text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time. | 0 |
American boy Jesse took the train to Vienna in order to take the plane for USA. On the train he met a French girl Celine. Although they met the first time, they talked like good friends. When the train stopped at Vienna, Jesse begged Celine to accompany him to have a tour on Vienna. Then the romantic story unfolded.<br /><br />At first they were cautious. The funniest scene was their listening to CD in music store. They peeked at each other, though their eyes did not contact. After in-depth conversation, they relationship became close. Then I saw the most romantic scene that they pretended to call their respective friend. Their deep love for each other was expressed completely by words.<br /><br />Love is a strange thing. When you really want it, it will not come as you wished. Love needs mutual understanding. Without it, love will not last long. Spiritual harmony is the most important for love.<br /><br />Excellent screenplay and performance resulted in huge success of the movie.<br /><br />One of the best romance movies. 9/10 | 1 |
This is one of those unique horror films that requires a much more mature understanding of the word 'horror' in order for it to be appreciated. The main thing people may fail to realize that this story is told through the point of view a little boy and, as with most younger children, he gets frightened easily. Mainly because he simply doesn't understand things, like why his father is hardly ever there for him. From watching the film you can see the husband arguing with his wife the balance between work time and family time and you can easily understand it, but the little boy doesn't. Also one can imagine the boy being afraid of the woods, as it is established early on in the film, that the family is from the city. Also, in the beginning as the family is traveling to the house they hit a deer, then get held up, then they argue with the locals about it, and the little boy surely didn't find this introduction to the woods pleasant at all.<br /><br />The "Wendigo" is ultimately what his young, innocent mind fabricates to explain all of this. There is the American Indian legend, but when looking at the scene where the young boy hears about about it, it is explained to him like bluntly and simplistically. Not because that's what the Wendigo actually is, but because that is how he understands it. When you look at the film from this point of view you can really begin to appreciate it. Obviously it was low-budget and shot cheaply, but the jumping montages, use of light, and general eeriness more than make up for it. And the final question the film asks is: is it all in your head, or is it really out there? 8/10<br /><br />Rated R: profanity, violence, and a sex scene | 1 |
This is possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth "hi mom". I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent this movie!!!! | 0 |
I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".<br /><br />I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.<br /><br />It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece. <br /><br />The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it. | 0 |
I saw this pilot when it was first shown, and I'm sure countless "Spirit" fans hate it, because, like Batman, the Green Hornet etc., it took the character in the direction of "camp". But I evidently never got enough of Batman, because I thought it was entertaining, in some of the same ways as that show. There are two parts that stay with me. First, when Denny's partner has been fatally wounded, and he makes a dramatic speech about how he always stood for the law, and obeying the exact letter of it. Then, he says something like, "Boy, was I stupid!" Which is his way of telling Denny to become a vigilante instead, which he does (though the TV Batman kind). Then, there's the scene where he tries to seduce the villainess into letting him go by kissing her, but she isn't fooled, because he's too honest to kiss her convincingly ! This was a great example of "camp", that was also "underplayed", by both the actor and actress. | 1 |
IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known. | 1 |
GREAT MOVIE! Chucky is by far the funniest character in a movie. Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) makes this movie even better! Well before Chucky died Tiffany and him were together. But like ten years later Tiffany gets Chucky back (as a doll) and brings him back to life. It was a great movie!Scary and definetly funny (only because Chucky!)10/10 | 1 |
<br /><br />I really liked this film. One of those rare films that Hollywood Really does not make anymore. William H Macy Is Just great as the hit man with a soul, and Neve Campbell is just flat out fantastic as the woman who puts his life on the track of redemption.<br /><br />If you have a chance, see this film. It earns it's praise | 1 |
Can u believe a college professor made this film?????<br /><br />The same man who made DHOOP<br /><br />The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever<br /><br />The main message is nice but presented badly<br /><br />The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances<br /><br />Direction and everything is poor<br /><br />Music is okay<br /><br />Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror | 0 |
