators and 3D animators, not data-entries whom know 3D programs. Note the junctions, like the elbows, how they lost volume and get deformed. The person who made the charachter design (a very good one) sufered for sure when he/she watched them move, ´cos you can´t say they come to life. | 0 |
This series was just like what you would expect from Mr.Spielberg. It is truly one of those frighting, funny, childish shows that you won't forget. Just like Outer Limits (another great show) this little series does what not a lot can. It was great, and deserved to run longer. It was a great show, that even kids could watch, though some of the shows were a little scary when they wanted to be, but all of them always had a moral at the end (like the Twilight Zone) that made you realize what situation you didn't want to end up in, or ones that you did. I remember watching some of these on Sci-fi when I was 10, and even now, I still enjoy seeing them when I can. Truly a fun, imaginative show. I loved it, and still do. | 1 |
"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."<br /><br />That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.<br /><br />I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.<br /><br />Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.<br /><br />Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.<br /><br />Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.<br /><br />This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.<br /><br />Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more. | 1 |
I absolutely love this show!!!!!!!, Its basically fox's improved version of the simpsons (cau'se lets face it the simpsons are very dry if you're above the age of 9. It's political, irrational, and irresistible. Anyone who says they don't like it is lying, There is a character for every one. Peter, Stewie, & Quagmire are my favorites. Peter because he is rude, obnoxious, and just doesn't give a crap. Stewie because of his amazing intelligence and how he hits you with something an adult would say when you least expect it. And quagmire because one of guilty pleasures is dirty jokes. Also there is an episode for everybody too. If you're the political type there is Mr. Griffin goes to Washington (VOL.2 SEASON 3). If you like more of the sexual and bodily humor there is emission impossible (VOL.2 SEASON 3.). Or if you like any other kind of humor there is dammit Janet (VOL.1 SEASON2).Basicly what i'm saying is that when you watch this show there is side splitting humor for everyone. GIGGITY GIGGITY GOOOOO! | 1 |
Every second of the film is gorgeous. And that's why it earns a 7, because the plot is not especially devious, and thinking back over the last 90 minutes I never really felt any excitement or investment in the characters. If anything, the luxurious graphics and framing have made certain scenes (the car chase, for instance) more pedestrian than they ought to be - not that they don't look lovely and have some very original design and occasionally novel camera angles - but they are missing the kinetic movement and close-up shots that are part of the language for any normal action/thriller. The first hour plods along, and the dialogue feels very edited and a bit stagey - people wait for each other to finish and don't always react in a natural cadence, which would be a problem of recording each individual's dialogue separately. On rare occasions the emotions in the voices don't quite match those on screen; something that should really have been avoided. The futuristic architecture is very attractive (lots of glass walls/ceilings/screens, lovely smoke/mirage/special effects) and nice-looking cars, but again - it's more an exercise in graphic design, having no real impact on the story. I'd argue that the whole point of using drawn animation (instead of actors/CGI) is to really push the limits of imagination and design; to do that which is too difficult/impractical in other mediums. Although the animation in Renaissance is certainly stunning and incredibly well-accomplished, I never felt like I was seeing something that hasn't been done before.<br /><br />Immortel, another French CGI film, also suffers from an imbalance of beauty over story & pace. To be fair, some marvellous and engaging French movies also have a languid pace, and lingering shots of the look in someone's eyes or the rain on Paris cobbles can evoke great emotion - but animators need to understand that while animation brings unique strengths, it also has weaknesses when compared to real-life technique. Perhaps it would break from the 'noir' rules that the film wants to stick to, but I think the film-makers also missed a glaring opportunity to explore their future society a bit more - the social strata, the fascistic grip of the corporations etc.<br /><br />I have no problem recommending Renaissance to anybody who enjoys stylistic design and/or animation ('Manga' fans in particular), but I wouldn't make my other film-loving friends sit through it. Take away the sumptuous visuals and it's a barely average film. | 1 |
