text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
LACKAWANNA BLUES is a fine stage play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson and an even finer film as the author adapted his own life story for the screen. This brilliant film ignites the screen with rich colors, fine music, brilliant editing, superb direction by George C. Wolfe, and a cast so stunning that they make an encore viewing compulsory! Yes, it is just that good.<br /><br />The story is based on the author's life as the child 'Junior' (Marcus Carl Franklin) raised in the inimitable home of soulfully empathetic Rachel "Nanny" Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson), a lady who devoted her life to aiding the disenfranchised by transporting them from the South, from mental hospitals, and from the streets to Lackawanna, New York. The boy recalls all the lessons he learned about life from the inhabitants of the house - odd characters with painful pasts - and from the disintegration of his racially mixed biological family rescued by Nanny. The myriad characters of the home are too numerous to outline but they are portrayed by some of the finest actors in the business: Terrence Howard, Rosie Perez, Mos Def, the beautiful Carmen Ejogo, Louis Gossett Jr., Jeffrey Wright, Ernie Hudson, Charlayne Woodward, Jimmy Smits, Patricia Wettig, Macy Gray, Liev Schreiber, Kathleen Chalfant, Lou Myers, Hill Harper - the list goes on and on.<br /><br />In the course of the film we are introduced to the cruelties of racism, the history of desegregation, the dynamics of drug abuse and violence, the infectious joy of African American music contributions to our musical culture, and the courage of one fine woman who battled all the hardships the world can dish out to maintain the dignity of those with whom she came into contact. S. Epatha Merkerson is wholly submerged in this role, a role she makes shine like a beacon of reason in a world of chaos. She offers one of the most stunning performances of the past years, and had this film been released in the theaters instead of as an HBO movie, she without a doubt would add the Oscar to place along side her Golden Globe award.<br /><br />The entire cast is exceptional and Wolfe handles the acting and the story like a master: like riffs in a jazz piece, he pastes tiny moments of conversation with each character and Junior along with flashes of scenes from the story with the matrix of dance fests at the local clubs brimming over the top with incredible blues, jazz, dancing, and joy. The production crew has mounted this little miracle of a picture with extreme care and never for a moment does attention lag from the momentum of the story. Highly Recommended, almost Compulsory Viewing! Grady Harp | 1 |
The first time I had the window of opportunity to see this all but forgotten classic was back in the early 1980's,at one of our art houses as a revival. As I watched this fever dream of an exercise in 1930's sexuality, I thought YOWZA! They got away with murder in Europe back in the day. Unfortunately, this film was heavily cut in it's original U.S. release by the blue nosed Hayes Office (the staunch government censorship board,started by the "holier than thou" Bible thumper, Will Hayes...a former Post Office official,if you can believe that),due to it's overall theme of human sexuality (Heaven's forbid humans actually had sex in the 1930's). The plot of Ecstasy concerns a young woman (played by Hedy Lamarr)who marries a much older man,and later regrets it. She (Lamarr)meets a handsome younger man & has an affair with him, resulting in a divorce from previous husband (another no no in Hollywood movies back then---Divorce!). Despite the fact that the film was produced in 1933, it was probably the director's first time working in the sound format (i.e. the film seems to possess techniques that were used mostly in silent films---i.e. 1920's expressionism's). It's still worth searching out for a window into early European talking pictures,along with Luis Bunuels L'Age Dor (1930),and Karl Gustav Dryer's 'Vampyre' (1931). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude swimming scene & some thinly veiled sexual references, which would fare little more than a PG-13 by today's standards (but would have easily landed the dreaded 'X',back in the 30's,if it existed then) | 1 |
When I first saw this movie, I said to myself, "Hey what the heck it sounds like a good movie, why not rent it?". So yeah, I rented it and went back home to see it. When I inserted it in my DVD player I was shocked.<br /><br />Well FIRST of all, no one told me it was a Mexican movie and was spoken in Spanish, good thing it had subtitles.<br /><br />SECOND, it was nude, nude NUDE! Since I have no background whatsoever in Mexican movies, you could see my shock when I saw it. *GASP! Covering virgin eyes, NOO*<br /><br />THIRD, predictable to say the least, but actually being it predictable was no excuse to me in liking movies, because I don't seem to care if it's predictable, unless it's way over the top. <br /><br />FOURTH, how Heidi and Kike were reunited, so cheesy. <br /><br />FIFTH, how the movie ended. It was a BAD, BAD ending. How Mr. Van der Linde's sudden approval to the mayor's election was because her daughter, knew how to throw the party... BLAH, Blah. I was hoping that he wasn't that easy to accept it, the director might have just rushed it. <br /><br />After all of this bashing of the bad stuff, the good stuff's are here to come. The movie was actually quite hilarious at some point with Maribel being clumsy in the kitchen and all, Heidi's attitude, Valentina being poetic with words. What I really also like about it was the song that Valentina made with her girl friend. That's all, and for the other stuffs that I haven't mentioned they were just so-so. | 0 |
Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here. | 0 |
Having lived in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (30 miles from Escanaba) in the mid-1990s, I was eager to see this film. It begins promisingly enough, with some superficial understanding of the values and quirks of U.P. life. But Jeff Daniels apparently was not content with a low-key approach that would have been fitting given the place and the people. Instead, he introduces extremely crude humor and some wildly inappropriate mystical/supernatural elements. Although there is a good movie to be made about this practically unknown region of the U.S., this is NOT it. | 0 |
A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more "available," comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from "Casablanca" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the "jumping" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who "tucks" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in "F-Troop" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight "coming home" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining. | 1 |
Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.<br /><br />I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible. | 0 |
Adapting his own novel "Cabal" for the screen, author / screenwriter / director Clive Barker fashioned this marvelous story of outré horror and fantasy. Craig Sheffer plays Boone, a young man who becomes suspected of being a serial killer. The cops gun him down in front of Midian, on the surface a cemetery but which is actually a haven for monsters that have been shunned by society. When they lay claim to Boone and make him one of their own, this causes repercussions for everybody, including Boone's sweet girlfriend (the very cute Anne Bobby) and dubious psychiatrist (a most enjoyable David Cronenberg).<br /><br />"Nightbreed" displays the kind of wild and twisted imagination that I don't see in movies all that often. For one thing, Ralph McQuarrie, an old hand at conceptual art having worked on such films as the initial three "Star Wars" entries, helps Barker to create excellent visuals for "Nightbreed", starting right away with the opening credit sequence. The visual and makeup effects are elaborate, and production design and cinematography quite impressive. Barker and crew do a wonderful job at creating this whole other world with compelling characters. It's colorful and flamboyant entertainment and is a pleasure to take in. And of course there's the strong sense of social commentary regarding intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the heavy consequences that can result from a person's actions.<br /><br />Great supporting performances add to the fun. Cronenberg oozes lots of malevolent intent and is a real gas as the bad doctor, while Charles Haid is a fine love-to-hate-him type of antagonist, a rather nasty police captain. Doug "Pinhead" Bradley once again gets buried under heavy makeup as the weary Lylesberg, and is solid as a rock. Hugh Ross is great fun as Narcisse, as is Catherine Chevalier as Rachel (as an added bonus, she bares her breasts in one sequence). Simon Bamford, who played the "Butterball Cenobite" in the first two "Hellraiser" pictures, turns up here as well. There's even a cool cameo by 50's and 60's sci-fi star John Agar.<br /><br />Danny Elfman supplies another of his fantastic scores, and Barker leads us steadily through the intriguing story towards a terrific apocalyptic showdown.<br /><br />"Nightbreed" is an excellent genre film worth checking out for anybody who hasn't seen it. I give it a hearty recommendation.<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
I think we all begin a lot of reviews with, "This could've made a GREAT movie." A demented ex-con freshly sprung, a tidy suburban family his target. Revenge, retribution, manipulation. Marty's usual laying on of the Karo syrup. But unfortunately somewhere in Universal's high-rise a memorandum came down: everyone ham it up.<br /><br />Nolte only speaks with eyebrows raised, Lange bitches her way through cigarettes, Lewis "Ohmagod's!" her way though her scenes, and Bobby D...well, he's on a whole other magic carpet. Affecting some sort of Cajun/Huckleberry Hound accent hybrid, he chomps fat cigars and cackles at random atrocities such as "Problem Child". And I want you to imagine the accent mentioned above. Now imagine it spouting brain-clanging religious rhetoric at top volume like he swallowed six bibles, and you have De Niro's schtick here. Most distracting of all, though, is his most OVERDONE use of the "De Niro face" he's so lampooned for. Eyes squinting, forehead crinkled, lips curled. Crimany, Bob, you looked like Plastic Man.<br /><br />The story apparently began off-screen 14 years earlier, when Nolte was unable to spare De Niro time in the bighouse for various assaults. Upon release, he feels Nolte's misrep of him back then warrants the terrorizing of he and his kin. And we're supposed to give De Niro's character a slight pass because Nolte withheld information that might've shortened his sentence. De Niro being one of these criminals who, despite being guilty of unspeakable acts, feels his lack of freedom justifies continuing such acts on the outside. Mmm-kay.<br /><br />He goes after Notle's near-mistress (in a scene some may want to turn away from), his wife, his daughter, the family dog, ya know. Which is one of the shortcomings of Wesley Strick's screenplay: utter predictability. As each of De Niro's harassments becomes more gruesome, you can pretty much call the rest of the action before it happens. Strick isn't to be totally discredited, as he manages a few compelling dialogue-driven moments (De Niro and Lewis' seedy exchange in an empty theater is the film's best scene), but mostly it's all over-cranked. Scorsese's cartoonish photographic approach comes off as forced, not to mention the HORRIBLY outdated re-worked Bernard Hermann score (I kept waiting for the Wolf Man to show up with a genetically enlarged tarantula).<br /><br />Thus we arrive at the comedic portion of the flick. Unintentionally comedic, that is. You know those scenes where something graphically horrific is happening, but you can't help but snicker out of sight of others? You'll do it here. Nolte and Lange squawking about infidelity, De Niro's thumb-flirting, he cross-dressing, and a kitchen slip on a certain substance that has to be seen to believed. And Bob's infernal, incessant, CONSTANT, mind-damaging, no-end-in sight blowhard ramblings of all the "philosophy" he disovered in prison. I wanted him killed to shut him up more than to save this annoying family.<br /><br />I always hate to borrow thoughts from other reviewers, but here it's necessary. This really *is* Scorsese's version of Freddy Krueger. The manner in which De Niro relishes, speaks, stalks, withstands pain, right down to his one-liners, is vintage Freddy. Upon being scalded by a pot of thrown water: "You trying' to offer sumpin' hot?" Please. And that's just one example.<br /><br />Unless you were a fan of the original 1962 flick and want a thrill out of seeing Balsam, Peck, and Mitchum nearly 30 years later (or want a serious head-shaking film experience), avoid a trip to the Cape. | 0 |