This film did well at the box office, and the producers of this mess thought the stars had such good chemistry in this that they cast them in the much darker screwball farce, The Gazebo. Frankly, I am shocked to see all the positive comments on this ludicrously plotted unfunny comedy. Both lead characters have the maturity of seven-year-olds and are much less interesting to spend time with. A veteran supporting cast including Fred Clark, Harry Morgan, and Eva Gabor lend excellent support. And, the beautiful cinematography certainly makes the rich countryside of Spain seem lush. And, there are four or five truly funny scenes to go with two wise scenes and a whole bunch of recycled and unfunny clutter.<br /><br />I cannot recommend It Started With A Kiss. | 0 |
This has to be the most boring movie I ever sat through. It is dreary and drab, has no excitement, the acting by Hulce is terrible as Hulce cannot pull off the proper accent required for this film. The story is stupid and I sure wouldn't recommend this crap for anyone unless you want to die of boredom. | 0 |
I remember watching the Disney version and watching it now makes me think it has somehow lost its magic touch. Plenty of other renditions, Ever After put aside, of Cinderella, have, in fact, lost their touch throughout the years. Then I found this production with a flawless performance by Kathleen Turner as the evil stepmother and was blown away by the phantasmagorical essence of this fantasy story that has cast me under its spell since childhood.<br /><br />We all know the story of Cinderella, a young girl who's father died and was dominated by her wicked stepmother and stepdaughters and longs to go to the ball for one last chance for freedom. But this plot line takes a different twist in the classic Fairy Tale by causing Cinderella (whose real name is Zizola, and is only called Cinderella by her family because of her slavery) to be trapped in a situation of her father (who still lives) slowly losing himself to a dominant wife who manipulates him into playing favorites with his wife and step-daughters against his own and tries to poison him. Thus, Zizola goes out to save her father by stopping her stepmother from finding another suitor at the ball by distracting the men who come her way. There, the bored Prince Valiant has a change of heart from his dull life and falls in love with the mysterious lady in the strange dress (forged by a water nymph named Mab) with rose petals for slippers. <br /><br />What drew me to this film most of all was it's original take on the old Fairy Tale that none can compare to. It does not weave a web of lies like most Cinderella stories, it does not ignore any reason as to why Cinderella would want to attend the ball and nor does it show a shallow side to the Prince as the Disney version did. Instead it shows more of Cinderella's selfless heart more than any other production and the artwork is simply stunning! The costumes are all beautifully made, especially Zizola's sapphire blue ballgown to match the Marcella Plunkett's fantastical beauty and soft, spirit-like voice. <br /><br />I would highly suggest this film for anyone who is interested in a dream-like sequence of the classic Fairy Tale with an interesting twist. My only problem is that the producers and director did not make a full collection of other Fairy Tales with this same element and the fact that the film is now out of print. | 1 |
Alright this was quite a sensitive little number but I can't help thinking I've seen it before. Reminds me of another VCA film I saw at Poitier called "THE OTHER DAYS OF RUBY RAE" Also had specks of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Ratcatcher" and Lynne Ramsay in it's execution. Which is not to say that they're not tasteful references...just that they feel very modern and very fashionable...which makes me feel like this is closer to advertising (as an approach in style and story) than the work of an original and authentic auteur to come.<br /><br />The cinematography is just...too perfect for my liking. Too coral filter (or charcoal) for my liking...too archly framed 12mm. Therefore the entire impression left me a little distant -- beware of art that proclaims itself too readily! The french (they are a conservative bunch) seemed to buy it as did the jury however... but Cannes short film selection is notoriously conservative compared to it's feature selection although I wonder what's been happening in the last few years. | 1 |
Just like Final Fantasy brought CG to a whole new level, this is a rebirth for motion capture. Neither movie nor cartoon, this motion picture looks like a homage to the Film Noir, Akira, Sin City, Blade Runner and the new generation of European cartoonists. You see Paris the way it almost could be, the characters seem as real as you and I. They blink, trip, shiver like real actors in a way never achieved before.<br /><br />Don't go watch it hoping to find a mind twister. You will most likely figure it out before you're half way from the movie. The scenario is certainly too simplistic compared to famous thrillers, but this definitely is bliss for the eyes. | 1 |
This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed "legal" way. | 1 |
To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "
gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated. | 0 |
A very good movie about anti-semitism near the end of WWII. The scene that really speaks loudly of the ignorance of these people is the meeting at the church when the priest is giving his speech against the "international money grubbers and communists". It sounds amazingly like the speeches that Adolph Hitler used to force down his peoples' throats, yet none of the meeting attendees seem to make this comparison. | 1 |