Um .... a serious film about troubled teens in Singapore, a country I have not much knowledge on but have the previous wrong impression that all the kids there are highly disciplined and controlled by their family and government. Well, I guess I am wrong, just like other cities/ countries, they also have their troubled teens who also lead the not so surprising rebellious way of life of drugs, fights, bad language, and .... many other obvious signs of being a bad boy. The surprising part of this film isn't really about how these kids running around causing themselves and others trouble, but rather the subtle gayness hidden behind their so call loyalty between them. The bond between these "brothers" may very well originated from an unconscious gay tendency inside these boys. Though it isn't uncommon for str8 guys to have very close friendship with each other, but watch this film closely, it should be entering all sorts of gay film festivals and I would not be surprised that it may win itself a lot more awards toward this direction! | 1 |
I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.<br /><br />Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).<br /><br />Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.<br /><br />Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies? | 1 |
Using Buster Keaton in the twilight of his career was an interesting choice. He may have been the most talented comedian of the silent age. This gives him a chance to display those talents in a little time travel story. He get hooked up with a guy living in modern times, and it becomes obvious that we are best left in our own times Keaton is able to do his sight gags very well. I've heard his voice before. I believe he did some of those Beach Party films, playing some vacuous characters just to earn a few bucks. Serling seemed to have respect for him and portrayed him that way. It's not a bad story. It shows how one reacts when we wish for something we don't have and get that wish. | 1 |
if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea. | 0 |
First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!<br /><br />If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared "too human and real" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.<br /><br />I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, "ain't" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood. | 0 |
A very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see. | 1 |
The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.<br /><br />Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.<br /><br />Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.<br /><br />The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.<br /><br />The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.<br /><br />With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined. | 1 |
Now this is one of Big's Best, Jack Hulbert's single role in 1931 split into two for the Band Waggon radio team Askey & Murdoch. It boasts a great stalwart cast, who ham the play up for all they're worth, especially Askey of course. Histrionics were provided by Linden Travers, melodramatics by Herbert Lomas, and pragmatics by Richard Murdoch.<br /><br />The group of rail passengers stranded at the lonely country station for the night find more than they bargained for, ghostly trains, spectral porters, hairy sausage rolls and Arthur trying to entertain them all. His repartee with everyone falls between side-splitting and ghastly dull. When the formula works it's very good, but it sometimes gets very contrived and forced making the film seem more dated than it is. But those damn treacherous fifth columnists - thank any God Britain hasn't got any nowadays!<br /><br />Ultimately a nice harmless film, to welcome back to the TV screen as an old friend, but if you were expecting to be shivered out of your timbers you'll probably be very disappointed! | 1 |
The film shows relations of the dying mother, and the son, who is very attached to her, and definitely loves her. What does it show? It shows their living in very poor conditions. It shows how tenderly they "walk" (really he is bringing her). But what do we see further? After their promenade he walks alone at the same places, where they walked together. It is not possible. A person, who love and care about another dying one, would do everything to make the life of this one better. He would not have a free minute to ponder, to be alone with oneself, and if he finds a few minutes a month for that, he would run away from the places where he has usually to be. Another thing. The author devoted this film to Andrey Tarkovsky. We see he learned many Tarkovsky's visual effects. But in Sokurov's film they are only effects, they do not support any senses or mood. Someone has compared this film with "Mirror" ("Zerkalo"). There is nothing common except these visual effects. "Mirror" is a great film and this one is just poor imitation. | 0 |
If you saw the grudge, a another mediocre ghost movie then you should know what to expect, just worse, a lot worse. This Time instead of being in Japan with all English speaking people we are in Spain with all English speaking people. It is interesting that not one shot of this movie actually looks like Spain and could have been entirely filmed in a studio back lot. Oh and a place with swings, cause there's a good 5 mins of footage of swings with no one on them, oooohhh how spooky.<br /><br />This one is terrible in every way imaginable. The acting by the lameinator mom and dad don't help matters at all. Anna Paquin is the only person that delivers a decent performance in the film but I hate Anna Paquin so you can imagine my own private hell viewing this film.<br /><br />There is one good moment in the movie, however, when a villain is trying to explain the convoluted plot to Anna Paquin's character and she doesn't understand any of it and asks a bunch of stupid questions and he blurts out "You IDIOT, you have not understood anything!" lol. Well I happen to understand this film is a piece of garbage. 0 stars. | 0 |