Put quite simply, this film is terrifying.<br /><br />It starts off simply, looking like a study of a rebellious young girl and goes on to become a beautifully crafted horror film.<br /><br />Don't expect gore, or zombies. This is psychological, and just as he would also do in Candyman, Bernard Rose manages to convey the horror that is not being believed.<br /><br />Each time you watch this film, you realise more about what's happening, and about how the two worlds in this film interconnect.<br /><br />Drawings have never been scarier. | 1 |
There is a reason to call this a teen flick. Out of 100 possible points I would put it somewhere in the teens. It is predictable, the acting is horrible, especially the minor roles, and above all else it is super predictable. The ending is so hokey that I should have left early and maybe it would have passed. By the way, could you call the male lead a pervert? I bet if it really happened, someone in my school district would have said so. Finally, in the school I grew up in, even though the average class had over 1000 students, we could have picked out a chump like Josie as being a fraud and we would have singled her out of the crowd. My final word is save your time, when it comes on TV watch something better, like the stock quotes. | 0 |
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage. | 0 |
This was obviously the worst movie ever made...ketchup was the starring role in this movie and would be the only nominee for an award..cause the plot, actors, and anything related to this farce was absolutely horrible and ridiculous. I could have made a better horror flick in my backyard within two hours with a hand-held camera using grass stuffed dummies as the actors, atleast the acting would have been better! Don't waste your time or money on this one...it's extremely cheesy and horrible!! | 0 |
Fata Morgana, the 1971 documentary-like film by German filmmaker extraordinaire Werner Herzog, filmed over several years in the late 1960s, is one of those rare DVDs that should be listened to with the commentary turned on. It is a visual feast of North African (mostly Saharan) imagery that is timeless. You simply could not tell that it was made over thirty-five years ago. The soundtrack to the film, including German classical music (Mozart and Handel), and rock music by Blind Faith and Leonard Cohen, also lends its timeless quality. The narration by three different German narrators (German film historian Lotte Eisner, Eugen Des Montagnes, and Wolfgang von Ungern-Sternberg) is solid, and Herzog goes on and on of Eisner's import to this project, himself, and film history, but the English speaker of the translation, James William Gledhill, has a voice that seems downright deific, which lends itself far more perfectly to this project, even though much of the text- in either language, is rather superfluous. Yes, the faux Biblical sounds of the Popul Vuh Mayan creation myth in the film's first part, Creation, is interesting, but the text Herzog wrote for the remaining two parts (Paradise and The Golden Age), along with quotes from a German poet Herzog names as Manfred Eigendorf, almost seems a satire of the first part's somber tone
. The film, it seems was pieced together during the shooting of several other Herzog projects concurrently- the fictive Even Dwarfs Started Small, and the documentaries The Land Of Silence And Darkness and The Flying Doctors Of East Africa, but these projects' rejected material only add to the beauty of this film, such as aerial scenes of a flamingo mating lake from afar that give one an eerie unearthly sense, one which Herzog crows about in his commentary. This unearthly feel is present right from the film's start of several airplanes landing on a desert runway, with their images getting successively blurrier as the heat from the ground rises, and increases the distorting waves that mar the images. That this film was influential in the Quatsi films of Godfrey Reggio is an understatement. But, whereas Reggio is content to just toss images at you, Herzog has an ability that only American filmmaker Terrence Malick also has: to make a wholly self-contained vocabulary out of the juxtaposition of images and words, and one dependent upon an emotion-first thrust. Analysis can fail when brought to such endeavors. Herzog often does not understand even why his art is great. The best he does often is wholly unconscious and mesmeric. This is why his contempt for the Lowest Common Denominator pap of Hollywood is openly stated on the commentary.<br /><br />Perhaps the best illustration of this comes in a scene that, on the commentary, Herzog tells us followed a severe drought in Cameroon. It shows the jerkied carcasses of cattle, and Herzog describes the unbearable stench. Yet, the viewer can sense this all from the images, the blackness of the sun dried portions of animals, and the blanched bones. Yet, even in that commentary, Herzog focuses on the stench, not any deeper meaning. He is content to let you imbue and interpret what you will into and of his work, such as the almost erotically feminized shapes of sand dunes, which recalls a scene from Ingmar Bergman's Hour Of The Wolf, where Max Von Sydow, runs his hand over Ingrid Thulin's beautiful nude body's curves. But, the archetypal image in this film, which symbolizes much of Herzog's career, is of a mirage of a faraway car driving back and forth on the surface of what appears to be a lake. It is deep, hypnotic, illusive, elusive, supernatural, yet real, just as Herzog, the believer who came from a family of militant atheists, is. But, then, like everything else, it ends. | 1 |
I have watched this movie at least ten times. I do not agree with the previous comments. This is a tongue in cheek movie and some of the acting is meant to be stilted. Men like Paul Cowley are few and far between, women like Linda, unfortunately, are a dime a dozen. The sad thing here is that although similiar relationships like this rarely lead to murder and frame ups, it is an all to familiar scenario. Boy worships girl, girl doesn't know he exists, they grow up, man sees woman he fantasized about down and out and rescues her. Bottom line, she never did love him-he came along at the right time and she used him. Thomas is excellent as the nerdy but adequate Paul. His portrayal is sensitive and touching. Madsen is perfect as the femme-fatale. What really moved me was the final scene. Paul says he eventually cried, but not for Linda, his wife, but for the unknown girl he had watched from a distance so many years ago..and longed for..and loved. And I loved the close-up of Thomas at the end. | 1 |
For many years I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen TEMPEST, and I am so glad to learn that I am not the only person who discovered this sleeper somewhere in their movie-going travails. Loosely based on the Shakesperean play, TEMPEST follows an architect (the late John Cassavettes, in one of his best performances), bored with his work and his crumbling marriage (to real life spouse Gene Rowlads), who decides to chuck it all, say the hell with the rat race and go live on an island with his daughter (Molly Ringwald, in her film debut), and new girlfriend Aretha (a luminous Susan Sarandon). Even though Paul Mazursky is credited as director, Cassavettes hand is all over this film...the long scenes filmed without cutting, the improvisatory feel to the dialogue..., the self-indulgent storytelling style, this is definitely his show from beginning to end, and if you're not a fan of his work, the film will seem laboriously long and dull but if you are a fan, there are rewards to be had. Cassavettes is surrounded by a first rate cast...his scenes with Rowlands crackle with intensity and his surprising chemistry with Sarandon is a stark contrast to his scenes with Rowlands. Ringwald shines in her film debut and there is a scene-stealing performance by the late Raul Julia as Kalibanos, Cassavettes' manservant on the island. Julia stops the show in one scene dancing with a flock of sheep accompanied by Liza Minnelli singing "New York, New York". This film is sad and tragic and funny and intense. Yes, it's a little long and disjointed and it works a little too hard at being different (there's even a curtain call at the end of the film), but it never fails to hold the attention of those who like something a little different in their filmgoing. | 1 |
While the prominent and over use of the play-like format is in total operation throughout the film, it is not however this that lets this picture down. Rather it is the unconvincing female performances and rather tedious script that the film so obviously relied on a little too much. With an idea that had potential, the simple plot is diminished still by Graham's failure to truly express the devastation her character so adamantly claims to experience. The use of improvised scenes by all the actors would not be such a bad idea if only the two leading ladies could take advantage of this privilege. As Downey Jr proves as usual what a gifted actor he is, he shadows the two actresses in their scenes together which is constantly noticeable. The pointless yet intense sex scene seems merely to exist in order to prevent the film from being too verbally expressive giving the actors a much deserved break from talking. With an unsatisfying conclusion, Two Girls and a Guy has very little to recommend it other than Downey Jr's formidable if not out of place performance. | 0 |
The producers made a big mistake casting Mark Lester, who couldn't act or sing, in the title role. Aside from his very bad "acting", all of Lester's singing had to be dubbed by a girl. I don't know why they cast him at all, since there would have been so many boys who could have played the part infinitely better and done their own singing as well. Shani Wallis was far too old to play Nancy, who was only supposed to be 16. The current West End version is so much better than the movie in every way. Ross McCormack is the best Artful Dodger of all time and he is certainly far better looking than Jack Wild ever was. It was clearly political to award this old-fashioned musical so many Oscars after the tumultuous events of 1968. | 0 |