While I agree that this was the most horrendous movie ever made, I am proud to say I own a copy simply because myself and a bunch of my friends were extras (mostly in the dance club scenes, but a few others as well. This movie had potential with Bolo and the director of Enter the Dragon signed on, but as someone who was on set most every day I can tell you that Robert Clouse was an old and confused individual, at least during the making of this movie. It was a wonder he could find his way to the set everyday. I would also like to think that this might have been a better movie if a lot of it had not been destroyed in a fire at Morning Calm studios. I can't say that it would have been for sure, but it would be nice to think so. I was actually surprised that it was ever released, and that someone like Bolo would attach his name to it without a fight. Oh well. Also look at the extras for pro wrestler Scott Levy, AKA Raven. He was a wrestler in Portland at the time...nice guy, very smart. | 0 |
An entertaining kung fu film, with acting, plot and fight scenes a cut above the average chop socky. All of the cast are likeable characters and skilled martial artists. Alexander Fu-Sheng's proto-Jackie Chan comedy antics are fun to watch, and his austere companion shows particularly impressive skills. For me, the film's only glaring flaw is the size of the cast -- at times, things get a little confused as the film chops and changes between various subplots, and some of the characters are not as fully fleshed-out as one might wish.<br /><br />But a kung fu film should be judged first and foremost on the quality of the action, and Shaolin Temple definitely delivers on that count. The film climaxes with a high-bodycount battle that allows each character to show off his skills against a worthy opponent.<br /><br />Overall, Shaolin Temple is an enjoyable low-budget kung fu movie. Not up to the quality of a good Jet Li film, but definitely worth a look for fans of the genre. My rating: 8/10.<br /><br />Misc notes: The 1987 Warner Home Video release I saw was (predictably) poorly dubbed, and lacked full cast & crew credits. | 1 |
This was different, that's for sure. Just look at the cast! Talk about oddballs.<br /><br />William H. Macy and Ben Stiller were the stars, although a bunch of actors almost share the spotlight, in this farce about superhero-wannabees. The most outrageous was played by Paul Reubens of "Pee Wee Herman" fame.<br /><br />There is lots of humor, garish colors and no lulls. It's a pretty entertaining, lightweight comedy with nothing but goofy characters, all of whom want to be heroes a la Superman, Batman, Spiderman, you name. They have talents in strange areas, however, that the real heroes don't (and don't want to!). It's silly, but you know that going on.<br /><br />It's also a film you can watch in installments and not really miss any continuity. It's a long movie for one so hectic, so taking a break here and there is okay. The language was tame so kids could enjoy this, too. In fact, I don't recall any swearing in here, except the guy in the theater next to me who kept uttering, "What a dumb, f---ing movie." I thought it was fun two hours but I'd rather watch it on DVD and take a few breaks. | 1 |
This work is less about Steve Martin's character Davis, than it is about Kline (Mack) and Glover (Simon), and Kline and McDonnell (Claire), but the dialog inserted via Davis is pondering, contemplative, near-poetic existentialism at its best. He is witty, intelligent, and thoughtful in both dialog delivery and content. The writers deserved an Oscar.<br /><br />The performances are easy, relaxed, and natural; just what you would expect from "A List" actors. Martin contributes the performance which leads into his more recent Shopgirl, guiding you through life, love, and the pursuit of wisdom if not happiness. Kline is the straight - the suit - the conformist of the film, and as such his performance is crisp and refreshing.<br /><br />This work deals with life in all aspects. It engenders a true emotional investment in its characters, and leaves you feeling hopeful that Mankind is not doomed, after all, no matter WHAT you believe, deep down.<br /><br />All in all? This is delightful, with a gritty moment or two, and easy natural dialog which draws you in, assisting its audience in gaining a high enjoyment from this work. It's definitely worth your time, though it may not be every one's top choice as Friday/Saturday night entertainment.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the intelligence this exhibited. It's not typical, and was an unexpected surprise. Another wonderful surprise was the honesty exhibited herein. The couples and friends hold detailed conversations, which feel and sound fully honest and (again) natural. I was very impressed with this work, and will be adding it to the DVD collection soon.<br /><br />It rates a 9.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 1 |
Loved it! This has to be the best horror flick of the 90's. I<br /><br />was at the edge of my seat. I jumped a couple times. Wonderful<br /><br />acting. It is totally horror but it was funny when it was meant<br /><br />to be. | 1 |
Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.<br /><br />However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding. | 0 |
