text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
This is a weak throw-together of just about everything: refugees, Croatia-Slovenia relations, globalization, sexual orientation.. A very big clumsy metaphor about Slovenia being at the cross roads between its past, which is symbolized by everything "virgin" becoming queen of the household, and its future, which is symbolized by listening to music in clubs and being a lesbian and never having kids.<br /><br />It plays on a rather recent Slovenian legend involving a virgin and a "forest king" assuming the shape of a goat (Zlatorog Beer's imagery is also based on that legend), but unfortunately, the treatment is very incoherent. Weiss seems to think the end justifies the means: she can use all kinds of "dream-like" sequences, and then pick and choose which ones true, and which ones are imaginary. How can the ride in the jeep with the "forest king" be real for all three girls, but the scene outside the tent be real only in Simona's imaginary ? The ending just drags on and on (I can't believe the movie's runtime is only 98 minutes, have I been watching a director's cut without knowing it?), with the three girls having to look at the camera for about 10 seconds while looking afraid and happy at the same time (so obvious).<br /><br />I never thought I could spot bad acting in a movie whose language I don't understand, but it didn't take long to see that "Simona" is over-acting most of the time, as if she was playing in a silent movie.<br /><br />It wasn't so bad as I kept thinking the director was just starting and wanted to capture what she thought her generation was all about on film by doing a half-experimental movie, until I realized that the director was actually 37 years old when making the movie and that her work is probably "serious". | 0 |
Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis. | 1 |
Straight from the brilliant mind of animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz, "Fétiche", or "The Mascot" as it is known nowadays, stands as a masterpiece of stop-motion animation that sadly, has been almost forgotten by now. Nevertheless, the work of this man deserves to be seen, and in fact, must be seen to be believed because the outstanding way the animation flows is simply unbelievable.<br /><br />Decades before "Toy Story", Starewicz conceived the idea of moving toys, in "Fétiche", he tells the story of a small stuffed dog that gets makes friends with the sick daughter of his maker. One day, his maker takes him away to sell him, and the adventure begins as he tries to find his way back home. In his Odyssey, he'll travel from Paris to Hell, and will find the other toys that were supposed to be sold with him.<br /><br />It is a surreal experience to watch this movie, as Starewicz makes every imaginable creature come alive with grace and beauty. The other toys include a beautiful ballerina, who loves a thief, but she also is secretly loved by a clown, forming a love triangle; an old woman, a stuffed cat and a stuffed ape complete the group. every toy is so detailed and very expressive that without words one can understand their motives.<br /><br />Truly, the surreal atmosphere the whole animation has it is remarkable. It is hard to believe that a work of this magnitude was done in 1934 since it looks even better than most of the current day animation. The influence it has in modern day animator such as Tim Burton and Henry Selick is very significant.<br /><br />This short is a masterpiece of animation and the outstanding work of one genius who done everything by himself and that has influenced animators for decades. Starewicz's work is an immortal piece of art that should be seen by everyone. This work is not only for kids, adults as well will enjoy it and probably catch most of the subtext hidden in the movie.<br /><br />It is possible to find it in the "Vampyr" DVD as a bonus feature. Anyone with the slightest interest in animation should give it a look. | 1 |
A young and seemingly promising college graduate (played by Blair Underwood) is sent to jail for the murder of an innocent young girl and is put on death row. Sean Connery plays the "happy go lucky" attorney whom the young man's grandmother tracks down out of retirement and pleads with to take on the case in the hopes of freeing her grandson. Laurence Fishburne plays a police officer who was well involved in the case and is hell bent on debunking an theory that Connery might dig up to try and free the boy whom he and the entire police department swear is guilty of the crime. Ed Harris, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee, and the Late Lynne Thigpen co-star in this very intense dramatic thriller. | 1 |
Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.<br /><br />Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.<br /><br />What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.<br /><br />I know I didn't.<br /><br />Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film. | 0 |
I was amazed at the improvements made in an animated film. If you sit close to the screen, you will see the detail in the grass and surface structures. The detail, colors, and shading are at least an order of magnitude better than Toy Story. How they were able to pull off the shading, I will never know. I do hope that PIXAR will provide a documentary on how the film was produced so I can find out how all this was accomplished. Based on this film, I think animated films of the future will be judged on the basis of this film. | 1 |
Save some very early Norris, "Breaker, Breaker" has nothing to offer which can't be found ten fold better on any broadcast channel. A pathetic attempt at film making, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. In spite of that, I did watch it, thumbing the fast forward button, because the acting was so awful it was comical. Of course, the film is supposed to be an action/drama but turned out as a treatise on how NOT to make a movie. Everything which could be wrong with film is on screen in this "dog". If you happen across it, give it a peek. It's so bad, it's funny. | 0 |
After waking up at 3:30 in the morning and not being able to go to sleep, I decided that I may as well be entertained while I suffered from sleep deprivation. This movie was on HBO and I decided to watch it. What a mistake!<br /><br />Here is the plot (potential spoilers, if you even care) : a neurotic man with an addiction to candy (Josh Kornbluth) works as a temp for some ridiculous company. Suddenly, he is offered the chance to "go perm," which seems to be the favorite catch-phrase of this movie. But with a secure job and a secure income within his grasp, Josh decides for whatever stupid reason that he doesn't want to do it. He hopelessly bungles several minor tasks and his laziness and lack of ambition fill me with contempt. His inability to send several "very important" letters within a given amount of time is supposed to be hilarious, but is merely stupid. Josh meets and deceives a lawyer woman and they wind up in bed together (obviously a fantasy of Josh's in real life, as such a thing would never happen). A bunch of other stuff happens, but it's too trite and inane to go into now.<br /><br />Despite the fact that this movie is billed as a comedy, I only laughed twice during it; the first time was the opening shot of Josh Kornbluth (my initial reaction was one of stifling fear) and the second was when he was in bed with the attractive woman (yeah, right). Josh Kornbluth is perhaps the most terrifying-looking person I have ever seen in my life. He is an unattractive, overweight, balding Jewish man who I am supposed to believe has sex with beautiful women. I do not at all sympathize with Josh's character. He is lazy and unmotivated and I just don't appreciate the failed attempts at humor. Skip it, even if your life depends upon it. | 0 |
Pretty visuals and a lot of fights make not a good movie. And that is precisely what happened here.<br /><br />First off, let me admit, I am yet to play FFVII (I intend to order it soon). However, I did do research to familiarise myself with the characters and the story. However, not everyone has the luxury of time to research things like this, and Advent Children demands that knowledge of FFVII is required.<br /><br />In spite of incredible visuals, I can't say there is too much thats new. We've seen it in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and apart from some better movement, I can't say they've done lots of super-daring stuff with this.<br /><br />The fight scenes - well, they are a bit of fun. Still, how could we ever doubt the result of any of them. This one was boringly classic - there were three fights with the bad guys, following the standard procedure (the hero, Cloud, gets smashed, then he almost gets there and gets smashed, and then finally wins). The reason I say it was boringly classic was that it is used a great deal, but in this case is poorly executed. I'll touch on that later.<br /><br />The English dub seemed fine to me, though I didn't watch it in Japanese, so I shan't judge the Japanese dub, but only the English one. I'll say this - I've heard plenty of better ones, even in my limited repertoire.<br /><br />And now, the plot. Ummm... what plot? Let me be frank, this movie is nought but a fan service, a chance to see the FFVII characters on the big screen with lovely eye candy. As I said earlier, the fights seem to just happen for no reason. The opening fight is never explained, Kadaj seems to have neither ambition to destroy the world himself nor any real motivation to do anything nasty. Cloud sits around moping for the entire film, and pretty much everyone else gets an obligatory cameo.<br /><br />Really, FFVII was an ensemble piece. Advent Children is anything but. If they'd managed to give everyone some significant story role (Star Trek: First Contact proved it was possible, I might add), then this could have been a lot better. Naturally, that would have changed the plot too, which, lets be honest, is almost set to be better than the one we got.<br /><br />Characters were also generally either unused or virtually forgotten. The members of Avalanche (thats the group Cloud worked with in FFVII, for those who don't know) get 2 scenes (3 in the case of Vincent Valentine, and some get even less). Hell, the bad guys get more lines than these guys, and that is pretty bad.<br /><br />The music... well, I don't care if Nobuo Uematsu is God Himself, he botched this film big time. Advent One Winged Angel was the only decent piece. Otherwise, he couldn't decide whether to be epic (and orchestral) or fun (with electric guitar). When he switched from one to the other, you felt it as though he'd taken a sledgehammer to your head.<br /><br />And that last point on whether this movie was epic or fun... it tried to be both, and failed miserably. Honestly, you can't please everyone and do everything. The movie also tried to be deep (you can go epic and deep, or fun and deep, but all three is too much), but failed here too. The last scene, which is reminiscent of a baptismal ceremony, was thrown in there for what looks like the sake of it. You don't need to be a Christian to just shake your head and cry there. That scene just didn't belong in the film (and nor did Aerith's frequent appearances - she's dead Jim!).<br /><br />Given just how fantastic I've heard Final Fantasy VII to be, this movie is nothing short of a gigantic disappointment. Because of the beautiful visuals, I give it a 2 out of 10. | 0 |
This is probably the best cinematic depiction of life in a Manhattan ad agency: the pressure to perform; client and agency demands; the parties; the creativity; the money; the cool surface with powerful corporate undercurrents. <br /><br />Toss in parenthood for Dustin Hoffman. <br /><br />The movie is textured and deep. It follows his internal relationship as he tries to understand and live with what's going on; his relationship with Meryl Streep (and her friend, who becomes his friend), and his the relationship with his son. <br /><br />While Meryl Streep was great, did she set the record for least screen time to win an Oscar? She sure can deliver when she is on, though. | 1 |
When I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole "i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind"-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again. | 0 |
This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!! | 0 |
And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself. <br /><br />Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles. <br /><br />Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor. <br /><br />The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk. | 0 |
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there. | 0 |
If you've got a box of tissues, a comfy couch, a large bowl of popcorn and no social commitment on a Friday night, this is definitely your movie! Its romantic, its hot and its challenging. For most of us gay people, religion is just one of those things that we did when we were kids and probably just starred at the alter boy and how cute he was! But in Latter Days, you see the struggles of being gay when your entire world revolves around belief's which totally contradict being gay. The two main cast members were totally hot, but at the same time managed to capture your heart and even make me 'almost' cry (I have never cried in a movie!), which I thought was quite impressive for a B grade movie. I highly recommend this flick, you will laugh, you will cry (unless your me) and you will definitely drool! I love it so much I even purchased the DVD for my collection. Its truly the most beautiful movie ever | 1 |
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid! | 0 |
I love this movie. <br /><br />Yes, the main character lies, but that's why it's called "big fat liar". Even though this kid runs away to Hollywood, it doesn't give kids the idea that they can. Besides, he doesn't just do it for fun or to get away from anything, he does it to regain trust. <br /><br />I don't think it was just one big ad for Universal Studios, because I liked how it gave an inside view of what it's like for kids who don't know how cool movie-making is. <br /><br />It has good music and fun characters. This family/comedy is totally fun for kids and parents alike. It has humour, excitement, and real life difficulties like lying.<br /><br />In the end, "Big Fat Liar" sends out a moral: don't expect lying to be easy. | 1 |