Ostensibly, Hans ' isolation and despair are caused by a stereotypically frigid bourgeois mother, a nagging wife, and a lover's rejection. And despite the complex portrayal--Hans himself doesn't precisely make these claims--the above must be a substantial part of Fassbinder's thinking as well (his use of Freud and Marx). But the viewer may look no further than Hans' gender and sexism to locate the truer cause of his crushed spirit.<br /><br />First, it's highly unlikely that his mother's lack of love pushed him into signing up with the Foreign Legion. It was far more likely, and is in part indicated, that it was a quest for adventure, male camaraderie (escape from the female world of mother and sister) and male identity itself-- which both the Legion and war offered.<br /><br />Second, Hans loses his successful job as a policeman because of his own sexism. By falling for a prostitute's wiles at work, he not only rubber stamps prostitution as an oppressive institution, but shows that he cannot even control his sexuality in a professional arena--and is even willing to jeopardize a desirable career.<br /><br />Third, he commits serious verbal abuse against his wife in front of his sheep-like male buddies, making no distinction at all between her absence or--when she shows up looking for him--presence. In fact, he is more brutal in her presence.<br /><br />A few hours later, in a violent and drunken state, he beats his wife in front of their daughter, who intervenes on her mother's behalf. The terror he instills in her and his daughter are palpable. But both he--and the audience--move on with nary a whimper of conscience or protest. Why? Because his wife is cruelly characterized as both nagging and sexually promiscuous (yes, this this may be Fassbinder's view of what capitalism does to women--owned, insecure, and a commodity--but this hardly absolves Hans' brutality nor Fassbinder's exploitation of her in the battery scene).<br /><br />And then there is this male role pressure, which Hans could choose to reject and protest, but instead accepts. He's too short for a male and too un-heroic to achieve the worldly success the male role recommends. But how can these be causes of despair when he not only gains his lost love as a mistress but marries a tall woman who is considerably more attractive than himself., Finally, Hans allows Harry, his war comrade, to remain, over his wife's convincing plea to the contrary, on in their house. By this decision, he not only makes it clear that he is more tied to Harry than to his wife, but that male bonding supersedes his love of women. And supersedes, in the end, his own life, because it is Harry's superior competence and spirit around the house that causes Hans' star to fall. Hans, the merchant, may be to a degree, the victim of capitalism, but more to the point, he is the victim of his own allegiance to his own male identity. His inability to let it go, is the ultimate cause for his isolation and despair.<br /><br />This is something that is lost, I think, not only on Fassbinder, but also on Han's sister, Anna--although, only to a degree lost. For Anna's (and Fassbinder's) support of her brother--over her mother, only goes so far. She is quite insistent that only he can save himself--that her support and love cannot it itself end his self-loathing. Unfortunately, she does not offer any of this same support and love for his wife who must be much more embittered than Hans but, who in the end, is able to pick up the pieces, and save herself and daughter, and present a marked contrast to Han's fall. | 1 |
Like most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.<br /><br />Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.<br /><br />One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.<br /><br />The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936. | 0 |
This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. It seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. Given how socialistic Sweden eventually became, the 'radicalism' of its politics, once controversial, appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. And its sex scenes, at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials, look pretty tame in a modern context. Nevertheless, the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60's youth rebellion. One part of the film that still holds up: its self-consciousness with respect to the 'fourth wall'. Every once in a while, the filmmakers film themselves making the film. The satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle. | 0 |
What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work. | 0 |
We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do. | 0 |
You have to respect this movie. It may be "just a dumb kid's movie" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.<br /><br />A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being "put out to pasture." Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.<br /><br />Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.<br /><br />Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults "the old encyclopedia" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the "youngberry tree." However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.<br /><br />Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter "the hairy behemoth," which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be "digested." The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.<br /><br />Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his "noodle" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.<br /><br />Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror. | 0 |
I was sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in "The Pest" and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))<br /><br />Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer | 0 |
Peter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town. | 0 |
"Stella", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and
..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. <br /><br />That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.<br /><br />The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).<br /><br />Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role. | 0 |
Guys and Dolls is a unique play based on the characters. Sky Masterson<br /><br />(Marlon Brando) is a high-class gambler who takes up a bet with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) for one-thousand dollars. Nathan needs the money so he can<br /><br />run his usual crap game and make a fortune. The bet was that Sky wouldn't be able to take just any girl to Havana, Cuba and the "doll" he chose was Sarah<br /><br />Brown (Jean Simmons) who was in charge of a missionary. Sky finally bribes<br /><br />Sarah enough to go to Havana with him. They end up falling in love with each other, but later she accuses him of something he had no part in. Nathan ran a crap game in the missionary the night they were gone. Nathan's 14 year fiancé Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) disapproves of Nathan's gambling and tries to stop him from doing it. However, when the movie ends it all ends happy with a double<br /><br />wedding.<br /><br />The songs in this movie are just wonderful no matter who sings it. Marlon<br /><br />Brando has no singing voice at all and true they could have dubbed him but it didn't really matter. He did a wonderful acting job (obviously seeing as it's Brando) and played his character very well. I have seen a few movies with Jean Simmons and thought that this movie was her weakest one, she also couldn't<br /><br />sing at all. However, the singing is made up by Frank Sinatra, Vivien Blaine, and Stubby Kaye. Vivien Blaine and Stubby Kaye was also in the original<br /><br />Broadway production of Guys and Dolls. Vivien Blaine had a terrific voice and was the perfect Adelaide. If you like musical, and even if you don't, i advise you to watch this. | 1 |
This film does for Infantry what Das Boot did for Submariners. If you appreciated Das Boot then that is all you really need to know.<br /><br />This is a well done piece of cinema. On a par with Das Boot. Basically it follows a Company of elite German "Stormtrooper" infantry who leave garrison duty in an idyllic Italian seaside town and are immediately thrust into the chaos of the disintegrating Russian front. <br /><br />A good war movie illuminates both the senselessness and brutality of war and at the same time gives us insight into the experiences and essential humanity of those who fight. This movie does that. The film is full of drama and action and so is entertaining on that level as well. | 1 |
It's not real flashy, but this movie does a great job of developing a large cast of characters, and letting you know their hopes and desires, while still managing to be both funny and bittersweet. A very sweet movie. Fun, also, to see Vincent D'Onofrio and Mary-Louise Parker so early in their careers. | 1 |
Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. "Listen," their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown. | 1 |
I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for. | 1 |
The 1960's TV series Bewitched owes it's idea from this movie. This is the movie that Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak made right after they were cast together in Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. This one is not as obsessive as that one but Novak is just as captivating.<br /><br />This was Jack Lemmons 10th movie and he is good in support here as well as Ernie Kovacs. The movie has a lot of good things about it. Hermine Gingold is very good in this movie, almost as good in support here as she was in The Music Man. The cast is very solid.<br /><br />This movie has a late 1950's New York City feel & a cat that is as hexing as any feline in any movie. It is well worth watching as it is a love story with all the emotion of any, & a little magic too boot.<br /><br />It is not Vertigo but I think because it followed that movie, viewers then did not rate it as good as it deserved - sure am glad that William Asher saw it, so that the 1960's series got created. I am not so glad about what Will Ferrell did to it on the big screen, this movie is much better than that. | 1 |
I watched the DVD of this movie which also comes with an excellent commentary track (in English). It seems in Cambodia (the subtitles in English say the character is speaking Thai but the movie says Cambodia)a very violent evil man is raising boys to be killers using starvation and training them to fight and kill. He sends Pang to kill some people in China and during the killings a cop's partner is killed. The cop Wai is a loose cannon who is worried about his father who is also a cop who was shot and is in a coma. Wai's chief is his dad's friend and is worried about Wai's erratic behavior. He doesn't know Wai was the one who caught his dad in dealing with drug dealers and shot him and put him into the coma. Pang escapes and hides in a squalid landfill shack where he meets a woman who came here to find her mother and keeps repeating her father won't let her leave (Pang doesn't speak Chinese and doesn't understand this but saves her from her father who appears to be having sex with her maybe this is the reason for Cat III). Wai becomes more and more obsessed with getting Pang but Pang is almost unstoppable. Even after Pang steals a boat and takes the woman to his home where they are married and she becomes pregnant Wai follows and joins the evil man (who's training the boys)making a deal to fight and train so he can get Pang. There is a big showdown between Wai and Pang with the terribly abused woman the major victim and leaving Wai dead and Pang cutting out his child from the dead mother only to die and leave him as the possible next boy to be raised as a killer. This film is beautifully photographed with an excellent soundtrack. There are many very brutal violent scenes. The woman having a long nail pulled out of her foot. Knives to the neck and torso. Guns fired directly to the head. And several very intense beatings. It maybe grim intense and downbeat but it is definitely worth seeing. | 1 |
What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that "son of the Mask" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.<br /><br />Yes I've watched "Dumb and Dumber" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch "Son of the Mask" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :/ I'm out of here...<br /><br />Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005. | 0 |
Conrad Phillips stars in the 1950s action adventure series - William Tell. Set in the fourteenth century during the hostile Austrian occupation of Switzerland, William Tell is a reluctant freedom fighter, battling heroically against the tyranny and oppression of the invading forces. William tell is the Swiss version of Robin Hood. Conrad Phillips plays the protagonist fantastically. It is possible that Pascal Bugnion would have had greater success in the role, but he was unavailable at the time of filming. The classic action show is made up of series of 39. The episodes are in black and white, but this does not detract from the entertainment in any way. | 1 |