i haven't seen this in years but when i was about 6 i first saw this on VHS and i must have watched it at least 10 times. now like i said its been awhile so i might screw up the plot but i remember some Columbian terrorists taking a prep school hostage with demands for the head terrorist(the "wishmaster")father to be released from prison. now i could just check the plot here on IMDb but i'm pretty sure thats right. any way, a group of boys at the school decide that they're not gonna just sit around and wait to die so they decide to fight back. this film has always been stuck in my mind. there are so many images that i haven't forgotten like Joey's(i think?)death scene or billy spitting in the terrorists sandwiches or the one kids(no idea of his name)fake asthma attack. just a great film. it may be films like this that have given me my tolerance for film violence because if i remember right this movie is pretty graphic. guys getting mowed down by helicopter machine guns, a special forces guys hand getting blown off by a grenade(not sure about that but i seem to remember something like that towards the end)and the most bloody being the lead terrorist getting capped in the head in gory detail. great action, great humor, good acting, wonderful film experience. i've got to watch this again after all these years! | 1 |
With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns. | 0 |
It's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end. | 0 |
Lush cinematography, beautifully written and edited, John Boorman's Beyond Rangoon is a must-see for anyone interested in world politics and the arc of personal transformation. It interweaves a personal and political tale that continues to haunt me, popping up in my mind's eye with frequency. The story line is gripping, and the inner and outer journeys are paralleled carefully and delicately both cinematically, and in the story line. I've watched this film at least six times, and it really holds up to scrutiny. It is particularly relevant today, given world events. Check it out, you won't regret it! BTW, NetFlix does not yet carry it, but you can request that they do. | 1 |
The Animatrix: A Detective Story is very well planned and has a great storyline to go with it. Carrie-Anne Moss plays Trinity in this animated cartoon. I really like the 'Private Detective' ideas created by the Director. | 1 |
This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10 | 0 |
Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.<br /><br />A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.<br /><br />The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.<br /><br />The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief. | 0 |
I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame... | 0 |
The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.<br /><br />I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.<br /><br />The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor. | 1 |
I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back. | 0 |
Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did, though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman (played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The "cold-turkey" scenes between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless. | 1 |
"Written on the Wind" is an irresistible, wonderfully kinky film, as only director Sirk could have done it. The movie is submerged in a bucket full of Freudian symbols, weird melodramatics and colorful contrasts. The connection between financial success and moral decay is the film's main theme. Sirk seems to suggest that sexual dysfunction is one of the side effects of capitalism. However, I prefer to see the movie as a prime example of what Sirk could do with kitschy material. The palette of colors is particularly impressive. The acting in the film is great too. Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall are terribly glamorous and give the film an aura of elegance, but the movie belongs to Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone (she deservedly won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar), who manage to keep the film at a boiling point. Kudos to Frank Skinner's pulsating score, Russell Metty's brilliant camera work (every single shot is a masterpiece in itself), and the production design department. Also, the title tune is a beauty. It's an unforgettable movie. | 1 |
Think Jumanji but with a death curse. A bunch of surfer dudes get their hands on a game that takes the life of some one who is playing it. Supposedly it was made from the skin of a witch during the Spanish Inquisition and carries a nasty curse. <br /><br />Okay, undemanding and just sort of watchable tale isn't anything you haven't seen before.Frankly its a been there and done that story that hits all the right buttons in such away as to have no real surprises. Far from the worst thing that SyFy has run but certainly its not the best. There are better choices out there but if this is your only choice you won't completely hate it. | 0 |
Just the fact that the cover is a drawing, like those old B-movies should give you a warning about the quality of this movie. This is, however not a B-movie. It is a D-movie! <br /><br />There are no known actors, and the animals - WOW - it is the worst data-animation ever made during the last two decades. <br /><br />You hardly ever see the SCAAARY sabretooth shown on the front cover. You just hear people scream, bleed and die and you occasionally see a teeth or a tiger-paw. It's so amateur! Maybee worth seeing, just because it's so bad. Give it to a friend and say: "This is the best movie I have ever seen, and wait for their reaction" He, he. <br /><br />The movie is to weak to give it a Spoiler Alert! THIS IS A SPOILER. | 0 |
Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel "The Forever War." It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and John Steakley's "Armor." And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.<br /><br />Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's "Iliad." A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.<br /><br />The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to "Terminator 2" a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.<br /><br />Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts. | 1 |
Kurt Russell (as Steven Post) works as a mail-boy for struggling TV station UBC (that's United Broadcasting Corporation); he is going nowhere at work, offering ridiculous projects like "Abraham Lincoln's Doctor's Dog" to studio executives - because Lincoln, doctors, and dogs are popular. Programming director Joe Flynn (as Francis X. Wilbanks) wisely rejects Mr. Russell's proposals, but has no idea how to pick a hit TV show. His secretary Heather North (as Jennifer Scott), who does double duty as Russell's girlfriend, has a chimpanzee who bugs the heck out of Russell when he wants to watch TV. Turns out, the monkey watches all the popular shows, and can easily pick the hits. Russell discovers the chimp's talent, and uses him to advance his own career. Understandably, things gets HAIRY for Russell and the cast!<br /><br />Raffles the chimp (handled by Frank Lamping) performs well; Raffles does look bored and/or distracted during a few scenes, when the chimp is supposed to look interested; these could have been corrected with re-takes or editing. A mild satirical edge is present - imagine a monkey picking hit TV shows! AND, it's a monkey who gets a BEER during the commercials (drinking in a Disney film)! A look through the cast will reveal s bunch of fun TV actors to recognize and try to place. You could make a drinking game, in honor of Raffles' beer-guzzling, by guessing actors, and where you've seen them before. Here's a start - Hey, isn't that "Dr. Bellows" from "I Dream of Jeannie"? Down the hatch! <br /><br />**** The Barefoot Executive (1971) Robert Butler ~ Kurt Russell, Joe Flynn, John Ritter | 0 |
"Happy Days" was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One" have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TV show "Happy Days" is not in the same league as "Rebel Without a Cause" or "American Graffitti" for that matter. "Happy Days" may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. "American Graffitti" had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas "Happy Days" seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. "Happy Days" is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.<br /><br />A quick history: "Happy Days" was originally a pilot called "Love in the Happy Days" that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show "Love American Style" which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and/or alterations. In short, "Love American Style" was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. "Love in the Happy Days" did appear as a "Love American Style" show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The "Mary Tyler Moore Show" (and its subsequent spin-offs such "Rhoda"), "The Bob Newhart Show", and "All in the Family". (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!) <br /><br />Subsequently, one of the young stars of "Love in the Happy Days", a child actor from "The Andy Griffith Show" named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called "American Graffitti" directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous "THX 1138" had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't "fit" with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of "American Graffitti", TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like "American Graffitti". They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as "The Fonz", re-titled it "Happy Days" and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's.<br /><br />"Happy Days" now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in "The Wild One"? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. "American Graffitti" has many of the outward appearances of "Happy Days" but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. "Happy Days" took the look of "American Graffitti" but failed to take its heart. | 0 |
After Garbo's introduction to sound in Clarence Brown's "Anna Christie", Jacques Feyder made a German version of the movie where all of the cast, except for Garbo, were different. While the American version is still more available in the USA and most of the American viewers have primarily seen this version, the Germna "Anna Christie" is more likely to be viewed in Europe. As I have seen both films, I feel the right to compare the two closely-knit productions. Is Jacques Feyder's film different? Is it better than Clarence Brown's? <br /><br />In this analysis, I would like to focus first on what the both movies have in common. They have identical sets, very similar scripts and the same chronologically presented scenes. Here, you also find the story of the young woman who comes back to her father after years of absence and is trying to start a new life. Here, you also have the humorous, though a bit shorter, sequence in the amusement park. However, when emphasizing Garbo herself, I address the first difference. She does not appear to cause such a curiosity while talking. The viewer concentrates more