...the opportunity it gave me to look at Ireland's past was invaluable.<br /><br />I had the benefit of seeing this with my Mother who hailed from Cork, and in watching, we talked and I learned a lot from her about how things were back then.<br /><br />Stuff like how Deasy and Co. was a Cork soft drinks company; how rain truly could destroy a harvest; how farmers used to have to collect the crop; how in dance halls the women and men did really have to stand along opposite walls before the men walked forward and asked the woman to dance; about the bellows that kept the fire going; how priests really did call out the list of church donators and their donations and a bit about the currency back then (which my Dad helped by showing me a case displaying the pence, shillings and crowns that were used back then (which were legal tender in England also)).<br /><br />I didn't pay that much attention to how good the movie was, but I was very grateful in having this opportunity to look back on a period of time that for some is Irish History, but for others including some of our parents and grandparents, is just their childhood. | 1 |
This was longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again) | 0 |
First of all, I personally adore Demons and Demons 2, I saw them although it was hard to find good horrors without good official movie distributing here in Russia when I was a kid, and that is an unchangeable part of my boyhood. Then I heard nothing about Mr Bava. Then I saw his Ghost Son. Well, it is certainly not a good coming back! Why was the leading character, whom we never really knew to at least like him, in accident in the middle of an empty road? Why do African servants say so dumb and stupid things about human soul? Why is the plot so primitive? Haven't we seen enough ghosts for 100 years of movie production? It is clear that Lamberto Bava has nothing to show us so far. It is a shame. | 0 |
One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful. | 0 |
I found the Movie very interesting. I really enjoyed the film the actors were great. It was entertainment. Benny the uncle was wonderful He was real at his character. The ending took a wonderful twist. I would recommend you seeing it. Eddie Mores girlfriend reminded me a little of sandra bullock she was sharp as a nail. I also like the little girls acting in the movie she was very convincing. Benny reminded me of a friend of mine who really lives his life growing up in Brooklyn. I loved the scene where he tasted the sauce in the pot because thats how most people cook lol. I actually watched the movie 2 times and learned more the second time. | 1 |
I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking "Buster, how could you?!". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.<br /><br />The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!! | 0 |
When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.<br /><br />I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.<br /><br />And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? <br /><br />I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!<br /><br />When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10. | 0 |
I picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on "war stories". Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.<br /><br />My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them. <br /><br />MDS Fort Valley Virginia. | 0 |
I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.<br /><br />Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.<br /><br />Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.<br /><br />Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.<br /><br />Finally, there's the "ghost" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.<br /><br />All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID. | 0 |
Don't you just hate it when you order steak but the restaurant gives you chicken?<br /><br />Such is how I felt watching this so-called "Battlestar Galactica". Arguments can be made over its quality but the fact remains, it's NOT what the fans ordered.<br /><br />Imagine if you were sitting down at that proverbial restaurant I mentioned. You have waited years for them to bring back their famous New York Strip steak which you loved. When your meal arrives, you find they've applied the name "New York Strip" to a chicken dish. You complain but the waiter merely states "but ze cheeken, ees really GOOD zir"! Do you really care if the chicken is good? You wanted New York Strip - a STEAK! The waiter then explains, "you zee zir, ze chef wanted to to do, as you zay, zomezing NEW. We felt ze cheeken would be more popular zo we gave it the name of our previous delicious deesh". You ask if you will ever find the original New York Strip on the menu in the future but are informed that because the restaurant HAS a dish called "New York Strip" now on the menu, you'll never see the original New York Strip - ever again.<br /><br />Such is the case with creating something NEW and slapping the "Battlestar Galactica" namesake on it.<br /><br />* This mini series is an affront to all fans of the original show! *<br /><br />It's a shame the production team put in charge of this new version obviously held contempt for the original. The team put in charge of resurrecting BG should have LOVED the original series - seeking to improve what the fans loved, not try to shamelessly sell this new series by exploiting the Battlestar Galactica name.<br /><br />If SciFi Channel wanted to give us a NEW show, then DO so! Give it a new name! Don't use the name we fondly remember in an attempt to lure in viewers. That effectively robs us of the chance to see any semblance of the original in the future.<br /><br />We have been waiting for 25 years to see what we knew as BG because we LIKED something about the original! We didn't simply want the NAME and remnants of the basic concept. There are things we LOVED about the original series!<br /><br />Sadly, probably the BEST elements of the original were those which were omitted. Sure, the original BG was imperfect and could have used some updating. This mini series, however, was not an improvement in any regards but the special effects (which were good but not anything unusual by today's standards).<br /><br />Many viewers will debate back and forth about the quality of this NEW show but we will not forgive SciFi and Ron Moore for destroying our dream.<br /><br />That being said... I shall offer some comments about the merits of this new mini by itself (not in comparison to the original):<br /><br />The battle sequences were the best part. Effort was obviously put into making the effects more "real" in appearance and less "wow - look at that effect". I would not say these sequences were exceptional by today's standards yet they were in keeping with made-for-cable original movies. What was the deal with this "pseudo-live-cam"? Some views tried to fake the effect of a "real" camera with lagging tracking and jerky zooms. However, it was over-used considering there was no apparent SOURCE of these cameras. The infinitely more intelligent series, Babylon 5, is the only instance I've seen such "live cams" used effectively, when we were supposedly witnessing action from Security Cams.<br /><br />The script, you ask? The script felt like it was written by a teenager, FOR other teenagers. The characters felt cardboard and stereotypical. Indeed, the whole story felt pieced together from other well-known stereotypes. The only good features of the entire story were those few elements which were preserved from the original series. It was obviously "dumbed down" for digestion of your average TV audience.<br /><br />The human interaction was pitiful. Rather than drama based on subtle looks, expressions and fine timing, every moment of human tension was exaggerated to the point of being so obvious they lost all ability to move any refined viewer. Such was obvious in any interaction between Adama and son. The director must have been trying to make sure the most dense and unfeeling viewer wouldn't miss it even if not paying attention. Sorry, but real humans don't behave like the continually.<br /><br />I wouldn't have considered this a BAD show had it stood on its own. Nothing great; it will never be revered by true SciFi fans or artisans, but it would be watchable by the masses. I personally could have lived without it, though. I only watched it to see how it really DID capture the spirit of the original. <br /><br />How this mini series will always be remembered is as a symbol of how quality in storytelling has been cast aside to appeal to greater numbers. How even SciFi Channel has "dumbed down" its productions to cater to the masses as opposed to its true niche market, the Science Fiction fans. It will be the time we asked for steak and they insisted on giving us chicken, despite our complaints.<br /><br />I leave you with only one thought - <br /><br />NO "MOORE".<br /><br /> | 0 |
This one is a bit more stylish than the average erotic thriller and Peta Wilson is a very sexy presence but it plays like they lost a few pages of script somewhere. Subplots come in and out of nowhere, the connections between some of the characters are murky and the killer's motivation is unclear to say the least. Maybe they could get away with this in a porn version, but here some more clarification is needed. | 0 |
"The Saint Takes Over" stars George Sanders as Simon Templar, aka "The Saint" in this 1940 entry into the series. It also stars Wendy Barrie, Jonathan Hale and Paul Guilfoyle. On board ship en route to the U.S., The Saint meets and tries to make time with a woman (Wendy Barrie) who gives him the brushoff. Simon is coming to New York to help Inspector Fernack, now thoroughly discredited due to a gangster frame-up; $50,000 was found in his home. The gangster, Rocky (Roland Drew), of course, was found not guilty at trial, and he and his fellow mobsters pay the bill for the frame and attorney representation - $90,000 in total. Today you need that to defend yourself against a parking ticket. This was a murder rap.<br /><br />Rocky sends his bodyguard, Pearly Gates (Guilfoyle) to the lawyer's house to steal the $90,000 from the safe. The attorney catches him red-handed and sends him back to his boss with a message. Seconds later, he's dead. Rocky meets a similar fate. And on and on - who's killing this group of gangsters? The Saint has to get one of them to talk so that Fernack can be cleared - can he get to anyone before they're murdered? The woman he met on board ship reappears and figures prominently in the case.<br /><br />Few actors have a way with a line like George Sanders, and his dry wit, good looks, smooth voice and depth as an actor suit Simon Templar perfectly. Paul Guilfoyle provides some humor as the nervous, milk drinking Pearly Gates, and Jonathan Hale is great as the sometimes exasperated but worried sick Inspector Fernack. Wendy Barrie, who appeared in many Saint episodes, is very good as the woman who captures Simon's heart.<br /><br />Very enjoyable. | 1 |
I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.<br /><br />Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.<br /><br />Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10. | 0 |
The other reviewers are way WAAAAY off as to why the Farscape show has been (temporarily) put to rest. It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the shows 'slacking'. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true. They kept getting better and better! :) I have seen every episode and when you simply watch them in order you really become in awe how much cooler it gets as they move on and on, and the wormhole & Aeryn subplots are really very interesting and gave it MORE vibe, not less. Before it was sort of chaotic, slow, and rather aimless. They spent like the first two seasons running from this foe type, but in the second two they were actually trying to DO something :) Also I have never seen such a great fun blend of sexy gals and attitudes in Sci-Fi. The blue girl - Zahn - was cool, but not 'sexy'. They literally got to the point where the gals were running around in leather corsets and high heels blasting aliens - now tell me, what could be cooler than that??? :))<br /><br />The real reason Farscape went off for a bit is because it was costing too much - and that is a GOOD thing for the fans, because the show, watched end to end, is really like a 60 hour long epic movie, with all the cinematics of the blockbuster stuff (ok ok they do use similar sets a lot, but the CG is great and the gals are sexxxy).<br /><br />Blah blah - the real reason is because TV shows are about PROFIT. It is a BUSINESS, and the Sci Fi channel or whoever was not getting as big a return on this expensive Farscape show as they could with junk shows like 'Stargate'. Lexx was actually cool until they got rid of the hot German girl and replaced her with this bizarre fat-lipped oddity.<br /><br />Anyway yes, remember this: Farscape kept getting better and better, until it was really like a little real movie each week. Then the networks decided 'hey people will watch any old piece of drek we shove on the air as long as it is the only sci fi thing on at that hour, so why are we spending all this money on Farscape, let's shove cheesy low-budget 'Stargate' down people's throats and call it a 'hit series' because it's like all we play every darn night LOL :))<br /><br />That's the way it goes. Also I gotta tell ya that Claudia Black is a really cool actress. After she got her facelift (got the baggy eyes tightened) she was looking really cool - one of those dynamic types like Judy Davis, and sometimes hot looking, sometimes ugly - like a roller coaster ride. I'd par Claudia Black with Lucy Lawless in style and substance - both VERY fun to watch - not just Chrichton :) And yeah you may say the pregnancy thing was cheesy, but how many sci fi shows have a BELIEVABLE and DEEP romantic subplot that actually goes somewhere and progresses?? It was legitimately cool as a romance story - the actors on the show are great. It really is a shame the show is in limbo for now, but I hope it comes back in more episodes soon and movies as well, because I will deffinately buy them! :-D | 1 |
I'm allowed to write 1000 words about this film, but one word could suffice: bizarre. Hubby and I didn't laugh so much as gawk at this truly dreadful movie. We kept looking at each other with our best "What the...?" expressions. There is no way to adequately describe this movie. Killer tomatoes were funny, but this is just sick. What kind of mind produces images like these and then puts them on film for others to see? What kind of mind includes innocent children in this weird, weird movie and then packages it as if it is appropriate for children? Parents, whatever you do, if your child still believes in Santa, don't let him/her see this movie. Preteens can watch it -- probably with "What the...?" expressions on their faces. If you decide to inflict this movie on others, you might want to spike their eggnog.<br /><br />Quite possibly the worst film ever made. | 0 |