Another go round with the monkey king going west....sort of.<br /><br />Beginning in the middle of some action the movie just goes from the first frame onward.<br /><br />A monk and his three disciples go to a town to get the sacred suras that will bring peace to the world once they are translated and spoken to the world.But an evil force has intervened and kidnapped all of the children of the town. The evil force wants the monk because if you eat him you will live forever. The retainers battle the forces of darkness before forcibly sending the monk off for safety (The monk thinks he can win simply by reasoning with the bad guys). The monk ends up with a bunch of lizard imps who plan at some point eating him... however the bad guys arrive and he's off an odyssey with the ugliest of the lot.<br /><br />Can a movie that starts off the rails go off the rails? Don't get me wrong I really liked this movie but its so scatter shot and all over the place that plot and logic simply fall away as some scenes simply pick up mid action with no way of knowing how we got there (The final battle to rescue the disciples is completely out of left field). This is one of the messiest movies I've seen in a while, but it made me laugh and smile like no get out. The movie starts and you have no idea where things are and then whats on screen is either interesting or funny and you just go with it. How do we get from thing to thing is often beyond me. Its full of odd asides and strange references as we go from heaven to the ocean to space to the rib cage of some mythic beast to god knows where. This movie floats all over the place which helps keep it fun since you don't know where it will end up (and is the reason"m keeping details to a minimum) And its funny. Very very funny at times.<br /><br />And the action is very good, even if a good chunk of it is unabashed CGI animation (which provides for some cool images, the golden staff, the spider attack formation, the angel in flight...) And its very touching. Action and comedy aside this is actually a wonderful love story. Its the story of an ugly imp and a monk who end up falling in love (and having other complications). Its a interesting look at the nature of love and what is true love. You will be moved.<br /><br />However much I enjoyed it I was still annoyed by its scatter shot construction. The films inability to hold its ideas together and to tell a complete story really hurts the film and takes away from the enjoyment every time we get to a bump in the road. the bumps take you out of the movie itself and make you realize how much is being cribbed from other sources.<br /><br />Absolutely worth seeing since it does have many choice moments, just be prepared for some bumps and you'll have a good time. | 1 |
This movie was so bad it was funny! For awhile there I thought I was actually watching a parody of a bad movie (a la "For Your Consideration"). The "cliffhanger" scene at the end had me laughing until my insides hurt. The script was dreadful enough, but coupled with Sean Young's terrible acting -- especially while she explains the entire plot in great detail (complete with flashbacks) while dangling off a cliff -- makes it a truly classically bad movie worth watching! In fact the fakey shots in this scene reminded me of an Ed Wood movie. I still can't believe how this thing got made. First of all, how did such a bad script get the green light? How did star actors get attached? Were they at low points in their careers? Questions, questions. | 0 |
There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.<br /><br />It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.<br /><br />The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers. | 0 |
I have heard an awful lot about 'The English Patient' and I finally decided to get the CD and find out what all the ballyhoo was about. What I found out was a cinematic delight and should, I repeat 'should' always be watched with an open mind. If you are a religious, moral zealot, I am afraid this is not a film for you as you will fail to see the beauty of this cinematic masterpiece as you will keep on harping on the moral dilemmas this film creates. As I remember correctly before I watched this film I read the review in this site and was thoroughly disgusted by the views of that person who I quote said 'that the protagonists thoroughly deserved what they got'. When it comes to morality I agree with him but this is not the way to comment on a film of this magnificence. <br /><br />I must admit rarely have I seen such a wonderfully crafted film. I keep on hearing the background soundtrack in my subconscious. First and foremost this is a love story and yes it's an extramarital affair (moralists beware) but lets not keep focusing on that. Instead let's focus on how the story was told. It's an admixture of flashbacks and the present. Its set in the world war II and tells us the story of a survivor of a plane crash (Count Almazhy played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) who is looked after by an army nurse (Juliet Binoche) in war torn Italy just before the beginning of the end (defeat of the axis powers). The burn scarred patient very much in pain kept on remembering the torrid affair he had with an English woman Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas) shown in flashbacks set in pre-war Africa. The past and the present are interwoven so adroitly in the story that you're sort of transported in the story and get the feel of a first hand viewer. The locales in the desert and in Italy are beautiful and so are the characters. I am a romantic and am not ashamed to say I had tears after it ended. Watch it with someone you truly love. The movie starts and ends with the same shot of the desert where the sand dunes twist and curves like a woman's body and it was breathtaking. The sense of loss and grief was conveyed so overwhelmingly by the actors that it makes me wonder why god! Why do we have wars that destroys beauty and the most unforgivable of all, the destruction of Innocence. <br /><br />Anyway it deservedly won a bunch of Oscars and I will go hunting for other works of director Anthony Minghella.It kind of brings back the romanticism in the David Lean genre of films.It almost reminds me of 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was also based in the desert.Happy viewing folks. | 1 |
I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could "Hollywood" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film. | 1 |
Have not seen this 1958 film in a very long time and greatly enjoyed Kim Novak playing the role as Gil Holroyd who is an actual witch and has an aunt named Queenie Holroyd who is also a witch and Gillian also has a brother warlock named Nick played by Jack Lemmon. When Gillian sets her eyes on Shep Henderson,(James Stewart) who is engaged to a girl he is going to marry; Gillian performers some magic spells with a cat and changes his mind about his intended bride and then becomes very lust full and falls in love with Gillian. The story tells that a real witch cannot fall in love, blush or cry and this begins to prove a big problem between Shep and Gillian, so Nick and Aunt Queenie decided they have to do something about this situation. Great film to view over and over again and a great classic film from 1958. | 1 |
I saw Beyond Rangoon about 20 times, it was THAT GOOD. At first when I watched it, I saw the story of Laura Bowman, but later, after multiple showings, I realised that this also was a parallel documentary. It came to be in my mind, a story about Aung San Suu Kyi, and the struggles of women to remain strong in the face of uncertainty, danger, and sadness. I also would put history, and politics on the list after further viewing, since I did learn a lot about Burma's past, and present, and could only guess at it's future. This movie is not only one you will want to see, it's also one you will definitely want to own a copy of. It's a movie that could easily been seen by the whole family, although not for children under thirteen. However, the educational benefits of this movie can not, and should not be understated. | 1 |
Well, I have been to a British University, in fact I went to the one in this very film, and it was nothing like that. This is a horrible, badly made and acted film. Worst thing is, it could have been really good, if they bothered to spend more that 12p on it, in fact if it really wanted to represent true British Students it should off acted like one and took out a 15 thousand pound loan. It says nothing about Uni life, where was the bush diving, the tea drinking till 4am, the endless chats about group dynamics??? Where was the diversity and fun? Maybe I'm just being romantic, but I don't remember Fresher's Week being that awful, and I'm teetotal. And in the end the question still remains...a bed or a wardrobe? | 0 |
Even people who dislike the film, usually because they find the ending confused, should appreciate the strong acting of Elijah Wood & Joseph Mazello who played the two young leads in this movie.<br /><br />Spoiler WARNING: At a literal level, the ending makes no sense. People who think the ending makes some sense at other levels are divided between those who 1) think the younger brother was killed by the step-father either the one time Mike (the older boy) was away dealing with the neighborhood gang, or flew off the wishing spot in his wagon to escape the situation through death & those 2) who think the younger brother is imaginary & his flying off in the wagon transformed into a flying machine signals his overcoming the abusive situation.<br /><br />I favor 2). It makes a lot of sense in terms of the way many children deal with abusive situations. It is not uncommon for an abused child to split his or her psyche & project the abused self into something else; a stuffed animal, even an imaginary friend. This way, it makes a lot more sense that it is always the younger boy who is abused & never Mike. In reality, it is unlikely for one of two brothers to get all the abuse, although that does happen. Also, it is Bobby, the younger brother who is also the encouraging one, the one who insists that they can overcome the situation. Also, the death of a real-life sibling through abuse would have been too shattering for an adult with this in his history to transform into as upbeat a fantasy ending as this. | 1 |
I truly fell in love with the characters. They were very down to earth but each and every one of them had a hidden dark side. Sort of a mystery. David Graysmark, himself, was an enigma. The secret fears and just secrets in general that he had. There was a whole side of him that the other characters knew nothing about and it left the audience either wondering or assuming. There was always a part of this man that he would keep hidden away, yet he'd share a little of himself too. He was the strong male lead character and I admire that type of character. Billy Moses himself is an incredible actor who could do just about any type of part! He's an amazing talent and a good man. His fans love, respect, and support him endlessly.<br /><br />Since this show he's gone onto many other projects and has stretched his acting ability quite a bit more and quite well. Kudos to him and all the other actors from this show for doing such an excellent job! I wish them all well. I wish the series would've continued on! It's such a shame it didn't! | 1 |