on her acting than on the way she speaks, which occurred, most probably, to 1931 viewers. Garbo was very good in American film and she is also very good here. Yet, to me, she seems even more genuine in the German version. It is noticeable that Garbo does not focus on the way she says the words that much (the effort that was artificially created by the sensation: GARBO TALKS!). Her German is not very well pronounced; yet no one cares: everything is perfectly understood. Therefore, I can easily say the same I did in my American version comment: Skaal Greta Garbo! <br /><br />Yet, the film differs in one very important issue: the rest of the cast. Here comes the question: which portrayal seems more captivating, which one is better for sure? The differences are filled with varieties. Salka Viertel (or Salka Steuerman), Garbo's lifelong friend, does not do the equally great job as Marie Dressler in the role of Marthy Owens. She is not bad, she is different, sometimes overacts (from today's perspective) but is no longer that genuine in the role as Marie Dressler who still amuses us and whose moments have absolutely stood a test of time. Some people even claim that Dressler was better than Garbo in the film and that opinion, though appears to be questionable of course, carries some truth. Theo Shall is more sympathetic as Matt than Charles Bickford but when applied to him, this is not the matter of performance so much as the mater of looks.<br /><br />Who shines in the German "Anna Christie", who is really worth greatest attention is Hans Junkermann in the role of Chris Christopherson, Anna's father. George F. Marion vs Hans Junkermann is like a day vs night difference. Junkermann portrays a real alcohol addict, a man with hopes, with fears, who overdoes the care of his daughter. The scene of Anna's first meeting with her father is truly magnificent, the opening moment of Chris' conversation with Marthy is memorable particularly thanks to his facial expressions and a flawless performance. Junkermann is the Chris whom you like, who you sometimes laugh at, whom you sympathize with, who leaves a picture of a calm alcoholic sailor in your mind. Great! <br /><br />If you have seen the American "Anna Christie" and have a chance to get the German version, I would highly recommend to you this movie because it's a slightly different look at the story, a nice and accurate way to compare, a fine enrichment to Clarence Brown's movie and, foremost, a wonderful chance to discover a marvel of performance: Hans Junkermann's. Skaal or Prost, Hans Junkermann! | 1 |
For a "no budget" movie this thing rocks. I don't know if America's gonna like it, but we were laughing all the way through. Some really Funny Funny stuff. Really non-Hollywood.<br /><br />The Actors and Music rocked. The cars and gags and even the less in your face stuff cracked us up. Whooo Whooo!<br /><br />I've seen some of the actors before, but never in anything like this, one or two of them I think I've seen in commercials or in something somewhere. Basically it Rocked! Luckily I got to see a copy from a friend of one of the actors. | 1 |
This is a slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.<br /><br />It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.<br /><br />Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure. | 0 |
I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie. <br /><br />By the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP speedy.. so the quality is not so good..)<br /><br />If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK?<br /><br />Ot's a great movie and i agree that is a movie to be always watched.<br /><br />Waldemar Braz - Sao Paulo/Brazil | 1 |
Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless. | 1 |
WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005) **** (Voices: Peter Salis, Ralph Fiennes Helena Bonham Carter)<br /><br />Fantastic Feats of Clay: Wallace & Gromit Save the Day! Crackin' Good Entertainment!<br /><br />Nick Park, the creator of the animated team of Wallace & Gromit, is a genius. His painstaking art in the form of Plasitcine claymation is a unique process involving literally thousands of hours (it takes roughly an 8 hour work day to contribute 3 minutes of action to a film; this foray into feature length storytelling took 5 years!) in making his lovable master & loyal dog team take form is finally on the big screen in the duo's first full-length motion picture and it's cracklin' good (to coin a phrase from Wallace's usual reply to all things good!) <br /><br />Park, who co-directed with Steve Box and co-wrote with Mark Burton and Bob Baker, sends up the horror genre in this rollickingly funny and swift paced action comedy with the geeky inventive Wallace (voiced by British vet thespian Salis) and his mute yet loyal (and sharper-minded) mutt Gromit (all furrowing eyebrows and mouth-less insouciance) have devised a service to their community: pest control ("Anti-Pesto" as they are known) for the upcoming Giant Vegetable Festival that has the entire town in the mood for all things vegetative a gigante and the biggest pesk are troublesome rabbits eating the crunchy goods. Wallace's inventive mind has created a vacuum container that is quick, efficient, and more importantly harmless to the cute vermin that plague the estate of Lady Campanula Tottington (voiced by Bonham Carter, making a fast-break to be the first lady of stop-motion animation what with her earlier turn in "Corpse Bride" a few weeks ago), who is housing the competition and is a love interest for the nerdy Wallace.