This movie is one big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the "local" characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the "caucasian" characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1/2* out of ****) Watch "Aloha Summer" (**) and/or "Beyond Paradise"(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant. | 0 |
yes barney is nonsense now but when i was a kid it made perfect sense.<br /><br />i haven't gotten any smarter but i enjoyed it. as a child i was mocked because no one could say my name so i changed it. ever since i was 4 I've gone by the name Tina from barney because i could relate to her being from a different culture. i'm 17 now and barney is a huge part of my life . ...my name came from it.... i cant dis the show i grew up with no matter how stupid it seems now.<br /><br />i don't care if i get blocked i have nothing more to say. they shouldn't make the minimum 10 lines because some people just don't have much to say. OK done | 1 |
I remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well...... | 0 |
Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.<br /><br />The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.<br /><br />This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel. | 0 |
This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong? <br /><br />Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art. | 1 |
I cannot begin to describe how amazing this movie is. Suffice it to say, anytime I'm depressed about how unfair or futile things seem, this is the movie I go rent to put me in the right frame of mind. The background music makes you realize the easiness of existence and how simplicity provides for the greatest happiness. The Indian girl that sings is but one example of a character in this film who does not try hard, and is happy as a result. Persifina, the laundry co-worker of Ruby's (Ashley Judd) is another=-her eyes and smile could make the hardest person's day. I watch this movie and I dream of better days to come or of a good conversation with friends, and I realize that being alone--Ruby is alone quite often--isn't the same as being lonely. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a thoughtful lull of a movie. | 1 |
It's a mistake to refer to any film of this era as a horror film. Most early German films with supernatural themes are not so much horror films as they are dark fantasies borrowed from the works of early German Romantics like E. T. A. Hoffman and others. In Fritz Lang's "Der Mude Tod" (also from 1921) Death personified takes a young man away from his sweetheart, but in Lang's film the characters' destiny cannot be mitigated by behavior. Neither of the young lovers deserves to die, but they are destined by circumstances to be reunited only in death.<br /><br />In Victor Seastrom's "Korkarlen," however, repentance is always an option. Destiny can be altered - and death deferred - through the characters' choices. Although scenes of the Phantom Carriage collecting souls are genuinely eerie, these horrific images of Death as the great leveler are compromised by Death's offer of redemption to the real monster of this tale, David Holm, a brutal drunk who, because of a perverse hatred of humanity, spreads tuberculosis and emotional misery to everyone he comes in contact with.<br /><br />One New Year's Eve Holm is struck down in a fight with a drinking companion. As the first person to die on the stroke of midnight Holm must become the driver of the Phantom Carriage and collect souls during the new year. The Phantom Carriage, driven by an old acquaintance who had started Holm on his road to ruin, comes for his soul and takes him on a journey of self discovery. Along the way Holm sees the horror he has inflicted on his family and the people who tried to help him.<br /><br />Perhaps my disappointment with the film's ending is a criticism of the Selma Lagerlöf novel on which the film is based. But I would have preferred to see David Holm unable to escape his destiny, and to see his repentance come too late to prevent his wife from poisoning his two children and herself, and to see Holm suffer for the consequences of his sins by being made to collect their souls. It would have been a fitting punishment and a horror more immense than witnessing the abuse he inflicted on others. In the film, however, the unalterable nature of destiny isn't the message; redemption is. The driver of the carriage allows Holm's spirit to return to his body, and he rescues his family in the nick of time. His repentance smacks of Scrooge's repentance in "A Christmas Carol." <br /><br />If the trite and sentimental ending does not offend you, there is still much to admire in the film's images. The special effects are astonishing when measured by the standards of the day, and still hold up, which is more miraculous when you consider that these double exposures were created inside a hand-cranked camera. Also, the restored film on Tartan's new DVD looks fabulous. | 1 |
Starting where the last AVP left off, an Alien "chestburster" emerges from a dead Predator on a Predator spaceship, and causes the Predator space ship to crash into modern day Gunnison Colorado, where it breeds several more Aliens which start to cause havoc. The Predator race sends down a lone highly experienced and armed Predator to "clean up the mess". Our human characters are caught in the middle of the intergalactic battle.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. This movie moves along way too fast. The opening credits have only just rolled and already the Predator ship crashes into the Earth after the Alien grows to full hight, a hunter and son character are introduced but before we even get to learn their names they are both killed, then we see the Predator home-world and the lead Predator flies off to fight the Alien infestation, and all this happens within the first five minutes. This unnatural pace does not let up for the entire movie; the National Guard comes into town but within two minutes are all killed without even getting a good look at a single ones face, the manager of a pizza store gets one scene of character development only to be killed off the very next time we see him once again without even learning his name, random hobos, a coffee shop waitress and chef are killed again without learning their names. One moment our main characters are at home, the next running around town, the next in a gun store , the next in an APC, and this random set jumping over and over just doesn't ever let up leaving the audience no time to settle in leaving them grasping for straws.<br /><br />Another problem is the settings and time frame. The movie is set in modern day Gunnison Colorado. Every other Alien and Predator movie was shot in enthralling settings, such as industrial space ships, guerrilla war zone rainforest's, alien planets, and underground labyrinths. Now comes along AVP-R, set in a small modern day American town, with set "highlights" including a sporting goods store, parking lots, Pizza Shops, and little girl's bedrooms. I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look as dull, drab and uninteresting as possible?! It's hard to perceive these monsters as frightening creatures when they are standing next to a shelf full of Reeboks, or hiding in the bushes outside little girls bedrooms.<br /><br />Continuity is a big issue with this film. The Alien series was set in the future, no human had even heard of an Alien before the first film, and the Aliens not only had never been to Earth, but if they ever did reach Earth, humanity would be destroyed. This movie ruins that entire concept by being set in modern day, with Average Joes seeing the Aliens all over the place, and by the end of the movie, humanity is not destroyed, not even suffering what could be considered minor losses. It pisses all over that entire concept of the other movies. Attempts to maintain continuity are made with massive Deus Ex Machina's. The Predator just happens to carry around a bottle of unlimited magic blue liquid that's just to melt away any bodies with just a single drop, the army at the end of the movie just happens to go to overly drastic measures and drop a nuclear warhead that just conveniently erases all evidence of the Aliens existence despite the fact there were many survivors of the incident who are witnesses, and many more bad attempts are made at filling up impossible to cover plot holes.<br /><br />Also, for a "Verses" movie, it has unrelenting bias in favor of the Predators. For the majority of the film, a lone Predator manages to kill dozens if not tens of dozens of Aliens, all at mêlée range while barely gaining a single scratch, while the Aliens just get slaughtered left right and center like clay pigeons, merely waiting their turn to be killed by the Predator without putting forth any effort to defend their selves. This movie should not be called "Alien vs. Predator", as much as it should be "Predator massacres Aliens". I mean, how can you have two species battle it out with suspense and tension, when one is portrayed as being vastly superior to the other? <br /><br />The characters in this film are amongst the biggest flaws. Not only do they pale in comparison to the characters from the previous Alien and Predator movies, but even as a stand alone movie they are bland, dreary, and even at times cringe worthy. The characters in this movie consist of I kid you not, horny couples wanting to get laid, pizza delivery boys, blonde bimbos, high school bullies, children, and a blatant copy and paste job ripping off Ripley and Newt; the worst and most cliché possible ideas for characters. Not only that, but all of the aforementioned characters are acted by teenagers. While the casting of teenagers is an obvious attempt to pull in younger audiences, its only effect is to make the movie look and feel like a typical teenybopper slasher-porn movie, with actors who are too young to have learned how to give a convincing performance, with them mostly having completely blank facial expressions delivering monotone dialog. Not only this, but these characters do some of the most cinematically retarded things ever, such as using Predator guns, commenting the powers out when it has been for hours, following dumb plans to get out of town rather than just walking out of town somewhat quickly, and just so many other idiocies that the movie actually had the audience in my theater sighing out of frustration.<br /><br />In the end this movie is just a horrible B movie, something deserving of the direct to DVD category. The fact this movie was a theatrical release astonishes me, as every part of the movie just ranks of amateur work. | 0 |
Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.<br /><br />Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. <br /><br />Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.<br /><br />One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.<br /><br />A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. <br /><br />And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS. | 0 |
The summer of 1979, when this flick was a staple on that new movie medium called HBO, was Gas Line Summer & Iranian Hostage Crisis Summer. A change of mood was about to end low-budget, loner-on-a-mission car films, although "Smokey & the Bandit" kept need-for-speed flicks going as live-action Roadrunner cartoons for a few more years. "Corvette Summer" is as quirky as any earlier movie like "Vanishing Point" or "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry," if lighter & sexier than most. Just-graduated, high-school automotive genius Kenneth (Hamill) hitchhikes to Vegas in pursuit of the car theft ring that ripped off his Shop Class masterpiece, a super-custom, right-hand-drive Vette. In the spiritual limbo of the I-15 desert (see "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas") he gets into a custom van (yes, this was the tail end of the van craze, too) tricked out as a mobile bordello & driven by sassy, aspiring hooker Vanessa (Potts), on her way to Sin City to make her, well, whatever it is ambitious hookers make. VANessa, get it? Shy, innocent Kenneth is in way over his head in Vegas, with only his all-American resolve & his new friend to help him, although the hard-edged young call girl is predictably less world-wise than she first seems. Why, in the "I am Woman" age, Vanessa invested her talents, money & future in the world's oldest but least dignified profession over, say, college or even hairdressing, can be explained by young men who'd like to think that all women at least consider the joys of that career path. Remember the target audience, right? Hamill is a good choice for the whitebread Kenneth (the car doesn't even belong to him personally, but to his school), who won't be deterred from his goal by violence, money or even love--until he finds out why the car was really stolen. Potts acts with style & energy but Vanessa is too incredible for any but the most credulous testosterone machine to buy into. The bad guys are made surprisingly human, especially by the always-fine Brion James. But there's not much action & this isn't the kind of movie that can be carried by dialog, plot twists or Heavy Themes. You could always reach up, turn the TV dial & plug in your "Pong" console. The similar but meaner Chris Mitchum vehicle "Stingray," which appeared at about the same time, featured lamer acting but more skin, speed & mayhem. The best features of each film might have produced a Vette movie worth remembering. Thus the Trans Am was left to rule the box-office muscle car showroom. Another forgotten car movie brought back from the dead by "Speed Channel's" fine weekend series, Lost Drive-in. | 0 |
I am currently watching this movie and I have absolutely no hesitation in reviewing it now. The acting is ridiculous. Half the cast must be retired porno actors, and to get kicked off pornos you could imagine the quality of acting.<br /><br />The graphics are unlike anything I have ever seen. I think there are puppet shows with more believability. They can't even afford blanks for the guns they shoot at the pathetic excuse for monsters. Perhaps I should also note how incredibly impressed I am at the number of 'bullets' their pistols can hold. <br /><br />If asked to summarise the movie, I would say that someone had rustled up a group of complete no-hopers at the local county-fair, slapped them on an island, added needlessly intense music and let a 6 year old do the editing.<br /><br />I can honestly not formulate any possible explanation for why this movie was released, recorded on DVD and costs $6 from my local video store for one day. If anything I have received the benefit of knowing that I am a lot smarter than all parties involved in this film.<br /><br />I hate this movie with great intensity. Why? I wish I knew Captain, I wish I knew.... | 0 |