After seeing this movie, I have no choice but to write a review in the hopes that there are others like me out there who were blown away by the rocket fueled ninja action and white hot sexual titillation that is Ninja III: The Domination.<br /><br />We all know that Sho Kosugi rocks. That is a given, but how about Jordan Bennett's ultra macho interpretation of his character police officer "Billy Secord"? Bravo Mr. Bennett, bravo. You prove early on, while trying to seduce the buxom Christie (played to perfection by one Miss Lucinda Dickey of Breakin' fame)that you are not afraid to take chances on your craft. I particularly enjoyed how you do not feel the need to step in and attempt to help her as 4 thugs try to rape her outside her gym. Oh you could have helped sure, but by standing there and watching you let her know who was boss. Secord will wear the pants in this relationship. I also enjoyed how Mr. Bennett was not afraid to repeatedly take off his shirt or wear the wife-beater tank top despite his gorilla like shoulders and back. Back and shoulder hair are hot and Secord knows it. And How about Lucinda Dickey? All I can say is "KABOOM" - I see a sex bomb getting ready to explode. She's got all the right moves as both a temptress and a martial arts whiz. The chemistry behind Dickey and Bennett is what makes this movie tick. You'd think she would hate him because he's kind of a cheesy jerk, but no my friends. The animal magnetism is too strong to resist, and they bond like crazy glue. Sho Kasugi is not as prominent as you might think, though still a main character, which is fine by me because all I wanted was more Bennett and Dickey. He does seem to wear a lot of eye makeup which was nice to see. The special effects? Wow. That is all I can say. I will not give away the ending but let's just say it will not disappoint. I love Ninja III: The domination, and can only hope that there is a Ninja 4. I give it a 5 out of 5 throwing stars. disappoint. | 1 |
Boogie Nights is perhaps one of the greatest examples any would-be filmmaker should take a long hard look at. Sure, you could spend loads of quality time reviewing the clasics from Hitchcock to Scorsese; but lets follow suit for the modern generation and study half-heartedly.<br /><br />Where to begin, I suppose one could look at the film as simply a story, perhaps even docudrama which focuses on the late 1970's porn industry-and what an industry it was! The other half could focus on the incredible detail one brillant filmmaker can achieve simply by using polyester and *ahem* rubber. But honestly, Boogie Nights brings back the pure, no-bul!shi$, in your face kind of cinema I haven't experienced since the film greats of the 1970's...ironic...or stroke of genius. The story is full of richly detailed characters, all of which you either can relate too, love, or hate; but the impact is clear-you are feeling something for them. Among the characters the two performances which stand out are: Burt Reynolds as Director Jack Horner, and Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler. Julianne Moore is also brillant, as is Heather Graham...but if I focus on any one actor it would have to be John C. Reilly. John's performance is a perfect balance of comedic timing and character driven emotion...I'm a sucker for the line "Ever see the movie Star Wars?...People say I look like Han Solo." Anyway, the look of the film is incredible, the Director of Photography and Director/Writer/Producer, have come up with a vibrant colour, and flashy style that compares to Martin Scorsese, and Stanley Kubrick(in terms of his perfection of his craft); but with creating his own unique look, and pushing the edge with the longest single shot I'ver ever seen...that being the New Year's party sequence.<br /><br />The music, like in any great film, is a character of its own. At times, it consumes oneself with sorrow or grief...but mainly its all about fun, dancing, and having a good time; the spirit of the 1970's. OK, back to the performances.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds plays the character of Jack Horner, a porn director who feels the burden of what the future of "film" means to his genre. The awful transition from shooting on film to recording on magnetic tape. The lose of his art, as it were...and the changes in mentality to the people he works with. Walhberg adds the perfect blend of innocense and sexual bravado needed for the character. For all those individuals who have seen Burton's Planet of the Apes, pay no attention to the performance of Wahlberg in that film...rent boogie nights and see what a difference a good script can make!<br /><br />Julianne Moore plays the would-be mother to all, and with that comes the torment and anguish she feels, as life imitates art; and she loses all those close to her. Heather Graham is the eye-candy, but later holds her own, and steals some of the scenes from even the great Mr. Reynolds himself. Each character is multidimensional, rich with life, and performed by actors that seem to be picture perfect for the part.<br /><br />The film itself is often funny, tragic, exciting, and provides a uncompromising look into the turblulant lifestyle of the fast-pace 1970's. It makes no excuses, and tells no lies; and offers the audience a trip back. But even more importantly, the movie gives us a grand example of how films should be made; and a new director whose bold visions bring back art in film. | 1 |
A rare exception to the rule that great literature makes disappointing films, John Huston's beautiful farewell to life and the movies is almost entirely true to the narrative and the spirit of James Joyce's short story, a tender meditation on love, death and time expressed in the events of a Twelfth Night party in middle-class Dublin circa 1910. Unpromising as the material might appear, the film succeeds by its willingness to tell the story on its own quiet, apparently inconsequential terms, rather than force a conventional cinematic shape of plot points and dramatic incidents upon it. Only once is the wrong note struck, when old Miss Julia (a trained singer and music teacher whose voice is supposed to have been cracked by age, not shattered) sings so badly that the audience burst out laughing when I saw this at the cinema. Fortunately, the mood of hushed and gentle melancholy is re-established in plenty of time for the moment of revelation between the married couple Gabriel and Gretta Conroy in a hotel bedroom as snow begins to fall outside. It's a sad story, I suppose, but the kind that leaves you feeling better, not blue. Especially recommended as a date movie - for people in love who aren't frightened of confronting the sweetness and sadness of life. | 1 |
The Brave One is about a New York radio show host named Erica Bain (Jodie Foster). Her life is a dream living in the city she grew up in and loves. She has her great fiancé David (Naveen Andrews), whom she is planning to marry. But one night while Erica and David are out walking their dog, they are attacked and mugged by a group of degenerates, leaving David dead. Erica recovers but is heartbroken and traumatized later on, and can barely cope with real life anymore. She buys a gun off a guy on the streets for protection. But one day she's shopping in a store, and a man comes in and shoots the clerk dead. It is then that Erica shoots and kills this man, and she becomes a vigilante. Killing anyone who tries to threaten or harm her or any others. At the same time Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is tracking down this elusive unknown killer, and in the process becomes friends with Erica. Erica begins to regain her sanity as she kills these violent people, but is unsure of whether or not what she's doing is morally right. And as her and Mercer become closer, he doesn't even realize the unknown murderous assailant is right next to him.<br /><br />Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly. Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.<br /><br />The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fiancé is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.<br /><br />Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard provide a lot of strength for this movie. The Brave One contains a strong message, but that message is both immoral and wrong. This movie may look pretty, well acted, and intelligently strong. But it becomes pretty rotten by the end. I give The Brave One a 1.5 out of 4. The message is very out of line and morally incorrect, and really can't be saved by the good acting. | 0 |
Following his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) – which I’ve watched several years back – Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I’d previously watched the pretty good “Euro-Cult” effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I’ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check – one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production – featuring American and Italian actors and a British director – which was prevalent during the 1960s; it’s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong – especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.<br /><br />The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) – the others are a ‘pacifist’ black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he’s destitute…but, under the auspices of “Professor” Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars’ worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don’t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco – where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can’t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days – however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash! <br /><br />The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, ‘take’ the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica – but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he’s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn’t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane’s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened… | 0 |
If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.<br /><br />The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our "hero") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around
<br /><br />After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.<br /><br />Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing. | 0 |
This is a wonderful movie about the struggle of the Mormons and their final settlement in Salt Lake, Utah. The beginning and the ending are especially powerful, and the message is one we all have to be reminded of - God doesn't talk, but he communicates, if we would only listen. As I am writing this in the midst of the horrors going on in New Orleans and the surrounding area due to Katrina, I was especially moved by the Mormons having to leave everything behind and move on after Joseph Smith was assassinated. People came to this country to escape religious persecution, and yet they could not. The struggle of the Mormons to cross the country, the cost in lives, the hardship they suffered was truly awe-inspiring, demonstrating their tremendous strength. As far as the actual beliefs of Mormons, this is not heavily gone into, and polygamy is mentioned but is not a centerpiece of the film at all.<br /><br />The cast is top-notch, though others who have commented know more about the actual characters and can talk about how true the portrayals were. But as actors, Dean Jagger, Mary Astor, Brian Donlevy, John Carradine, Jane Darwell all do excellently with the script they were given.<br /><br />Though the film could have easily stood on its own (and certainly does today) Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell were added to the cast to get the crowds into the movie theaters to see a film about the Mormons. Power is magnificently handsome as a young Mormon, and Darnell, as Zina, is not a Mormon but stays on with the family after her father is killed. Power does not have much to do until the end of the film, when he has a big scene, and Darnell (still a teenager at the time of the filming) has even less, though they make a lovely couple. Their fate is left unclear regarding her conversion, and one does wonder about the polygamy in their case. You can't beat either one for eye candy, however. | 1 |