well "Wayne's World" is long gone and the years since then have been hard for snl off-shoot movies. from such cinematic offal as "It's Pat" to the recent 80 minute yawn, "A Night at the Roxbury," many have, no doubt, lost faith that any other snl skit will ever make a successful transition to the silver screen. well fear not because Tim Meadows comes through in spades. the well-written plot maintains audience interest until the very end and while it remains true to the Leon Phelps character introduced in the five minute skit, the storyline allows the character to develop. the humor (consisting largely of sex jokes) is fresh and interesting and made me laugh harder than i have in any movie in recent memory. its a just great time if you don't feel like taking yourself too seriously. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen of "Saved by the Bell" fame, makes an appearance in the film and looks incredible. finally Billy Dee Williams, reliving his Colt 45 days, gives the movie a touch of class. and for those out there who are mindless movie quoters like myself, you will find this movie to be eminently quotable, "ooh, it's a lady!" | 1 |
I finally got hold of Lifeforce on DVD with the widescreen format intact and rousing Henry Mancini score to the max. After having viewed Lifeforce for fifteen years on tape, I have to say that the 'uncut' DVD version was both great and disappointing. The U.S. version is so *much* better than the DVD (European?) version. The U.S. version of lifeforce moves much faster (the editing on the DVD version is terrible. Feels like an unfinished cut). And the many scenes not seen in the American version add little or nothing to the final problem. In fact one "new" moment almost destroys the entire movie, when Caine (peter firth) meets the male alien at the cathedral. I love this scene, in the U.S. version though. On the DVD, the male alien speaks to Caine and what he says is soooooo hilarious. It's the pinnacle of hilarity:<br /><br />"It'll be much less terrifying if you just come to me!" the male alien says, in a deep 1950s style voice. I was floored when I saw this. It just doesn't belong in the movie. That scene is pure camp in an otherwise super serious flick. I'm glad Hooper (or whoever) cut that scene when the movie was released in North America. There are several changes that were made for the U.S. version that make Lifeforce that much better and I wished the DVD had the U.S. version. The editing is sharp and frenzied without being annoying and some spots that were already boring in the U.S. version are even more boring on the DVD version because of added scenes. And the opening credits on the DVD is terrible. Much better in the U.S. version. More subtle.<br /><br />I love this film. It's basically aliens making a pit-stop over earth and sucking up as much Lifeforce as possible. The film has too many flat, uninspiring sequences (talk, talk, talk) but when the action goes to London, it's fun. The film really shines in these scenes. One can see Hooper finally doing what he's great at: chaos, savagery, horror! Lifeforce should have had more of these chaos scenes. They're the best Apocalyptic scenes ever put on film. It's also the best zombie movie ever. The zombies are hungry (for lifeforce, not flesh) and they're crazed and agile and terrifying. Not the slow moving bores of other zombie movies. Also, a lot of people have criticized the ending but I love it. It leaves you high and dry, like one of the lifeforce-drained victims.<br /><br />And to think this movie came out during the cute and cuddly 80s, when people flocked to E.T. or Cocoon or other sweet and boring, feel good sci-fi movies. No wonder it bombed because it was way ahead of its time with its super nihilistic point of view!<br /><br />As for the DVD, well, it ain't great. The image is muddy and grainy and there are no extras whatsoever. But it's great to see the movie in its widescreen format. I just hope that they'll release a clean, crisp U.S. version on a DVD, and with commentary by Hooper and Dykstra. | 1 |
The lovely Danish actress Sonja Richter steals this film from under the noses of everyone, no small feat considering the terrific performances surrounding her.<br /><br />Richter plays Anna, an out-of-work, independent-minded, somewhat neurotic (and perhaps suicidal) actress who lands a desperation job looking after a wheelchair-bound, muted, aged father named Walentin (the great Danish actor Frits Helmuth, who died at 77 shortly after this film was made).<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />Walentin refuses to respond to anyone --until he confronts the gifted Anna, whose whimsical and mischievous manner brings the poor old battered devil back from a self-imposed death sentence.<br /><br />Writer/director/actor Eric Clausen has made a strong film about the difficulty a ponderous businessman son (Jorgen, played by Clausen) has loving a father who has never accepted him. The film sags toward the end, but Clausen has some important things to say about euthanasia, the nature and value of loving and caring, and how one person, the irrepressible Anna, can alter the course of a human life. Highly recommended. Sonja Richter's performance is alone worth the price of admission. | 1 |