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! <br /><br />I was appalled. <br /><br />Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.<br /><br />What a pity. <br /><br />Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.<br /><br />Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.<br /><br />Shame shame shame on what they do!! | 0 |
Camp North Star and it's Camp counselor extraordinaire, Tripper Harrison(Bill Murray)sure would like to end a decades long losing streak to rival Camp Mohawk, an ivy league type place where only the wealthy kids can attend. Meanwhile, we watch as Tripper tries his hand at love when he flirts aimlessly with fellow female counselor Roxanne(Kate Lynch)as other teen counselors pair up and also fall head-over-heels. The film comes to head at the Camp Olympiad as the rivals square off in competitive athletic contests with Tripper almost realizing their doomed to fail yet another year. The film also shows the growing bond between Tripper and a quietly lonely, puppy-dog eyed Rudy(Chris Makepeace of "Vamp" fame), whose dad is often away all the time. Rudy doesn't seem to fit in with the other kids his age and he seems to spend most of his time either jogging in the mornings with Tripper or taking his peanuts at Blackjack. The film mostly contains hi-jinx of fellow teen camp counselors cutting up and goofing around.<br /><br />You have hottie counselors, total nerd Spaz(Jack Blum)with his taped glasses and bad acne, beak-nosed "Hardware"(Matt Craven)who likes to blow things up, fat kid Fink(Keith Knight) who is often stuffing his face, amongst others in the film. There's a basketball game where poor Spaz can barely bounce the ball against rival Camp Mohawk much less shoot an accurate shot with poor Fink tossing underhanded, between-his-knees fly-balls that sail over the back-board. There's camp fire coupling(with a spirited scary tale by Tripper about a hook-handed killer)and boys drooling over the lovely ladies.<br /><br />Yes, I know it's desperate at times trying to squeeze out every laugh it can and occasionally indulges in lapses of sentimentality(such as the scenes with a sad Makepeace and Murray), but just as much as this recent viewing, I found myself giggling away. I'm licked and just can't help loving this. It's a summer camp movie through and through which simply wants to entertain you. I can't explain, or reinforce enough, the overwhelming joy that floods forth when I see a sleepy Murray's hand reach from the covers for the alarm clock that's piercing loudly pronouncing a summer camp movie is about to begin. His intercom jokes are especially amusing. But, the flick is, let's be honest, a series of comic vignettes with Murray dead-panning endlessly..not that there's anything wrong with that. The film, though, couldn't quite survive without him, could it? Hard to even think of this movie without Murray in the lead. It's a happier time and I think nostalgia of that summer camp experience plays quite a hand in why we grown-ups still connect with "Meatballs" warmly. And, poor Morty(Harvey Atkin), the camp head who so badly wants things to run smooth, and to beat Camp Mohawk for a change, is the constant source of Tripper and gang's amusement as they often play gags on him..especially when he's sleeping on his bed! Great enthusiastic cast who seem to be having as much as us. | 1 |
Beforehand Notification: I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of playing the race card here, but when I saw the preview for this movie, I was thinking "Finally!" I have yet to see one movie about popular African-influenced dance (be it popular hip hop moves, breaking, or stepping) where the main character was a Black woman. I've seen an excessive amount of movies where a non-Black woman who knew nothing about hip hop comes fresh to the hood and does a mediocre job of it (Breakin, Breakin 2, Save the Last Dance, Step Up), but the Black women in the film are almost nonexistent. That always bothered me considering so much of hip hop, African-influenced dance, and breaking was with Blacks and Latinos in massive amounts in these particular sets and it wasn't always men who performed it, so I felt this movie has been a long time coming. However, the race does not make the film, so I also wanted it to carry a believable plot; the dancing be entertaining; and interesting to watch.<br /><br />Pros: I really enjoyed this film bringing Jamaican culture. I can't recall ever seeing a popular, mainstream film where all the main characters were Jamaican; had believable accents; and weren't stereotypical with the beanies. The steppers, family, friends, and even the "thugs" were all really intelligent, realistic people who were trying to love, live, and survive in the neighborhood they lived in by doing something positive. Even when the audience was made aware that the main character's sister chose an alternate lifestyle, it still didn't make the plot stereotypical. I was satisfied with the way it was portrayed. I LOVED the stepping; the romantic flirty relationship going on between two steppers; the trials that the main character's parents were going through; and how she dealt with coming back to her old neighborhood and dealing with Crabs in a Barrel. I respected that she was so intelligent and active at the same time, and so many other sistas in the film were handling themselves in the step world. They were all just as excellent as the fellas. I don't see that in too many movies nowadays, at least not those that would be considered Black films.<br /><br />Cons: I'm not quite sure why the directors or whoever put the movie together did this, but I question whether they've been to real step shows. Whenever the steppers got ready to perform, some hip hop song would play in place of the steppers' hand/feet beats. At a real step show, there is zero need for music, other than to maybe entertain the crowds in between groups. And then when hip hop songs were played, sometimes the beat to the song was off to the beat of the steppers' hands and feet. It was awkward. I was more impressed with the stepping in this movie versus "Stomp the Yard" (another great stepping movie) because the women got to represent as fierce as the guys (in "Stomp the Yard," Meagan Good got all of a few seconds of some prissy twirl and hair flip and the (Deltas?) let out a chant and a few steps and were cut immediately). Even when there were very small scenes, the ladies tore it up, especially in the auto shop, and it was without all that music to drown out their physical music. I know soundtracks have to be sold, but the movie folks could've played the music in other parts of the film.<br /><br />I'm not a Keyshia Cole fan, so every time I saw her, all I kept thinking was "Is it written in the script for her to constantly put her hand on her hip when she talks?" She looked uncomfortable on screen to me. I thought they should've used a host like Free or Rocsi instead. Deray Davis was funny as usual though. Also, I groaned when I found out that the movie was supposed to be in the ghetto, like stepping couldn't possibly happen anywhere else. Hollywood, as usual. However, only a couple of people were portrayed as excessively ignorant due to their neighborhood and losers, which mainstream movies tend to do.<br /><br />I would've given this movie five stars, but the music playing killed it for me. I definitely plan to buy it when it comes out and hopefully the bonus scenes will include the actual step shows without all the songs. | 1 |
This is just one of the hundred million movies where the directors try to shove too much drama into a movie that's not dramatic at all. Like in the beginning, the part where the monk dude shoved the arrow into his own hand, then shot that same arrow into the gargoyle five minutes later--no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />The only thing worse than the plot line is the CGI, which would be greatly rivaled by a homemade flash movie. The actors look like they're doing their hardest to portray a bunch of 70's robots; the dialogue makes so little sense it's not funny.<br /><br />Many things just HAPPEN with no explanation as to how or why, such as a lady suddenly wandering around a zoo that had shut down hours ago. And when she sees this THING flying towards her, her first reaction is to take a picture, rather than what she does a full ten minutes later---power-walking (not even running) like her life depended on it--which, obviously, it doesn't.<br /><br />Overall, not recommended. Makes me wish they still did new episodes of MST3K. | 0 |
I was required to watch the movie for my work, so I didn't pay for it (on the contrary, i got paid), but I still found the movie to suck far more than average. The jokes were lame, the two lead actresses... well, to use the "First wives club" division of women's ages in Hollywood, they are no longer in their "hot chick" age but more in their "district attorney" age. What angered me most about the movie was the main plot line, which pretty much completely plagiarized "Beavis & Butthead Do America" (in which the boys are all jazzed up about some dude offering them money to "do his wife", not realizing they're expected to assassinate her). All in all, a bland piece of crap. | 0 |
Gene Kelly came up with some really grand ideas for musicals while with MGM. Here he's at the top of his creative powers working with the Arthur Freed musical unit. Hard to believe when you watch An American In Paris that the players never left the back lot at MGM. <br /><br />The magic of An American In Paris is due to the creative editing under the direction of Vincent Minnelli and the sets that MGM designed blended with some background establishing shots. The idea of the film originated with Kelly who wanted simply to do a film with a lengthy ballet sequence involving George Gershwin's tone poem An American in Paris. It sounded good to Arthur Freed who approached Ira Gershwin who said fine with him as long as they used other Gershwin material.<br /><br />Gershwin got the kind of deal for Gershwin music that Irving Berlin normally got. Not one note of non-Gershwin music is heard in An American in Paris. Listen to some of the background music and you will hear things like Embraceable You and But Not For Me which are not real musical numbers.<br /><br />Another guy who was a fair hand at writing lyrics, Alan Jay Lerner, wrote the story which admittedly is a thin one. All about an ex-GI played by Gene Kelly who after World War II never left France, just settled into an apartment on the Left Bank and proceeded to become a starving artist. He lives with eccentric composer Oscar Levant and does that ever sound like a redundancy. <br /><br />Two women are interested in him. Another expatriate American played by Nina Foch who wants to sponsor him as a painter if he'll reciprocate in other matters. But Kelly falls for a shop girl played by Leslie Caron in her film debut. Caron also has musical comedy star Georges Guetary interested in here.<br /><br />Of course the plot is just an excuse to sing and dance to the music of George Gershwin. An American in Paris happens to be the first film I ever saw as an in flight movie on the first airplane trip I ever took. I still remember flying back from Phoenix Arizona to Kennedy Airport seeing Gene Kelly doing I've Got Rhythm. My favorite number in the film however is Tra-La-La which Kelly sings and dances all over the apartment with Oscar Levant playing the piano. At one point Kelly dances on top of the baby grand piano.<br /><br />In a book about Arthur Freed, I read a quote where he said in the American in Paris ballet sequence was to be done with the background of the French impressionists which he felt the public would take to rather than a realistic setting on the streets or back lot. So it happened that way. Kelly had done lengthy ballet sequences in Words and Music, The Pirate, and On the Town. But this one topped them all. Still does in my opinion and that includes some of Gene Kelly's later films.<br /><br />In a surprise upset at the Oscars, An American In Paris was chosen best picture for 1951, beating out the heavily favored A Streetcar Named Desire. I guess fantasy trumped realism that year. Big budgets also have an upper hand in these things as well.<br /><br />Still An American in Paris is one of the best movie musicals ever done and since the studios no longer have all that creative talent under one roof, something less likely to be repeated. | 1 |
I have never read the book, but had always heard good things about it. So when the movie came out I considered going to see it, but never did. Now it has come out on DVD and I have thought of renting for a few weeks now. Last night I finally picked it up. I am very glad that I did.<br /><br />Cinematography was incredible in this movie. The scenery, etc,... all made you feel like you were in Kabul. The acting was all very good, although I am sure some of the emotions were lost in the translation. And the story itself was good and pure and uplifting. Yes the story was very sad, but at the same time uplifting.<br /><br />And I will be honest, as a white American,... made me see aside of Kabul and Afghanistan that I never picture in my mind when I think about it. Showed me a Afghanistan before the Taliban. Showed me a place that was beautiful. Showed me a place with good hearted people. I community that was like a family, aside from a few bullies.<br /><br />Anyways, I recommend this movie to everyone. It is one of the best I have ever seen. | 1 |
This film, had it been done properly, has SO much potential. Parody films are always funny, and people tend to like them because they're light hearted, stupid and silly but fun. This film WAS funny in some parts, but it could have been a lot funnier. The acting itself was OK from all the actors, but...I wasn't satisfied. It seemed a tad empty, and my summary title says it all about the effects. Proper green screens weren't used for this movie...backgrounds were added in after which just looked terrible. No wonder this film went straight to DVD lol. It wasn't ALL a total loss, it is funny and will give you a good laugh (AT it, not WITH it most of the time). | 0 |