The Flock is unjustly maligned as a lesser "Se7en" ripoff. There's really no reason to compare the two, except maybe for the similar scenery in the final showdown.<br /><br />Now that that's out of the way I'll go into why The Flock is very interesting in some respects. Mostly it's a drama piece rather than a full blown thriller about a very vigilant social worker who monitors sexual offenders. At the very beginning you can clearly see his work has got the better of him. Evident in two scenes where first he's interviewing an offender and slaps him around and second when a woman tries to pick him up and all he can think of are his standard questions from his questionnaire.<br /><br />Gere is very good as Errol Babbage, the aforementioned social worker. His way of performing his job is not unlike that of a police officer, he carries a gun and is constantly checking newspapers and supplies law officials with information if some of his "flock" may be responsible for a sexual crime. He's also a person who's lost all happiness of living and his only relief seems to come from exacting his own vigilante justice on his flock. Twice you see him smile, once when he's apologizing for treating his partner rudely and the other after he's beaten up a member of his flock.<br /><br />As a suspense flick, The Flock isn't as successful. Somewhat confusing and with some irritating plot holes but it does have a number of striking set pieces.<br /><br />Overall The Flock is a solid drama about a man performing a dehumanizing job and in the end he has to work hard to keep from being swallowed by the abyss he's surrounded himself in. The world we live in is a pretty sick place and the further one can distance himself from the worst the happier that person is. The Flock gets that point across nicely. | 1 |
Family guy. When the show first aired, it was fresh, original, and actually quite funny. Now, I have stopped watching it. It has become one of the worst shows on television, combining unfunny jokes, repetitive, drawn out jokes, and the hope that each joke can become funny with the inclusion of the word "bitch." Seth Macfarlane clearly has issues with himself, and he is obviously pandering to the 13 year old boys audience.<br /><br />I just don't understand how something that started out so funny, so different from everything else, can devolve into this horrible mess of a "comedy" show. I seriously have heard better one liners from a pud comic.<br /><br />It truly is sad to see great shows fail, and watch drivel like this continue on. Either Seth Macfarlane has stopped trying, or he believes that this show is hilarious the way it is.<br /><br />Either way, God help us.<br /><br />I hate this show, and will dance an irish jig when its finally cancelled. | 0 |
There is a special heaven reserved for people who make the world laugh. Alongside Chaplin,Stan and Ollie,The Marx Bros and.....(fill in your own special favourites)space must be made for everybody connected with "Airport 80 - Concorde,the movie". Robert Wagner in particular exceeds all expectations giving the comedy performance of a lifetime.I would never have thought he had it in him. The only way he could have been funnier would have been to have worn a red nose and a revolving bow tie. British moviegoers will recognise the fat one from Cannon and Ball pretending to be a Russian athlete,a nice trick if he could have pulled it off but,tragically,he couldn't.I have a 14 year old labrador more athletic and almost as funny. George Kennedy - bless him - has a part that requires him talk and move at the same time,and my goodness he triumphs!Brow wrinkled with effort he utters timeless dialogue,each word lovingly polished into Coward-like brilliance. Only once in twenty years does Hollywood turn out a film like "Airport 80".All the years of toil and struggle,the sweat,the tears,the lessons with Lee Strasberg,living out of suitcases,born in a trunk etc etc,all come to fruition.A work of art is created that will last as long as there are movies and machines to show them on. I think I'm ready for my medication now. | 0 |
A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.<br /><br />The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!<br /><br />Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10 | 0 |
Picking up right after the Moscow-showdown of Supremacy, this is Bourne's greatest adventure and his final climax. Throughout the tight, 115-min-runtime the movie takes Bourne from Russia to Madrid, Paris, Marocco and ultimately New York. Damon is every inch of the hard-trained killer Robert Ludlum imagined, he is the most deadly spy in the movies right now, and it's the underpinned emotions to his character that makes him so believable, and it's exactly the fine way Damon manages to combine these two polar-opposites of himself that's so breathtaking. In this third, Bourne is on a mission to save his soul and while watching it, Ultimatum delivers such an high-octane performance that you'll find yourself sweating and gasping over its truly powerful branch of ideas and pull-offs; just look out for two great car-chases and a fight-scene as realistic as Bond vs. Shaw back in '63. Director Greengrass has surpassed himself with this compelling thriller and this is probably as exciting as cinema thrillers get; a true pay-off to Bourne fans and a new breed of spy-thriller standard. | 1 |
This was the first Ewan McGregor movie I ever saw outside of Star Wars. Since then I have become a very big Ewan McGregor fan but I still can't bring myself to forgive this movie's existence.<br /><br />My sister has always been a huge Jane Austen fan and because of that, I have been subjected to various of the classics, Emma being one of them. I've always considered them irritating, stupid and boring. However, after watching this terrible rendition, I was forced to admit that the original Emma was delightful and charming. Ewan McGregor scarcely serves a purpose in this film after they hacked and mutilated the part of Frank Churchill. Gweneth Paltrow is ridiculous in an already ridiculous character and the rest of the film is unremarkable and stupid.<br /><br />My recommendation to anybody who is remotely interested in English period drama... go see the originals. If you're a Ewan McGregor fan... believe me, by skipping this film, you haven't missed anything but five minutes collective of him in a silly hat and a bad haircut. | 0 |
I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.<br /><br />The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.<br /><br />The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.<br /><br />Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk. | 0 |
This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. "High Noon" was also shot in Jamestown, as was "Back to the Future III". | 0 |
Once in a while it is good to see a really bad film like this, just so you know how decent an actor Keanu Reeves is by comparison. The premise of this story is good: teenagers go out on a boat, meteor lands in water, aliens kill teenagers. What's not to love about that, if you're into scream thrillers? But I should have known something was up when I read it was only 75 minutes long. I thought, "I hate judging movies by how long they are. Who says a movie has to be 90 minutes?" But once I took the DVD home from BBuster, I was shocked at the awful production quality, acting, directing of this completely amateurish piece of garbage. The only reason I watched it to the end was because I don't have cable TV, and I already paid four bucks for it. However, there was one ray of light: the actor who played "Chris" is actually decent, and far outclasses this dreck. First of all, the special effects were cheap and unconvincing. Then the aliens--the costumes seemed interesting (rubber suits) but since most of the film takes place in the dark, you don't really get to see them! And hardly any of the actors were convincing enough to suspend disbelief. Finally, I must say that the DVD jacket was made with much higher production standards than the film itself, which felt like a rip-off, so beware of that when you rent other DVDs. Save your $4 and buy a pint of beer. | 0 |
After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay | 0 |
This film is close to be my favorite piece of celluloid. There is really not much I'd need or want to say here. Except maybe "See this film" and "Enjoy the excellent work by Daniel and Pascal", who carries you through this neat, funny and heartbreaking story about 'spending your eighth day' - your own day! <br /><br />Seeing this film made me think seriously about how I spend my eighth day = my life! It appears, that some of us are wasting precious time doing things we think we need to do. Either if it's pleasing a career or just consuming TV-shows and ballgames. What we tend to miss is the satisfaction of being something for another person - make a difference. About taking room and time to be spontaneous and live - NOW! (on the eighth day)... At least that was what I got from 'The Eighth Day'. | 1 |
Pierce Brosnan has sipped his last Martini and returns, in an outrageous self-parody, as the aging foul-mouthed boozy assassin Julian Noble, who has a particular fondness for teenage girls, bullfights and tacky clothes. During a job in Mexico City he meets Danny (Greg Kinnear), a straight-faced Denver suburban business-man, who's in town to make his deal of-a-life-time, in a hotel bar. Despite their completely different personalities and Julian's crude and insensible remarks, they become friends. <br /><br />Largely carried by the performances of Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, director Richard Shepard revealed that he didn't write the film with Pierce Brosnan in mind , but I can hardly imagine this without him. He proves to have a real talent for comedy and can be more than just James Bond or cold-war spies. The scene in which the two meet at a glossy hotel bar (stunning sets and beautifully photographed) really is a bravura piece of acting skills. The scene lasts almost fifteen minutes, and although it was probably carefully scripted, the two actors are largely improvising, but they succeed wonderfully! It almost feels like a new standard in screen acting. Think of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel in MEAN STEETS improvising and add one of the most subtle underpinnings of many genre clichés and the actors' own typecasting (Brosnan's James Bond in particular), and you got one of the most delightful pairings in recent Hollywood. <br /><br />Sadly, the story wears thin after a while. After an hour, the film just runs out of steam. Nevertheless, and I can't put my finger on it exactly, I did enjoy this very much. It just feels very fresh and original, with some imaginative use of sets and lighting, and some hints to Seijun Suzuki and Jean-Pierre Melville. The other characters aren't given much to do, but this film does offer something new, in that respect it almost effortlessly succeeds in blending all conventional genres into quite an entertaining spoof. Very amusing.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 7/10 | 1 |
Palwol ui Christmas is very Korean, if you have been to Korea or have Korean friends, you should know what i mean. Korean are very traditional people, they see love very quitely. a kind of feeling you don't find in today's world. i think that is why this film is so special. it is wrong to compare this film with "Love Letter" by Shunji Iwai, japaness are very good but could never make one like Palwol ui Christmas. if you have a chance please see this movie for yourself. | 1 |
There is no plot. There are no central characters. There are no moving cameras or close-ups. In fact, this film does not follow any of the conventional storytelling techniques used by mainstream film. However, Roy Andersson's Du Levande is a remarkable piece of cinematic storytelling. It is a touching look at the human psyche.<br /><br />Comprised of a series of vignettes, Roy Andersson gives us an intimate insight into what makes us all human. In perfectly framed static shots, added with the perfectly in tune, yet quirky, music, Roy introduces us to a host of characters as they undertake their daily existence. Some bordering on tragic, others hilarious, we are taken on a Nordic journey like no other.<br /><br />It is a journey into the little things that make us human. Instead of over-the-top storytelling or visual techniques, everything is stripped down to the bare minimum so that our sole focus is on the characters themselves. It focuses on the insignificant points of our lives that make us who we are; our dreams, our desperation. It's through this simple observation of others that we can accept who we are as individuals.<br /><br />The washed out colours and deathly-pale makeup of the characters only seems to emphasize their individual stories and remind us that unlike them, we are all alive. There is no happy ending or light at the end of the tunnel in this film, yet you walk out of the cinema with a sense of life. Much more accessible than his earlier film, Songs from the Second Floor, Du Levande, is a truly inspiring piece of cinema. | 1 |