This is definitely a good movie unlike what other people are saying. Peline and I have both seen the movie 3x and the end is cheesy but that is part of the package... to experiment with death is the same as trying to defy it, so the movie is cool. For those who wish to see a classic Kevin Bacon movie, see this please. take care greeting from Istanbul. we will write 10 lines if you really want us 2 but we think it is a waste of time bye. The rest of this review should not be taken seriously because we just wrote it to fill the 10 line requirement (which is crazy) but we are kind people and will therefore adapt to the rules that are set out for us. So people watch this movie not because we wrote 10 lines, but because it is good. and by the way we wrote 12 lines!! | 1 |
If the myth regarding broken mirrors would be accurate, everybody involved in this production would now face approximately 170 years of bad luck, because there are a lot of mirrors falling to little pieces here. If only the script was as shattering as the glass, then "The Broken" would have been a brilliant film. Now it's sadly just an overlong, derivative and dull movie with only just a handful of remarkable ideas and memorable sequences. Sean Ellis made a very stylish and elegantly photographed movie, but the story is lackluster and the total absence of logic and explanation is really frustrating. I got into a discussion with a friend regarding the basic concept and "meaning" of the film. He thinks Ellis found inspiration in an old legend claiming that spotting your doppelganger is a foreboding of how you're going to die. Interesting theory, but I'm not familiar with this legend and couldn't find anything on the Internet about this, neither. Personally, I just think "The Broken" is yet another umpteenth variation on the theme of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" but without the alien interference. "The Broken" centers on the American McVey family living in London, and particularly Gina. When a mirror spontaneously breaks during a birthday celebration, this triggers a whole series of mysterious and seemingly supernatural events. Gina spots herself driving by in a car and follows her mirror image to an apartment building. Whilst driving home in a state of mental confusion, she causes a terrible car accident and ends up in the hospital. When dismissed, Gina feels like her whole surrounding is changing. She doesn't recognize her own boyfriend anymore and uncanny fragments of the accident keep flashing before her eyes. Does she suffer from mental traumas invoked by the accident or is there really a supernatural conspiracy happening all around her? Writer/director Sean Ellis definitely invokes feelings of curiosity and suspense in his script, but unfortunately he fails to properly elaborate them. "The Broken" is a truly atmospheric and stylish effort, but only after just half an hour of film, you come to the painful conclusion it shall just remain a beautiful but empty package. There's a frustratingly high amount of "fake" suspense in this film. This means building up tension, through ominous music and eerie camera angels, when absolutely nothing has even happened so far. By the time the actually mysteriousness kicks in, these tricks don't have any scary effect on you anymore. Some of my fellow reviewers around here compare the film and particularly Sean Ellis' style with the repertoires of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick and even Alfred Hitchcock, but that is way, way
WAY too much honor. PS: what is up with that alternate spelling; the one with the Scandinavian "ø" | 0 |
It's certainly a direct-to-video, but the story is not as bad as most of the other reviewers think. I quite like the fact the hero is doing the wrong thing most of the time.<br /><br />The hero's reactions and the reactions of the rebels are just human. The Hopper character is actually playing god. That might be the right thing to do, but one may not like that anyway.<br /><br />In the end, the god player is doomed to death, and the hero, who would have spent his own life, can live. Quite a morale. :-)<br /><br />The most unrealistic thing I saw, is that earth is doing so well with no moon stabilizing its rotation. | 0 |
I'm not sure what the appeal of this movie is, but I couldn't find it. It's a really long, barely credible, hardly lucid conversation between three guys on one set. <br /><br />It doesn't move anywhere, the characters are just totally bizarre, the underlying plot equally so. It's lost on me, definitely a walk out movie.<br /><br />The one thing that keeps you from walking out is the ever unrealized possibility that it might have some kind of point or meaningful climax, and the fact that, all irritation aside at the banal personalities, they're acted quite reasonably. But you have to brace yourself for endless dialog, wishing on many an occasion that Teach would just shut the %*&* up for a moment. | 0 |
I have seen a couple movies on eating disorders but this one was definitely my favorite one. The problem with the other ones was that the people with the eating disorders towards the end just automatically get better or accept the fact that they need help and thats it. this movie I thought was more realistic cause in this one the main character Lexi doesn't automatically just get better. She gets better and then has a drawback. I think this movie shows more than the others that I've seen that getting better doesn't just happen, it's hard work and takes time, it's a long path to recovery. I think this movie shows all of that very well. There should be more movies like this. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.