This movie isn't about football at all. It's about Jesus/GOD!! It's the same kind of sappy sanctimonious religious drivel you get from those arch idiots who wrestle for Jesus, or pump iron for Jesus. Yeah, Jesus was totally buffed, liked contact sports, and definitely owned a full set of dumb bells. DUHHH! This movie should have been entitled "Hiking for Jesus," or something along those lines just to let the general public know that the real intent of this movie is to convert people to Christianity, and to pander to those whose brains have already been thoroughly washed in the blood of the lamb. That the title is derived from the Bible is made clear when the head coach is reading his Bible and asking Jesus for help. The recent sports movie "Invincible" was 100 times more inspiring than this was, and Jesus wasn't even a factor. It was just the desire and determination of an individual with a dream.<br /><br />Any broad appeal as an inspirational sports movie is ultimately lost amidst all of the blatant Bible thumping and sanctimonious religious propaganda. One gets the impression that the sole message is the only way you can succeed and make positive gain is if you accept Jesus as your personal savior. But this is simply not true, and is therefore a lie being perpetuated by those who believe that it is true and want everyone else to believe it. The image of the winning athlete thanking Jesus when he wins comes directly to mind. What does he do when he loses? Does he curse Jesus? Of course not! When he loses Jesus isn't responsible. Jesus is only responsible when he wins. And the logic goes round and round and round, and it ends up exactly where the true believer needs it to be, every time!! I had to hit pause when the scene with the coach receiving a brand new truck came on so I could stop rolling on the floor laughing my ass off and catch my breath. Materialism is not what Jesus taught. I find it odd that most so called "Christians" seem to either forget or ignore this message from their "savior," especially when I see a Jesus fish on the back of a huge gas guzzling SUV that passes me like I'm standing still.<br /><br />Another message this movie implies is that Jesus apparently cares more about the win loss record of a mediocre high school football team that he does about the millions of starving children in the world. The final scene where the insecure and unsure kicker boots a 51 yard field goal and it is hyped up as an unbelievably incredible miracle puts the final gag me with a spoon religious red flag on this turkey. I only gave it three stars because the guy who played the black coach could actually act. | 0 |
Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.<br /><br />Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.<br /><br />I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.<br /><br />So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (alá The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.<br /><br />The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here. | 0 |
The best scene of "The People Across The Lake" is the genuinely creepy, nightly opening-scene featuring a house, a murder & a lake. After that, it's pretty much downhill from there on as far as the horror is concerned. A family (mom, dad, sister & younger brother) is fed up with the (mildly) dangerous environment of suburbia, and decides to go and live near the titular lake. From then on, the film features too much lame happy family-related doo-doo near the lake, with occasionally some corpses popping up here and there. The couple of scenes where they discover the bodies, are pretty convincing (in terms of creepiness), but they are in shrill contrast with the rest of the goings-on (featuring just every-day-life stuff of the family settling in). The truth to the matters (the mystery as to who's doing the killing) is learned too soon, leaving only the family unknowing and the viewer yawning during the unexciting finale (featuring a discovery in a basement and running around the house), like if this made-for-TV thing suddenly remembered it was supposed to be a horror film. It's not really badly made; the content & story is just not interesting enough. The only highlight in the cast is Barry Corbin, though his performance/character is just a bit too goofy to be taken serious. Blond cutie Tammy Lauren (the daughter) might be a recognisable face for avid horror junkies too, as she also starred in "Wishmaster" (1997), and made-for-TV outings like "I Saw What You Did" (1988) & "The Stepford Children" (1987). She hasn't got much to do in this film, though. Skippable, but watchable, if anything. | 0 |
People don't seem to be giving Lensman enough credit where its due. A few issues have been overlooked which are key to understanding the Lensman experience.<br /><br />The Year: For the year it was made in (1984) Lensman features some of the most stunning effects I've ever seen. As a person who watches a lot of early 80's animation Lensman is unique in it's use of what appears to be computer-generated imagery at a time when computers were extremely primitive. Kim's battle against the geometric cutter pods in the laser maze can be taken as an excellent example of this. Every time I watch that I have to keep repeating to myself that it was 1984 when it was made.<br /><br />The Soundtrack: Lensman has one of the most insane soundtracks that I've heard, and this mad hysterical beat permeates every corner of the film. Lensman borrowed heavily on two western mistakes and managed to somewhat deal with the first one - the need to fill in every second of silence in a film with music and the need for a heroine. While the music is attuned well and galvanizes scenes such as the motorcycle battle in the Thionite Factory on Radelyx, the heroine theme fails due to the sheer annoyance value of Chris. It's interesting to note that the constant music thwarted my attempts at noise removal when I was archiving lensman over from analog tape to digital format - since there wasn't a single second of silence available to use as a reference point.<br /><br />Western Influences: Helmut - sounds like "helmet" and has roughly the same voice as Darth Vader. Clarissa Fairborn - has the same hairstyle as the princess of SW and her name sounds suspiciously similar to Marissa Fairborn of Transformers. Takes over Han Solos role by flying the ship and having some technical expertise. Buzzkirk - a definite improvement on Chewbaka. The lens - a nice concrete copy of the force that comes across less as a chance to preach Christianity at the audience than in the original SW. While the force relied on belief far more than concentration, the lens is a pure concentration tool. Theoretically, anyone could wield the lens. The lens is far more limited than the Force - being purely a defensive/offensive weapon.<br /><br />Technology: The boskone alliance have interesting meatball sponge ships. They look like stormtroopers only with red uniforms instead of white. The idea of a DNA weapon was nice if only it had been developed. The Galactic Alliance looked like Starblazers (or whatever it was called - that 60's series where they were battling the Xylons). There weren't enough ship to ship battles for me - this is much improved upon in the second Lensman film.<br /><br />Finally a note on Worzel. This character is a unique and very interesting character-design who fortunately continues on to the second film.<br /><br /> | 1 |
After the failure of "The Crusades" at the box office, Cecil B. DeMille stopped doing films about non-American history. His films for the next thirteen years were about our history from Jean Lafitte to World War II (Dr. Wassell). The first in order of production was this film, starring Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickok, with Jean Arthur as Calamity Jane. James Ellison was Buffalo Bill, John Miljan (not a villain as usual) was General George A. Custer, and Anthony Quinn was one of the Indians who fought at Little Big Horn. The villains were led by Charles Bickford (selling arms to the Indians) and Porter Hall as Jack McCall (who killed Wild Bill Hickok).<br /><br />Basically the film takes up the history of the U.S. after the Civil War. Lincoln is shown at the start talking about what is the next step now that Lee has surrendered. Lincoln talks about the need to secure the west (more about this point later). Then he announces he has to go to the theater. That April 14th must have been very busy for Abe - in "Virginia City" he grants a pardon to Errol Flynn at the request of Miriam Hopkins on the same date.<br /><br />Actually, while Lincoln was concerned about the West, his immediate thoughts on the last day of his Presidency were about reunifying the former Confederate states and it's citizens into the Union as soon as possible. It was Reconstruction that occupied his attention, not the west (except for the problems of Maximillian and his French controlled forces in Mexico against Juarez). But he had been involved in actual problems with the West. In 1862 he sent disgraced General John Pope, the loser at Second Manassas, to Minnesota to put down a serious Indian war by the Sioux (the subject of McKinley Kantor's novel, "Sprit Lake". Pope, incompetent against Lee and Jackson, turned out to be quite effective here, and the revolt was smashed.<br /><br />However, with all Lincoln's actual attention to western problems, it is doubtful that he says (as Cooper repeats at least once), "The frontier should be secure." There is nothing to say he could not have said it, but it is hardly a profound pronouncement by a leading statesman. Like saying, Teddy Roosevelt said, "Eat a good breakfast every morning for your health." It is not a profound statement of policy. It is, at best, a statement of recognizable fact. Cooper turning it into a minor mantra, like Lincoln's version of the Monroe Doctrine, is ridiculous...typical of the way DeMille's scripts have really bad errors of common sense in them.<br /><br />However, this is not a ruinous mistake. "The Plainsman" is an adventure film, and as such it has the full benefit of DeMille the film creator of spectacle. As such it is well worth watching. But not as a textbook on Lincoln's political ideas or his quotable legacy. | 1 |
There have been far too few mainstream films set in post-colonial Africa, and the ones that have are a mixed bunch. This one, with its altruistic pretensions to expose slavery in the 1970s, shows the best and worst values of Africa, which turn out not to be too different to the values of humanity as a whole. It also has shortcomings, given the undue influence of western pre-conceptions of Africans and, especially, Arabs.<br /><br />Dr Anansa Linderby, the beautiful African-American wife of the English doctor David Linderby, is captured by Arab slave-traders, along with a teenage Sanufu girl and a young boy. The lead slave-trader, Suleiman, is every bit the stage Arab, with his flowery and sometimes humorous rhetoric, and gestures to match - which would not be out of place on "Carry On Follow that Camel" but are not up the standard this film deserves. Peter Ustinov of course had more than enough skills to address some of the shortcomings of the script, and he rescued what could otherwise have been a woeful one-dimensional character.<br /><br />Continuing the stereotypical theme, all three of Suleiman's Arab employees are unintelligent and one has paedophilic tendencies towards the boy, which thankfully are not portrayed on the screen.<br /><br />One of David's first ports of call is the local police officer, a stereotypical pompous and incompetent African bureaucrat. David then meets two stereotypical white ex-pats, an Englishman (Walker, played by Rex Harrison) and an American (Sandell, played by William Holden). Sandell is a mercenary with "conventional" views on mixed-race relationships, who initially refuses to help unless David provides payment up front. Won over by David's love for Anansa, and conscious of his own inability to find love, he agrees to take David up in his helicopter to help search for Anansa. They find Suleiman and his captives crossing the border and are unable to pursue them into the neighbouring territory - as a result of Sandell's hesitation and David's lack of experience with firearms, his helicopter is shot down but David survives.<br /><br />We then see David introduced to Malik (Kabir Bedi), an African who has lost his family to Suleiman and is now only driven by vengeance. They find the Sanufu girl with a group of Tuareg and know they are on the right track to find Suleiman.<br /><br />In one of the most heart-rending scenes they kill a party of slave traders only to find that it was not Suleiman's group, and have no choice but to send their captives to the Tuaregs they met earlier.<br /><br />Later on we discover that the young boy who had been raped is a witch doctor and, in an excellent scene with supernatural overtones, he uses his knowledge to kill one of Suleiman's henchmen. Anansa on her part - and despite the scepticism of the boy - manages to engineer the demise of Suleiman's two other employees.<br /><br />By this time Suleiman and his slaves are within days of reaching the slave market.<br /><br />Suleiman, now in no doubt that Anansa is "trouble", attempts to sell her to an obscenely wealthy Arab prince (Omar Sharif) who is corrupt but intelligent. On discovering that Anansa is an American working for the U.N., the prince rather unwisely decides to carry on with the bargaining without considering the consequences. The scene where the two men haggle is one of the best in the film.<br /><br />At the slave market, the young boy is sold to a middle-aged German paedophile, and we are left to guess whether the boy will still be considered "wunderbar" when his owner is on the receiving end of his witch-doctoring skills.<br /><br />David and Malik finally confront Suleiman and there is a bitter-sweet ending from Malik's point of view.<br /><br />Ultimately, David and Anansa are re-united, and Malik, whose life is in ruins, can console himself with having seen the task he set himself completed.<br /><br />The overall plot of the film is excellent but it loses marks for its stereotypical portrayal of nearly all the leading characters. Credit must go to all the leading actors for addressing many of the shortcomings of the scripting. | 1 |
Hey Yall! The best drama every is now on Gospel Music Channel! Go to their website to see the schedule and find out what number it is on your cable or satellite This was one of my favorite shows growing up. It has everything that I want a TV show to be, a clean family friendly drama that does not gross me out. The story about a man, who after loosing his work, decides to set off for a great cross country adventure. Along the way they meet all sorts of interesting people and find themselves in the midst of all kinds of trouble. This show was originally a spin off of Touched By An Angel, another really good family show. Make sure you check it out! | 1 |
Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere), a successful surgeon, has his wife leave him, his son (an uncredited James Franco) not respect him and looses a patient he's operating on. Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane) has two children and discovers her husband has cheated on her. They both need to get away. She watches over a beautiful oceanside inn in Rodanthe at the same time he books a room. They're all alone together. You can pretty much figure out the rest.<br /><br />This is what's known as a weepie or a woman's film. It's beautifully shot with a romantic setting and lots of quiet scenes. There's tragedy, romance, more tragedy and an uplifting ending (sort of). The great acting by Gere and Lane helps disguise the fact that this film isn't really about much. Every single bit of the plot is predictable. I rolled my eyes a lot at some of the events. Also it's far too short--I didn't believe the romance between Gere and Lane for a second. If comes out of nowhere and moves VERY quickly. Still the movie does work. The inn itself is absolutely gorgeous and I was in tears by the end along with most of the audience. So it's a predictable but gorgeous movie with some wonderful acting. It doesn't deserve all the criticism it's getting. I give it a 7. | 1 |
That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.<br /><br />'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.<br /><br />It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.<br /><br />All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though. | 0 |
Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.<br /><br />Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.<br /><br />Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.<br /><br />Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the "alien" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.<br /><br />Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the "over-acting" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.<br /><br />Direction - not bad but not good either.<br /><br />Score - Dismal.<br /><br />Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.<br /><br />3/10. | 0 |
I'm probably one of the few people who defend and even enjoy "Frisk," the project that put Todd Verow on the map, if that is indeed where he is. I appreciated that someone had the guts to take on Dennis Cooper and not back away from the material; Verow fairly rolls around in it. Judging from what he's done since then he's well-suited for that type of material and should probably stick to it. "Vacationland," a would-be "teen coming out" film, is so misguided in so many ways it becomes unintentional comedy, and I'm disappointed I have to report that.<br /><br />First off, our hero, the high school Senior "Joe" is far too old in appearance to be playing 18 . When we later meet a man who is supposed to be Joe's teacher it's confusing, as the sweaty-faced guy looks much younger than the student he's teaching. Joe's mother looks younger than he does and doesn't "act" any older either. Second, in Joe's opening scenes he looked like he was either playing, or actually experiencing, mental challenges. To his credit he got better as the film went on and I figured out he was "playing young," but it just wasn't working--it was weird.<br /><br />It's 15 minutes in before anything is revealed about who, what and where these people are, and why we should care. The second scene in the film is an extended bit of business in a men's toilet room that, considering where the story goes later, is absolutely superfluous; the subplot with the teacher goes nowhere at all, even as a "rite of passage" for our "young" hero...one minute Joe is nervously trying his hand at bathroom stall sex (a scene so un-erotic it makes you truly wonder what anyone sees in the practice), the next minute he's an expert at sexual blackmail and violent double-crossing. This is followed by an extended scene with the character we'll later learn is "Andrew," and that's about all we learn about him, other than he's apparently gay but not out yet.<br /><br />There's a lot crammed in to the 1:44 running time (which is about 20 minutes too long--I can't imagine how it played with the mind-numbingly long and pointless deleted scenes of Joe walking around); a sub-plot copped from "Gods And Monsters" with an aged patron who spouts rhetoric appros pos of nothing played by an actor who obviously can't remember his lines (he is conveniently dispatched with in a way Dickens might have come up with on a slow week); a mix-n-match almost-four-way between the boys and their girlfriends, a gay-bashing toilet tramp, a would-be wise sage in the form of a nellie queen (and hasn't the nellie queen suddenly taken over the role of the "hooker with the heart of gold" as most tired stereo-type?) who exists only to be degraded; blackmail, theft, murder, alcohol consumption and abuse of looping music software for soundtrack recording.<br /><br />What you will NOT find in this movie are any interior establishing master shots; we're expected to imagine we're in an airport, grocery store office and classroom, as all the scenes in these locations consist of close-ups and poorly edited soundscapes to convey the idea of locales that the production must not have been able to afford. One thing they were able to get appears to have been an actual gay bar; either it's the worst bar in the world or there are only about 5 gay men in Bangor, Maine, as the bar never has any patrons in it. Another good chuckle came when the actors were supposed to be yelling over dance music that very obviously wasn't coming from the speakers, but was just more of the droning loop-music of the "score."<br /><br />Plots and characters come and go, emotions are unreadable and the dialog, clearly inspired by Dennis Cooper, is "film-speak," meaning no humans actually talk this way. Since we aren't given any information about these characters it's impossible to care about what happens to them; it's as if Joe et al appear out of the ether one day and might simply cease to exist once the credits roll (certainly the character of Joe's sister, a wannabee Jennifer Grey who is Bohemia-crazy, seems to just simply "stop," we never know where she is in LA or what her problem is...but again...does it matter?). Visually the film looks very good at times, more a testament to new developments in hi-def video than anything, I suspect. The editing is pretty clunky though (there was one great edit; Joe is posing naked and says, "I wanted to play sports, but..." and we cut to a shot revealing his "butt..." ha ha). Composition is also odd at times (I thought I was watching SCTV's parody of "Persona" when the boys were talking together in bed and visually it looked as if their noses were stuck together for the whole scene!).<br /><br />One senses Verow is really restraining himself from making a "naughtier" or somewhat rougher movie like he usually does, and maybe he shouldn't have held back (the frothy toothpaste/sex fantasy worked nicely, I thought, though the tone was out of touch with the rest of the movie)...he produces and directs this "sensitive coming of age" story much like Herschell Gordon Lewis directed films without gore...porn films without sex in them. I got some unintended laughs out of this and it wasn't boring, it just wasn't very good either. | 0 |
Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen Check! Tasty looking love interest Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion Check! Corny one liners Check!<br /><br />Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!<br /><br />In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.<br /><br />Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.<br /><br />In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.<br /><br />Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.<br /><br />Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!! | 0 |
When this movie came out, I had seen Geena Davis play only soft, feminine roles... This movie was anything but soft and feminine. Great lines, great action...she and Samuel L really clicked. Too violent for the kiddies, but if you and your significant other are trying to agree on a movie, try this one on for size. Go Geena! Go Geena! | 1 |
Due to the fact that in 1976 there were no CGI I felt that the movie was quite watchable. The studio productions were very good and very elaborate. The background effects were very believable and always appeared as if they were part of the whole set. The actors did OK considering the premise of the film being set in a type of Jules Vern atmosphere where imagination and possibilities of future exploration were at most improbabilities. Had I watched this film in 1976 I probably would have been in awe of the ability of man to build a machine that could travel to the earths core. I still wonder to this day why we are not all flying around in our cars but I digress. McClure and Cushing have their funny moments, mostly from their facial expressions toward each other which of course makes the film somewhat campy which I loved. The 'monsters' left something to be desired but the story had a good premise although I feel as though some other sort of 'thing' could have been more believable under those circumstances. All in all quite watchable for its time and fun now. | 1 |
On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin / The Battleship Potemkin.'<br /><br />The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading "KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;" close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably "borrowed" by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin.<br /><br />However, the film itself is best analysed not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes but as a single film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose side we should be sympathetic towards.<br /><br />The film is often referred to as "propaganda," and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution. It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared more admirably overseas.<br /><br />The film also proved a successful vehicle for Eisenstein to test his theories of "montage." Through quick-cut editing, and distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course, during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such scenes.<br /><br />One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things, there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement. | 1 |
I saw it in Europe-plex. Great movie!! <br /><br />This film is an exploration of the Spirit and the Flesh in modern times. Protagonist Jim Kirk, drives an unwieldy RV across America, stopping often to fill his gas-guzzling tank. He is middle-aged and confused . He fuels his thick, diabetic body with cups of coffee and radio chatter. He is the Flesh: agitated and sometimes spaced out, fairly oblivious to the growing tension around him but feeling it as twinges of discomfort. <br /><br />The Spirit suffuses the film through speeches and other sounds, as well as what appears and goes by in the visual field. The Spirit eventually collides with the Flesh and Kirk goes down, unable to comprehend what has happened to him. He's been in denial about just how bad things have become due to he waywardness of all of us, because we are all focused on the needs and desires of our flesh. We're all in the same denial and so we, like Kirk are in danger of going down and being blown away by desert sands just like him. | 1 |
"Idiocracy" is the latest film to come from Mike "Office Space" Judge, and it certainly follows a similar theme of that film in the fact that it is an observation of stupidity and how mediocrity can overcome adversity... relatively speaking. It is a story about Joe Bauer (Luke Wilson), who is, quite literally, the most average guy in existence. Joe, and a prostitute named Rita (Maya Rudolph), become the test subjects for a military project of a hibernation chamber. They were to remain suspended for only one year, but due to lack of oversight, Joe and Rita are forgotten about and accidentally wake up 500 years in the future.<br /><br />Here's the scary part: This film explains, in a very realistic and plausible way, how the entire population of 2505 became absolutely retarded. With no natural predators, the evolution of the human species does not necessarily favor the quickest, smartest, and strongest people for progression of genes... just the people who breed the most. Unfortunately, those people happen to be welfare-sucking, trailer trash idiots who breed like rabbits. This abundant reproduction of the stupid people has caused an adverse effect on societal growth and now Joe and Rita are the two smartest human beings on the face of the planet. If it helps, imagine the entire population as just a hybrid of rednecks, jocks, cholos and hoochies. Seeing this nightmarish dystopia, Joe learns of and attempts to track down a time machine to see if he and Rita can get back to when they came from, and that's basically the whole plot.<br /><br />But despite how one-dimensional I may make it sound, this movie is higher brow than you can fathom. Nuances are everywhere and anyone can see glimpses (warning signs, if you will) of modern day dumb-ciety permeating facets of everyday life and turning it into the train wreck on display in "Idiocracy." The film has some truly awesome showcases of realistic retardedness put on a pedestal. I don't want to give anything away and ruin jokes for you, but let's just say that it is pretty thorough. I can see how some would say that it is just a lot of toilet humor, but it, odd as it may seem, has a purpose; to show how dumb and crass these people are.<br /><br />This film, unfortunately, is destined to see the same fate as its predecessor, "Office Space"; no one will see it in theaters, but everyone will brag about discovering this awesome/funny movie when it comes out on video. My only complaint for the film would be that the flow of the narrative sometimes gets broken so they can do a Hitchhiker's-Guide-to-the-Galaxy type exposition on how things got to be where they are, but it is a necessary evil and is implemented better here. Other than that, good characters, funny jokes, and better-than-average social commentary wrapped up in a funny bow.<br /><br />Final Note: If seeing our youth becoming gang-banger wanna-be's, acting like redneck/ ghetto trash and being proud of it... if you are educated and cultured in anyway and can see how our country is spiraling out of control into an abyss of stupidity, for god sakes, watch this movie. | 1 |
This game is fun and it has a plot that you could actually expect to see in the comics. Spider-man has been framed by a mysterious impostor. The city is being overrun by a strange gas, and symbiotes like those of Venom and Carnage are appearing all over the city. Who is behind these crimes? Could it be Doc Ock? Well he seems to have turned over a new leaf. Venom also does not seem to be involved as he is just ticked off that Spider-man has apparently cost him a rather good photo opportunity. Well cameos from other heroes and lots of villains later Spidey will unravel the mystery. The fighting is basic, not to hard to pick up, the fights with the bosses are rather fun. You get to collect comics, you run out of web and it is somewhat fun traversing the city. However, that is also a weak point. The swinging is not all that great as all you do is hover through the city as Spider-man seemingly attachés his webs to the sky. You also do not have much maneuverability web-slinging either especially compared to a say Spider-man 2 movie video game. Still, it makes up for the rather bad swinging with the other elements especially the story. So be prepared to see Scorpion, Rhino, Venom, Mysterio, Doctor Octopus, and Carnage for one wild action packed ride. | 1 |