Is there anything worse than a comedy film that lacks humor? The answer is Yes; one that fails to generate any interest throughout the picture. The premise is not too bad - a naive front man for an illegal business - but this is a potboiler with a poor script and screenplay and just does not work.<br /><br />Was this considered a good 'B' in 1942? Hard to imagine. The only positive aspect of the picture is the cast, which contains several well-known faces from the '30's and '40's, such as Warren Hymer, Vince Barnett and Robert Armstrong (I always dismiss Richard Cromwell as the weakling who got Gary Cooper killed in "Lives of a Bengal Lancer", so I wasn't counting him).<br /><br />Can't recommend this one and gave it a rating of 3 - if you have a choice, get a root canal. | 0 |
Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.<br /><br />PROS: <br /><br />-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes! <br /><br />-Beautiful score <br /><br />-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today <br /><br />-Fantastic and fast editing job<br /><br />CONS: <br /><br />-For mature audiences only <br /><br />-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger. | 1 |
Great just great! The West Coast got "Dirty" Harry Callahan, the East Coast got Sharky. Burt Reynolds plays Sharky in "Sharky's Machine" and I enjoyed every minute of it. Playing a maverick narcotics cop in Atlanta, GA is just what everyone wants. Instead of suspension, he's sent to vice squad. Like in the Dirty Harry movies or any other cop movies, the captain is always going to be the jerk. When I was a kid, I was curious what that movie meant "Sharky's Machine". Well I knew who played Sharky, I wonder what his machine was. It was his GROUP of fellow cops. After uncovering the murder, he goes all out to find the perp. When it turns out to be a big time mob boss, Sharky doesn't play around. When he gets the other prostitute into safety, Sharky fights back hard and good despite losing a finger to the thug. And I also like the part where the bad gets blown out of the building through a plate glass window. That was the BOMB! Randy Crawford's "Street Life" really put the movie in the right mood, and the movie itself is really a great hit to me, ALWAYS! Rating 4 out of 5 stars. | 1 |
Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. "Fires on the Plain" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of "classics" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of "masterpiece." What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative "classics" like "Fires on the Plain" focus so much on "inside the box" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered "classics" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in "Fires on the Plain" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.<br /><br />After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, "Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that." So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.<br /><br />Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout "Fires on the Plain" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like oh I don't know giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out "Japanese soldiers." Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.<br /><br />Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices get ready, cause here it comes that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.<br /><br />There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, "Hey, are you dead?" Like the guy is going to answer "Yes" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.<br /><br />The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like "A Tale of Two Sisters" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that "AToTS" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side. | 0 |
I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.<br /><br />The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.<br /><br />It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label. | 1 |
This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults. | 0 |
I saw this play on Showtime some years back in the comfort of my home and when the final note was struck, I wanted to jump off the sofa and give the production a standing ovation. As it was, I shed a tear that it was such a bunch of fantastic performances and songs. For my birthday, my kids bought me the VHS version as well as the Cd of the play with Len Cariou in the Sweeny Todd Role. <br /><br />I've shared the play with many...some finding the subject a bit sick, but none having anything but praise for the songs.<br /><br />I've always loved the interplay in songs with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn as well as Hearn and Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin.<br /><br />I must own the DVD. | 1 |
I saw this film prior to joining the British Army. I went through my basic training, at first difficult and then as I progressed much easier. My time was spent during the height of the troubles in NI and the cold war. There was times when I questioned myself on what I had gotten myself into, not for long, as the training would always take over and you would always react instinctively. The voice over used to display what the soldiers are thinking is spot on, though I would have added breathing and heart rate as this seems to pound in your ear drums in given situations. Some years later I was in Canada for a family get together. An Aunty of mine who lives in the USA and is a lecturer at the Columbus Uni Ohio had done a paper on the effects of the British Army in NI. She spent some time out there researching. Although an ex pat she was very anti-British. She made a bee line for me and condemned me for being a British soldier. My only answer was see the film 'A long day's dying'. It's the closest a civilian will get to realise why a soldier does what he does. The answer is right at the end. | 1 |
Shameless waste of my time as a viewer. This is one of the worst films I've seen in ages. Please do not rent it as you will regret doing so! Guaranteed! I wonder how Kathleen Turner ended up in this! She is a legitimate actress and people would perhaps be attracted to this film because of her. But it really is better to act as if this title was never made! It should not have come into existence! | 0 |
This is a VERY bad movie. However, I read that it was made by a high-school teacher so maybe I should give it at least a TINY bit of praise for it's ambitious (yet awful) special effects. Here is the plot: a monster emerges from a pile of trash and pollution in the town of Milpitas, California and embarks on a destructive rampage. I'm about to spoil the "big surprise" about what the monster looks like, so please read the rest of this at your own risk. You have been warned! The monster looks sort of like a giant, two-legged fly wearing a gas mask. In some scenes, the monster is an actor wearing a costume. In other scenes, the monster is created by stop-motion animation. The acting is terrible. The dialogue is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The plot is predictable. Stay away! | 0 |
I can only agree with many observers that Traffik is one of the most memorable dramas ever made for television. I saw Traffik when it was on TV, and I have just watched it again. I am particularly moved by the haunting original music of Tim Souster, and especially by the dolorous strains of Dmitri Shostakovich's Chamber Symphony in C minor ( the music over the credits and in parts of the film). The music intensifies the desperation of the characters as they pursue their sad fate. The music is powerfully emotional. This arrangement combines two of the movements from the symphony, but I recommend listening to the symphony per se. | 1 |
I am a fan of slasher movies, especially of Scream 1-3, but this one is just one killing after another. To my astonishment: Part II is far better and you get the whole story of part one summarized! So don't waste time on this one and move right on to part II, you won't regret it cause Part 2 actually has a PLOT and is quite self-ironical. First Part: 1 out of 10 Second Part: 4 out of 10 | 0 |
Let me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.<br /><br />I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.<br /><br />What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.<br /><br />That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid. | 0 |
Susie Q. is one of those rare, and sweet movies that give you a warm feeling. It's bittersweet, but wholesome, and it's characters are fun, and captivating. At first, I thought the movie would be the cliché cuddly movie that would bore me after five minutes, but was I wrong. It made me tear up at times, and it's plot was enticing, making me root for the good guys. I loved the movie, and still remember it today, 9 years later!! I recommend it highly to ANYONE, and the movie is family oriented, so you won't have to worry about unsuitable content. Truly, if Disney would show more movies that are up to par as Susie Q., it would be the most popular family oriented channel in the world. Now if only Disney would show it just ONE more time!^_^ Go Susie Q.!! | 1 |
The previews were so funny that I couldn't wait to see this movie. I just got home and I have to say I couldn't have been more embarrassed at this movie. Yes there were times where the jokes were funny, but the stereotypical roles were painful. Joan Plowright is a fine actress but the scene with the "negro spiritual" was just in poor taste. Needless to say the laughs were few and far between in the movie house for a largely white crowd (I was one of a very small handful of blacks). | 0 |
Like most other people, I saw this movie on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.<br /><br />The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The "clone farm" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The "cranky old couple" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.<br /><br />In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K. | 0 |
This showed up on a DVD a buddy of mine bought for me. They had it listed as "The Savage Guns" which was an entirely different movie. Obviously the folks who packaged the DVD never bothered to look at what they were burning on the disk.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is about as bad as they come. The sound track is a combination TV Batman/Early James Bond/Spaghetti western. Lots of galloping around to this music. It appears that the guy has to gallop between scenes to burn up some time and give the sound track folks something to do.<br /><br />English is dubbed over the Italian and it really shows. I wish it had been just a little bit worse and then it would have had some of the campy feel of the Ed Wood films. AS it is, it is just plain awful. | 0 |
This film was hilarious. It provided a somewhat comical view of the British club scene, which, if you really look at it, is a funny thing. The characters in this flick were so realistic to those of us who watched here at my place that it was like watching a movie about ourselves.<br /><br />There were a few pivotal scenes which really made this movie work: the getting ready scenes; the "Get me a real doctor" scene; the white background scene showing each character in a total state of being wrecked, ending with the infamous line "what was i saying?" and the comedown-sunup scenes. I have lived these moments myself and found myself laughing hysterically at my own ridiculous behaviour.<br /><br />I can't give this movie a 10 because it doesn't measure up to Groove, which I thought was out of this world, but it certainly has its moments. The mise-en-scene and the camera work is superb, the special effects are well worth mentioning, and the acting is fantastic.<br /><br />After waiting a long time to see this film, I am glad to say that I was not disappointed. I hope to see more from the writer/director in the future. | 1 |