It's times like these I truly wish I was a more avid reader of Clive Barker's literary repertoire, since very few things feel worse than not being able to fully comprehend a movie of this stunningly 'visual' caliber. Based on the novella "Cabal", the story of "Nightbreed" involves a behemothic amount of lavish and bizarre creatures and settings in an underground society of demonic ghouls. A normal guy becomes linked to the strange world, called Midian, through his dreams and his psychiatrist coerces him into believing he is responsible for a series of gruesome murders of families in recent months... Thinking this to be true, he retreats to Midian - located under a rural cemetery - where he is reluctantly accepted. The shrink, however, is right on Homeboy's heals with a diabolical scheme to whip out the community of Nightbreeds...<br /><br />Wanting so much to love this movie, I was very let down in the long run. I have regretfully not read the story so Barker's fantasy world and the purpose of it and all these monsters was horribly confusing and the premise was painfully uneven. I understand how the final cut was diced to hell and even Barker show's moderate dislike for the overall product, but I just didn't "get" it. Even if it is crucial to read the story, I feel like it should at least be translated to film in a way that it is still comprehensible for those unfamiliar with the literature. If "Cabal" is as convoluted as this film than Barker really milked a dead concept. Couldn't help but feel a bit bored after a while, especially when things started getting increasingly ridiculous (somewhere around the jail scene I realized just how bored I was) - like a police department fearlessly going to war with Midian like it happens every week! No one seems to think the idea of immortal monsters is a tad... strange. I DID like the visual effects and all that crazy sh*t that went on in Midian, especially that porcupine lady and that big headed SOB... Definitely an epic flick when you consider the massive quantity of effects and convincingly morbid decor. David Cronenberg fills his position well as the loony shrink with his cool zipper-head potato sack mask, but we ALL wish he had done some behind-the-camera work to help save this heap... <br /><br />So, if you have a boner for Clive Barker material and fully grasp what exactly Midian is, why they show the creatures during the opening title sequence (terrible idea!), and why these creatures reside there and how some punk kid shares a telekinetic link to it, you should probably check out "Nightbreed". I'll look for "Cabal" one of these days and hopefully gain some perspective... Or maybe I'll just forget this travesty completely... Until then, this is a poorly constructed and fairly tedious mess of a movie... Watch "Hellraiser" instead. | 0 |
'Cry Freedom' is a movie about how far people will go to find the truth.<br /><br />The first half is an interesting portrayal of an unlikely friendship between activist Steve Biko and Editor Don Woods (played fanatically by Dezel Washington and Kevin Klein). While the second half deals with Woods looking for answers on Biko's death.<br /><br />Although most people favor the first half of the movie which focuses on the unlikely friendship between Biko and Woods'. I found the second half about Don woods struggle to have Biko's story be heard around the world much more interesting. | 1 |
"Chairman of the Board" is a ridiculously stupid film from the popular comic Carrot Top (also seen on the 1-800-COLLECT commercials). He plays a surfing inventor who comes upon a man who has a flat tire. Top helps him out and a few days later discovers the guy's died and has given his company to the comedian. Even if someone else was in Carrot Top's role, it still would have been bad. The jokes (which are constantly rigged throughout) are terrible and the idea of a romantic "plot twist" should have been discarded. DO NOT WATCH!!! | 0 |
This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!<br /><br />It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say. | 1 |
OK ... The end of this may be something of a letdown after what has come before ... And Klaus Kinski should have had his 10 second appearance cut out ... But there is no getting away from the fact that this is a really wonderful atmospheric Euro thriller ... I can't believe I have never seen this till now ... Its good to know there are films out there that are still worth tracking down ... And this really is ... Stunning visuals ... Haunting ... And builds an amazing atmosphere ... Florinda Balkan is perfect as our heroine ... And the scene on the beach with Nicoletta Elmi is some of the most relaxed and perfect acting you could see ... Lila Kedrova is spot on as a fellow visitor to the town who may or may not be who she seems ... If you miss the hay days of Euro cinema then chase this out ... There's a decent widescreen print going round ... And please get this out in a restored DVD someone ... They did it with the directors " Fifth Cord " ... And this is a much better film | 1 |
i must say that this movie had a great cast, locations, music and camera work. Cameron Diaz was great, she had a very exciting roll, very uproarish, while Jordana Brewster had a serious roll yet still capturing one. for me Jordana's very nostalgic, she reminds of a female classmate of mine! what realy got me in this movie were the very skillfully planned camera work and the choosing of the locations. the story is very talently written. it is a must see one. the one's who are into mystery movies should watch this one, i guarantee you all that it'll keep you in your seats till the end. | 1 |
Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.<br /><br />There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.<br /><br />There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, "Rats," what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.<br /><br />Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids. | 0 |
Frankie Dio (Lee VanCleef) is a high-ranking mobster who turns himself in to the police or illegal gambling (for reasons that seem unclear to me). Tony (Tony Lo Bianco) is a low-level thug who frequents a pool hall and spends his free time envying Frankie. By being in the right place at the right time, Tony gets arrested with Frankie and is sent to jail... where they form a bond that may not quite be friendship, but it will do for now.<br /><br />This film came to me under the title of "Frank and Tony", which is disappointing because I see an alternate name is "Mean Frank and Crazy Tony", which would have helped sell the film more effectively. I presume that's an homage to "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" but what do I know? I watched it shortly after another Italian crime film, "Violent Professionals", and I must say the two complement each other very well.<br /><br />Italians have always lagged behind Americans in their budgets and production values, which is a real shame with this film. It is considered a "grindhouse" film, which unfairly demotes it to a b-movie (or worse). With a cleaner sound and picture, this could have been a Hollywood hit, I suspect. I found the story very interesting, the characters (and actors) better than average and unlike "Violent Professionals" the plot is fairly clear -- not too many secondary characters.<br /><br />If you like Mafia movies or crime films you should give this one a try. A film about the mob that's actually from Italy (how much more authentic do you want?) is as much as you can ask. Sure, it's not "The Godfather", but it's not supposed to be. This isn't a drama, it's a light comedy, heavy action buddy film... like "Die Hard With a Vengeance" from the point of view of the bad guys. Well, okay, not really.<br /><br />If nothing else, this film made me want to check out other films from the director and the principle cast. Films besides "Escape From New York" (where VanCleef plays "Hauk") and the usual cult movies. What's more fun than discovering a lost classic? | 1 |
This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that. | 0 |
Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).<br /><br />That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.<br /><br />The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).<br /><br />Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what? | 0 |
Don't get me wrong, I love most of Paul Schrader's movies, so it was with sheer excitement I was able to attend at the "Rolling Thunder" screening at the Parisian french cinemathèque with surprise movie on the 17th Dec 2004. Of course the surprise movie was The Exorcist and most people were there for that (I was too). The film was then finished but the score, so P Schrader used excerpts from The Return of the King and some other movie I forget (Was it Conan?). Anyways, apart from that the movie was finalized. The happy few there (maybe 200 people) were told to please not write about the film on the internet or magazines since it may have jeopardized its chance of getting selected to the Cannes Film Festival. Then came the film, then came the realization that the film might not get selected for the Festival because of its quality : Never in my life had I experienced such a feeling of awkwardness in the audience as people went from being skeptical to plainly laughing out loud at the pity-full spectacle. I couldn't believe how low the author of Light Sleeper, Mishima, Blue Collar and Affliction had sunk.<br /><br />Forced over-the-top acting thorough, stupid ending, black and white moral, awful FXs, worst take on Christianity from Schrader ever, not even suspenseful, just boring as hell (no pun intended) and unsurprising at all! Some good locations but sadly miss-used or at least not fulfilling the initial hopes! In the end I was 100 times more satisfied by the Schrader penned Rolling Thunder and wished my 2 hours back.<br /><br />Don't believe the hype, even the John Boorman movie is more exciting and original. Oh, and the Billy Crawford casting, the poor guy does his best, but what where you expecting? He's now part of the small club of worst casting mistakes ever! I give the movie a 1/5 just because I didn't leave the room, but I should have. | 0 |
This is the single greatest movie I have ever seen. Davey/Mr. Slaussen is simultaneously:<br /><br />1) Tortured about his talents (e.g., "I can control it; I can! I shouldn't have to hiiiide it! It feeeeeeeeeels good!");<br /><br />2) Desperate to make friends, e.g.,<br /><br />"How's the soup?<br /><br />"The soup is very good."<br /><br />"Would you like some crackers with your soup?"<br /><br />"I'd like some more crackers, please."<br /><br />"How's that?"<br /><br />"Yes, the soup is very good."<br /><br />3) Proud of his accomplishments (e.g. "Pretty neat trick, huh?")<br /><br />4) A ladies man (e.g., "You're so pretty. Why don't you like me?"); and<br /><br />5) Sometimes, very, very angry (e.g., "You can't get away!")<br /><br />Connors should have received an academy award for best actor for this movie. I mean, who was possibly better?! Tanya Roberts rocketed to the stratosphere following her performance in TT. It's a wonder not all of the stars of this masterpiece did not go on to have brilliant careers. I highly, highly recommend this film! It's available on amazon.com. Everyone should own it. Make a night of it and have a bowl of soup while you watch. | 1 |
My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt: <br /><br />"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling." | 0 |
One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.<br /><br />I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.<br /><br />So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians! | 1 |
It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?<br /><br />I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p | 0 |
A wonderfully thoughtful and involving movie that leaves an imprint well beyond it's initial liftoff. Based on a true story , one of the many "small" stories prior to WW II , that lend an understanding to the mindsets of the majority of common man cultures, impacted by others perceived as former enemies and perhaps future foes, with the darkening of war clouds on the horizon. Viewed at the Stony Brook Film festival, the film was enthusiastically received . Well written and expertly cast. The characters were most believable and drew one in to experience their trials and tribulations. | 1 |
Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the "biopic" genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.<br /><br />This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.<br /><br />The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.<br /><br />In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking. | 1 |