Just watched this early Bugs Bunny (first time he's named here) and Elmer Fudd cartoon on the ThadBlog as linked from YouTube. This was Chuck Jones' first time directing the "wascally wabbit" and as a result, Bugs has a different voice provided by Mel Blanc than the Brooklyn/Bronx one we're more familiar with. In fact, according to Thad, he's channeling Jimmy Stewart (his "shy boy" type personality of that time). Anyway, after Elmer buys his pet, Bugs goes all obnoxious on him by turning the radio real loud, pretending to die after his master repeatedly throws him out of his shower, and saying "Turn off those lights!" whenever Elmer catches him in his bed. Even with the different voice, Bugs is definitely his mischievous self and I laughed myself blue the whole time! According to Thad, there was an additional scene at the end of Elmer just giving the house to Bugs after the hell he went through but that was probably considered too sad since he suffers a mental breakdown at that point so it's just as well that cut scene is lost. Anyway, I highly recommend Elmer's Pet Rabbit. | 1 |
Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!" | 0 |
After 'Aakrosh' , this was the second film for Govind Nihalani as a director.Till this movie was made there was no audience for documentaries in India.This movie proved a point that a documentary can fulfil the requirements of a commercial film without diluting its essence. It was one of the successful movies in the year in which it was released. This movie contested against the big banners of the bollywood like'COOLIE', 'BETAAB','HERO' in 1983.<br /><br />SmithaPatel, in this movie acted more like a conscience of the hero whenever he drifted away or lost his composure she was there to remind him. She was not like an usual heroine to do the usual stuff of running around the trees and shrubs.At one time,she even gave up her love when the hero's ruthlessness touched the roof top.<br /><br />There was another character in this movie, which was played by Om Puri contemporary, Naseeruddin Shah.He played as an inspector-turned-alcoholic character.The role conveyed the message of the end result of a honest cop who rubbed the wrong side of the system which also gave the viewers a chance to forecast the hero's ending.<br /><br />In his debut film,Sadashiv Amrapurkar captivated the audience with his cameo role which ultimately won him the best supporting actor by the filmfare.The cop in the movie was not a complete straight forward personality he was able to adjust to the system to an extent. The anger which left half handedly continued in Govind Nihalani's other film "Drohkaal". Even after two decades, this movie is remembered just because of the director and the entire crew. Each one played their part par excellence. | 1 |
Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind. | 0 |
When one thinks of 1950s science fiction films one thinks of the sort of schlocky black and white B films that were parodied on the old Mystery Science Theater 3000 television show. Yet, while there were far more films like Plan 9 From Outer Space and Robot Monster than good films, the 1950s did have some very good, if not great, science fiction films like The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, War Of The Worlds, and The Thing From Another World. Yet, the best of the bunch, for its literacy and production values, was undoubtedly MGM's first big foray into A level science fiction, Forbidden Planet, released in 1956. It was a 98 minute color film, directed by Fred M. Wilcox, that featured then state of the art special effects, and was endowed with a very good screenplay by Cyril Hume, from a screen treatment called Fatal Planet, by Irving Block and Allen Adler, who adapted aspects of William Shakespeare's The Tempest into it.<br /><br />The film drew raves when it was released, for its Oscar nominated special effects, its all electronic music score, by Louis and Bebe Barron (although credited as Electronic Tonalities, to avoid music guild fees), vivid matte paintings- inspired by Chesley Bonestell, and the famed Monster Of The Id (MOTI), which was animated by an animator, Joshua Meador, on loan from the Walt Disney studio. Even more famous was the appearance of Robby The Robot, in his first role in either film or television. Later he would appear in the film The Invisible Boy- included in this DVD as a bonus, as well as several appearances in the 1960s sci fi TV shows The Twilight Zone, Night Gallery, and Lost In Space- with whose own robot he is often confused, and a cameo appearance in the 1984 film Gremlins.<br /><br />The tale is simple, but elegantly constructed, and filled with humorous asides that leaven the forced 'love story' aspect in the film. In the 23rd Century, the United Planets Cruiser C-57D- a flying saucer, led by Commander J.J. Adams (Leslie Nielsen- yes he was once a leading man type before his Police Squad days), is en route to the planet Altair IV, to investigate what happened to the crew of the Bellerophon, sent to the planet twenty years earlier. After a year's journey, there they encounter the lone survivor of the party, Doctor Edward Morbius (Walter Pidgeon), the Prospero stand-in- a philologist, his gorgeous blond daughter Altaira (Anne Francis)- the Miranda character in a pre 1960s miniskirt, and Robby the Robot, the domestic servant who is the Calibanian counterpart. Morbius warns the crew of a mysterious force that killed the Bellerophon party in their first year, yet he was immune to it
. All in all, it's a technically good film- especially with some rear projections and matte paintings, and the absurdity of the adult reactions to Timmy's and Robby's exploits borders an Dalian surreal absurdity. Yet, it's manifest that the filmmakers had no sense of the sublime absurdity the film conjures, for it's played straight, thus making it even funnier. As for the main feature? Forbidden Planet deserves all its kudos. It's not a perfect film, but it's a great way to spend a couple of hours, and far better than Star Wars, which although made twenty years later seems much more outdated, and juvenile. Only such films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Alien and Aliens, and the first two Terminator films, have really equaled or surpassed this classic in depth and effects.<br /><br />It's worth knowing that, despite Forbidden Planet's 'happy ending', there is the possibility that the MOTI is still dormant within Alta, as well. After all, she is her father's daughter, and had an even more vivid nightmare than her father when the MOTI attacked the ship a second time. Also, the film wisely only 'shows' the MOTI once, and never shows the Krel, for the imagination can always conjure greater scares than the best special effects. The film also makes good use of narrative ellipses to condense the tale, something that far more realistic art films often fail to do. Forbidden Planet is one of those rare films that both defines yet transcends its era- unlike other sci fi films which were rather obvious Cold War allegories. Watch it, and you will agree, as well as sleep a little less easy. But, even if you don't, there's still the scene of Anne Francis skinnydipping. That alone is timeless. | 1 |
After seeing Arthur on TV numerous times I laughed so hard Dudley Moore's role as Arthur a happy go luck drunken millionaire was hysterical but John Gielgud as his servant/ father figure Hobson was equally charming. I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and watched it, despite the passage of nearly 27 years it's still as enjoyable as it ever was Liza Minnelli's role as the love interest was fascinating the chemistry between the two was magic.<br /><br />Arthur Bach, (Moore) is a spoiled drunken millionaire who has a bar bill that reads like the national debt he has no desire to grow up and enjoys acting like a child. His activities are supervised by his dry English butler Hobson (Gielgud) it appears that nobody really cares about Arthur except for him, Arthur's father (Barbour) offers an ultimatum if he doesn't marry the dreadful blonde socialite Susan Johnson (Eikenberry) in four weeks he'll cut off his son's inheritance of 750 million dollars.<br /><br />However Arthur meets and falls in love with Linda Marolla (Minnelli)a young working class waitress and tie thief,now he faces a difficult decision marry for love or money. When Hobson dies Arthur finally grows up and breaks it off with Susan before the wedding, leaving him to keep both the money and his true love.<br /><br />Arthur is a truly enchanting romantic comedy for for everyone | 1 |
It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.<br /><br />This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.<br /><br />0/10 | 0 |
I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth. | 1 |
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing 2/10. | 0 |
This is a great movie for any fan of Hong Kong action movies. Asides from it's little plot, the weak drama and bits of comedy antics, the movie is action packed with gun-fighting and martial arts action. Kept me entertained from beginning until the end. I thought Shannon Lee was awesome in the movie.<br /><br />Having an action director like Corey Yuen is what keeps Hong Kong action going strong. This modern action film is highly recommended!! | 1 |
This is a serious film about black revolutionaries and not really an action film. Billy Dee plays a young man fed up with racism who decides to take things into his own hands. It's fairly gritty and realistic without exploiting the characters but still it's not that interesting either and Billy Dee's character, though maltreated by white authority figures, doesn't really come off as sympathetic. It's also hurt by it's extremely low budget. Still, it's interesting to look at as it's a good depicttion of 1970s social issues. | 0 |
There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.<br /><br />Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.<br /><br />aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.<br /><br />this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.<br /><br />anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think. | 0 |
I was at a friends house for Thanksgiving and watched a DVD of the movie, Eddie Monroe. I've been a fan of Indie Films for almost 20 years, (I loved the Brothers McMullen), and was impressed how good this movie is. My friend, who works at Magno Sound, told us that this movie was shot on Super 16. The photography was so good, it looked as though it was a 35mm shoot. Furthermore, the music combined with Fred Carpenter's direction, was art. The storyline was original and led up to an ending that surprised all of us watching...very cool. The acting by the entire cast was good, especially the actor who played, Uncle Benny. He was amazing. This film was a nice holiday treat, and I was delighted to be one of the first to view a movie that many will be seeing in the future. | 1 |
I bought this movie because this was Shah rukh khans Debut.And i also liked to see how would he do.I must say he is excellent in his role.Divya Bharathi is superb in this movie.Rishi does a wonderful job.Susham Seth supported well.Alok nath was good in his role.Amrish and Mohnish did their parts well too.Dalip also was good in his small role.Actors shine in a Mediocre movie.The direction is average.The editing is poor.The story is boring.It tells us about Ravi a famous pop singer.He has a lot of female fans.One of them is Kaajal.Ravi and Kaajal fall in love and get married.Ravi gets killed by his cousins.Kaajal becoems a widow..To escape from Ravis cousins.They go to Bombay.She comes across Raja.She falls in love with him and gets married.Ravi returns.The story is predictable.The climax is predictable.The first half bores.It also drags a lot.But it is saved by the actors and music.The second half entertains.The music is catchy with some nice songs.The cinematography looks outdated in the first half but it looks unimaginative.The song picturisations are dull except for "Sochenge Tumhe Pyar" and one rain song.The costumes are outdated.Any way watch this just for the actors and music Rating-4/10 | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.