What if Somerset Maugham had written a novel about a coal miner who decided to search for transcendental enlightenment by trying to join a country club? If he had, he could have called it The Razor's Edge, since the Katha-Upanishad tells us, "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard." But Maugham decided to stick with the well-bred class, and so we have Darryl F. Zanuck's version of Larry Darrell, recently returned from WWI, carefully groomed, well connected in society and determined to find himself by becoming a coal miner. <br /><br />Or, as Maugham tells us, "This is the young man of whom I write. He is not famous. It may be that when at last his life comes to an end he will leave no more trace of his sojourn on this earth than a stone thrown into a river leaves on the surface of the water. Yet it may be that the way of life he has chosen for himself may have an ever growing influence over his fellow men, so that, long after his death, perhaps, it will be realized that lived in this age a very remarkable creature." <br /><br />The Razor's Edge has all of Zanuck's cultural taste that money could buy. It's so earnest, so sincere...so self-important. As Larry goes about his search for wisdom, working in mines, on merchant ships, climbing a Himalayan mountain to learn from an ancient wise man, we have his selfish girl friend, Isabel, played by Gene Tierney, his tragic childhood chum played by Anne Baxter, the girlfriend's snobbish and impeccably clad uncle played by Clifton Webb, and Willie Maugham himself, played by Herbert Marshall, taking notes. The movie is so insufferably smug about goodness that the only thing that perks it up a bit is Clifton Webb as Elliot Templeton. "If I live to be a hundred I shall never understand how any young man can come to Paris without evening clothes." Webb has some good lines, but we wind up appreciating Clifton Webb, not Elliot Templeton. <br /><br />Zanuck wanted a prestige hit for Twentieth Century when he bought the rights to Maugham's novel. He waited a year until Tyrone Power was released from military service. He made sure there were well-dressed extras by the dozens, a score that sounds as if it were meant for a cathedral and he even wrote some of the scenes himself. The effort is as self-conscious as a fat man wearing a rented tux. Despite Hollywood's view of things in The Razor's Edge, I can tell you that for most people hard work doesn't bring enlightenment, just weariness and low pay. <br /><br />After nearly two-and-a-half hours, we last see Larry carrying his duffle bag on board a tramp steamer in a gale. He's going to work his way back to America from Europe with a contented smile on his face. "My dear," Somerset Maugham says to Isabel at the same time in an elaborately decorated parlor, "Larry has found what we all want and what very few of us ever get. I don't think anyone can fail to be better, and nobler, kinder for knowing him. You see, my dear, goodness is after all the greatest force in the world...and he's got it!" Larry and the audience both need a healthy dose of Dramamine. <br /><br />Maugham, lest we forget, was a fine writer of plays, novels, essays and short stories. To see how the movies could do him justice, watch the way some of his short stories were brought to the screen in Encore, Trio and Quartet. And instead of wasting time with Larry Darrell, spend some time with Lawrence Durrell. The Alexandria Quartet is a good read. | 0 |
A Turkish Bath sequence in a film noir located in New York in the 50's, that must be a hint at something ! Something that curiously, in all the previous comments, no one has pointed out , but seems to me essential to the understanding of this movie <br /><br />the Turkish Baths sequence: a back street at night, the entrance of a sleazy sauna, and Scalise wrapped in a sheet, getting his thighs massaged. Steve, the masseur is of the young rough boxer ( Beefcake!) type , and another guy, a bodyguard? finishes dressing up. Dixon obviously hates what he sees there and gets rough right away. We know he has a reputation for roughing up suspects. Good cop but getting out of control easy. Why is it that he hates them so much ? <br /><br />Could it be that he hates himself. This part of himself he inherited from his father ? That dark side that could lead him right at the end of the sidewalk, into the gutter ? What if that dark side lurked within a "closet" ? Remember : whenever Dixon meets Scalise ( 3 times), the guy is lying on a bed, and he only has men around him for company ( the irony of the " Girls" poster pinned up on the wall near his bed !).<br /><br />Scalise acts funny: affected manners, cranking his neck arrogantly, defiant, shoving his inhalator ( poppers ?) into his nostrils each time he talks to Dixon. Dixon, with a vengeance, is bent on pinning down Scalise who seems not to understand : "I never saw a man so full of hate as you. I consider it almost humorous the way you came after me alone. " Four years jumping at me as if I was somebody special! Why? "<br /><br />Because Scalise is someone special indeed : he is the direct inheritor of Dixon's father : " Your father liked me", "Your father set me up in business". He stands as Dixon's criminal brother, his dark side incarnate. And to top it all, he prefers the company of men. Dixon knows it well :" Who killed him (Paine)? You or one of your playmates?" Playmates ! Notice how each time they meet, Dixon manhandles Scalise: he picks the address-book out of his jacket, slaps his face, punches him. Scalise : "I warn you not to touch me! " . Dixon's homophobia is obvious. Or put it different : his unexpressed homosexuality . Dixon, aka Dixon's kid, is the son of a thief. In reaction to this, he decided to become a cop, a good one, but there is something of the criminal in him, a dark side: he is a violent copper, a murderer, a liar. Besides, he is not married, brings "a dizzy blonde" to his familiar eat-out place every now and then, but nothing else. The waitress scoffing says that he doesn't know how to make love to a woman. Dixon has a deep feeling of guilt and hates himself for those reasons." A hood and a mobster like his old man. Blood will tell". Finally, in order to achieve redemption, Dixon decides to sacrifice himself : if he gets his alter ego Scalise to kill him, he will free himself from the guilt and free the girl and her father too.<br /><br />The end of the movie brings us back to the opening sequence : Scalise is pushed in the gutter and Dixon deserves the right to walk the sidewalk and wins the love of the dame. He is straight at last.<br /><br />The unspoken theme of the movie could very well be that of a man who in order to cover his repressed feelings, wants to experience a woman's love ( Jean Douchet)<br /><br />(These notes owe a lot to the film commentary by Jean Douchet in the French DVD edited by CarlottaI | 1 |
There was nothing else on tv yesterday afternoon, so I thought "okay, let's watch this." I didn't know the plot and I had no expectation whatsoever, I was thinking in a few minutes or so I will channel surf again. But then story started to unfold, and the characters played beautifully by the two boys. The story did have unrealistic parts and scenes, but overall it was a real good movie. Very well worth watching. | 1 |
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure. | 0 |
It really isn't hard to understand this movie! I watched it with no expectations and no knowledge of the story from the games. I was completely blown away!<br /><br />Initially, I wondered how most of the characters have some sort of super-powers but it IS called "Final FANTASY...". I also wondered about Cloud's past but that was easy enough to look up. In no way did these questions spoil the enjoyment of the movie, though. Just the opposite; it shows I kept thinking about the story long after seeing the movie.<br /><br />It's one of the most beautiful movies my eyes have ever seen. The music supports the movie completely. The characters are incredible. <br /><br />I want more! | 1 |
Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.<br /><br />But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.<br /><br />The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.<br /><br />A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.<br /><br />4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans | 0 |
I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot. | 0 |
Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.<br /><br />It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).<br /><br />This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. | 0 |
I saw this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked cool. The DVD case touted so many great actors and I wondered to myself, "Why have I never heard of this movie?" Then I turned over the case and saw the director, Lee Tamahori, and thus the answer began to explain itself. <br /><br />First of all I want to defeat the idea that a great cast equals a great movie, but more importantly, I think I should explain why this movie is so terrible. Okay, the script is awful and full of one dimensional characters. This is the worst role I've ever seen Chazz Palminteri play and I'm surprised he would do something this ridiculous. However, under-appreciated yet talented actors must earn their money. Palminteri plays a one dimensional police detective who comes off about as dumb as a C-movie mob henchman. Him, along with the lead detective (the poorly directed Nolte), the great but simple Michael Madsen, and the late Chris Penn (whose role along with Madsen's was completely thrown away) make up an elite squad of LA detectives tasked to rid the city of mobsters sometime in the late 30s or 40s. The movie introduces this squad as cops who will break every law to make sure those who think they're above the law don't operate in their city. At the beginning of the film the cops rough up a local restaurant, grab an alleged mobster (William Peterson) and take him to a place they call the Mulholland Falls. They toss him off one of the cliffs on Mullholland Drive and this is supposed to demonstrate how serious these guys are about ridding the city of crime. Whatever. This was nothing more than a cheap excuse to use a crappy title that's designed to make you think of LA and its famous sites. Somewhere later on they find the dead body of Jennifer Connelly and the plot begins. <br /><br />On to the direction which was nothing short of amateur and WEAK! Aside from the fact that the characters were B-movie quality, the overacting by those such as Treat Williams, the guy who plays the chief of police, and the awful Daniel Baldwin are just a few highlights that made this movie seem like it was Lee Tamhori's first film. There's not one good performance in the movie aside from maybe Melanie Griffith, who some might argue was the worst in the movie (she won a Razzie for this film). In the end, it was her character that was not that great and she really didn't have much to work with. <br /><br />As with any bad movie, it all begins with the writing, and this script was no gem. Plot is formulated simply on the basis of setting up the next scene and never takes into consideration characters' motivations. The way the characters behaved was unbelievable. Cops taking the law into their own hands is believable within the right circumstances (see LA CONFIDENTIAL) but in this case it looked like these guys could get away with anything, including murder, and never bat an eye about cleaning anything up. I guess we as an audience are just supposed to assume that no one saw anything and that people won't ask questions. Everything about the story is predictable and is spoon fed so well that we understand everything that's going to happen a good while before the characters do. However, it doesn't make us feel smart, but rather makes us angry at how stupid the hero is, despite the fact that there aren't any heroes in this movie. <br /><br />In the end, the best component of the movie was the great score by David Grusin. From the beginning, it invoked a since of CHINATOWN, which quickly faded when I realized how unbelievable just about everything in the film was. It didn't surprise me to learn that it made a whopping eleven million in the box office. What I will say is that this film is worth watching for a few laughs. Nick Nolte's acting is like an unsuccessfully domesticated junkyard dog and I laughed every time he tried to be serious. I also nearly fell on the floor at each of the slow motion shots used in the film (I think there are three with one during a key fight scene). When you have to use slow motion in the heat of a dramatic moment, you clearly have some problems. So, even with my negative criticism, I will recommend this movie solely for the purpose of enticing laughter, that is, if you appreciate the good movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL. | 0 |
David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.<br /><br />So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.<br /><br />This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.<br /><br />Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated. | 0 |
So far Nightmares and Dreamscapes has been erratic and disappointing. The first segment, directed by Brian Henson, may have offered little in the way of groundbreaking storytelling or real scares, but at least it was well-directed, suspenseful, and visually interesting, with solid acting by William Hurt and very impressive special effects for a mini-series.<br /><br />However, the second story in the series was just dreadful, and not in the good way. The screenplay is bad, requiring the shallow, unlikable protagonists to act illogically in order to move the plot, and having characters ramble on endlessly for the purposes of clunky, unnecessary exposition. The acting is overdone and unconvincing, and I felt far more empathy for a cold-blooded killer in the first story than for the newlywed couple in the second. The director used a million tricks to try to make the narrative spooky, but with the amateurish acting and writing, the end result looks like a freshman-year film school project, with camera moves for their own sake, and little in the way of plot or tension.<br /><br />If the rest of the series continues like this, I'll be sorely let down. I look forward to William H. Macy's installment, and hope he gets a decent director and screenwriter for his segment. So far the quality is far too inconsistent to predict either way. | 0 |
In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.<br /><br />This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.<br /><br />ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget. | 1 |
Stephen J. Cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. The result, "Dead Above Ground", is an abysmal piece of junk. Now, had I noticed his name in association with THIS particular film I'd have put it back but no, I didn't have my glasses on and therefore I missed it, damn, I really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. First question would be, who the heck is the target audience for this? It's almost like a "scary" kids movie, but then again there's topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. The main characters are so cute that you want to see someone, anyone, go after them with farm implements of SOME kind. Seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past, a child-murdering witch that collected children's teeth lived there. Probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. Of course now in the modern day there's a little girls ghost around to warn the real-live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. It does, and there's also two Bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so they're out for revenge too. This whole thing has the feel of some made-for-cable junk that's for the kids at Halloween except for, of course, the things that aren't suitable for little kids, so not only is this mediocre, it's confused, too. A big boo and hiss to Anchor Bay for putting this out too, considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. The UK gets a Phantasm Box Set, we get "The Tooth Fairy". Hardly seems fair. 1 out of 10, absolute garbage. | 0 |
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.