<br /><br />The only fly-in-the-ointment is vainglorious, bombastic loud-mouth and jerk Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Fiennes, his first attempt in the animated arts coming across as a Patrick Stewart lunged braggard with hilarious results), a badly toupeed wearing macho moron who is plotting to marry Lady Tottington for her riches while he is a chief competitor to W&G's humane attempts by resorting to his trusty guns and nasty bulldog.<br /><br />To add insult to injury the duo are facing a terrible plight in the form of a huge were-rabbit (the titular monster a nice nod to both Universal and Hammer horror flicks) that is terrorizing the village and devouring every veggie in sight. The two set out to trap and dispose of the creature but there is more than meets the eye as things progress.<br /><br />Relentlessly funny and with such amazing elastic, and kinetic energy to his wonderful clay counterparts, Park and Box have created a truly magical and highly entertaining film with so much amazingly detailed production design to their little world that it may take more than one screening to absorb just how much effort in their blood, sweat and tears have gone into making this instant classic for children of all ages. <br /><br />Wallace, the cheese loving balding inventor, could easily be Homer Simpson's UK cousin with his rotund body and constant knack for getting things wrong while attempting to do the right thing; his heart is in the right place but his head is in the clouds. His sweet crush for Lady Tottington (resembling a pre-plastic surgery Carol Burnett) who is a head taller than our hero will perhaps remind those of their first unrequited love with a smile of awkward admission. His Rube Goldberg-like gift for making the complicated into ease is inspired lunacy that fans will recall from the earlier shorter films "The Wrong Trousers", "A Close Shave" and "A Grand Day Out".<br /><br />But it is in my opinion the wise, silent and long-suffering Gromit, his poached egg eyes of slow-burns and disbelief at what is transpiring, is one of the best animated characters ever created with such an amazing arsenal of exasperated, mouthless expressions and subtle nuances that most live-action actors would kill to accomplish in the attempt of conveying dismay, concern, grief, genuine surprise and relief. His final chase a signature of the immensely popular comic team is ingeniously set and quickly improvised especially his literal dog-fight with the equally soundless bulldog with tenacity, wit and a Chuck Jones fueled smartness that would have Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger green with envy.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit match the best of Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello and any other classic comedy team that comes to mind; here's hoping their longevity continues on screen for just as long as their predecessors. The waiting is most eager. | 1 |
Ronald Coleman had been a star of the screen for several years when talkies came in, and what a boost it was to his career. His Oxford English accent is so enthralling I could listen to him recite the farmer's almanac and not be bored.<br /><br />Coleman plays Willie Hale, a 30ish playboy from a wealthy family who spends his time womanizing and gambling. Yet, he's a likable rogue - not only likable from the standpoint of the audience but by family and friends too. He has yet again gone broke due to his constant gambling and sells off his possessions in a foreign location to settle his debts and provide passage back home to England. When he gets there, he at first is met by a father who insists he'll kick him out - he's had it with Willie and his layabout ways. However, five minutes alone in a room with Willie and his charm, and Willie is not only forgiven by dad, dad has given him one hundred pounds to boot.<br /><br />Willie then goes for a day's recreation with his sister and her friend, Dorothy Hope (Loretta Young). Dorothy is set to be engaged to the Grand Duke Paul that very night, mainly just because her dad wants royalty in the family, and there is nobody else special in her life. That changes after her day with Willie, and soon there is a scandal brewing as Dorothy refuses to go through with the marriage as planned.<br /><br />Ronald Coleman is always a delight to watch in these early talking films he did for Sam Goldwyn where he is playing the confident adventurer or cad or both. He has a demeanor akin to Errol Flynn, but he is unable to display Flynn's physical agility due to a disabling wound he received during World War I. However, what he lacks in physical agility Coleman always made up in agility of soul. Loretta Young, only 17 when this picture was made, shows the beginning of her trademark sweet girl that can erupt into a ball of fire when the occasion calls for it. Myrna Loy plays Willie's girl from the past - Mary Crayle - a showgirl. Here Myrna is still playing a part similar to the exotic vamp parts she got stuck with so often over at Warner Brothers when she was a contract player from 1926 until shortly before this movie was made in 1930.<br /><br />This is pretty much a light and breezy romantic comedy from start to finish. If you're in a mood for the kind of escapist entertainment that lightened the hearts of audiences during the Great Depression, this little film fits the bill. | 1 |
Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.<br /><br />At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.<br /><br />Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself ("I'm going to bury that bastard," she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.<br /><br />Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.<br /><br />Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are. | 1 |
So pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was "when is it gonna go off!" | 0 |
This is not what one would term a happy tale. The titled leading character (Edmund Purdom as THE Egyptian) does not get the gal - although he does (?) evidently get the 'last' word, the otherwise principal tragic figure (Michael Wilding as the politically myopic Pharaoh) ends up tragically, and the wrong guy even if it is Victor Mature, winds up winning-all the marbles. Peter Ustinov possibly had gotten the best part (Kafka) and arguably may have stolen some if not most of the movie except for top-billed Jean Simmons as the somewhat brighter-thanaverage barmaid (Merit) whom just possibly has more on the ball intellectually and spiritually, than all of the rest of them put together.<br /><br />The brooding and pessimistic Sinuhe the physician (
that's Purdom) is portrayed as a dark, cynical, tortured soul whom spends the entire plot his lifetime, seeking the meaning of 'Life.' (Btw, and to paraphrase John Lennon, 'Life' is what happens while you're making other plans.) Pardon the lack of philosophical depth in the prior parenthetic comment, but eventually the plot unfolds to reveal just that ! <br /><br />And speaking philosophically, as if things aren't morose and negative enough, John Carradine (
as the un-named grave robber) pops-up in a cameo role in the middle of the flick espousing that 'Life' basically is meaningless and is only worth living as a poor alternative to the eventual ultimate disappointment.<br /><br />So here we are over 200 words in and I haven't really had a kind word, so why the heck did I rate it so high ? Well there is a lot of Shakespherian tragedy and bunch of moral worth in it. There's ethical contrasts, true friendships, true & unrequited (almost) love, and - despite limitations of 50s production capabilities, it is very well (sound) staged, pleasing both the eye and ear, and very well/evenly paced . The acting is, for the most part, uniformly very good given it's a 50s costume drama, and the interactions are believable right down to the characters' fatal flaws - which abound, and in that doing justice to the best of Greek tragedy.<br /><br />There is some redemption, Sinuhe does discover and embrace his son played by Tommy Retigg whom, despite Ustinov's best efforts, really needed Lassie to pull it off. A couple of other 'misguided' souls get their just desserts
the 'foreign' fleshpot Nefer (Bella Darvi) apparently in Egypt on a carnal exploitation work-study visa, whom earlier cruelly even mercilessly spurned Sinuhe -\and\- the dyke'ish Princess Baketamon (Gene Tierney as Pharoah Wilding's sister) whom knew a deep dark secret about Sinuhe's ancestry, and then tried to use it to set him against his friend, her brother the Pharaoh nice people, huh.<br /><br />Purdom's performance is actually something to behold. He carries off the dirge well enough that somewhere before the end of the pix you want to smack him across the puss, grab him by the lapels, and say "look dummy pull yourself together, the glass ain't half empty it's half full !"
and then finding that you're personally disappointed in Horemheb - truly Sinuhe's best friend, (Victor Mature as Pharoah's Top Soldier) for himself having that flaw in his character that prevents him succeeding at doing something positive.<br /><br />I wonder if the secret to the whole movie is that it very quickly achieves and then sustains the necessary "suspension of disbelief" and early on gets you understanding and worrying about the characters, caring to the point that you really feel sorry for them and their missed chances at happiness; a happiness that otherwise wasn't all that far from their grasp.<br /><br />
can't understand why this one isn't already out on DVD and hope that gets corrected soon. | 1 |
I was surprised and impressed to find out this movie was released in 1940, before the United States entered World War II. On the surface, satirizing something as solemn and horrible as Nazi Germany could be misconstrued as rash. But Chaplin's brilliance isn't limited to making a joke out of everything. In fact, the seriousness of his message wouldn't have been nearly as valid if not for the excellent use of humor in this movie along with the moments of stark drama blended in. Drama alone wouldn't have had the bite and resonance that this film did. Laughing at someone (Adenoid Hynkel) can be the best way to attack them, while laughing with someone (the Jewish Barber) can be the best way to love them. In the Jewish Barber's final speech, I forgot for a moment that the war he was talking about happened more than half a century ago. They are words that have meaning now, and in any time of war. For this reason I believe the film did far greater good than harm, as it still has the same profound effect today. | 1 |
This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. All of you who regard this movie as absolute sh*t obviusly are not intelligent enough to grasp all of the subtle humor that this movie has to offer. It shows us that real life and "ficticious" action can produce a winning combination. Also, as a romantic comedy, it has one of the most clever ways for two people to find each other. Name me another movie where you can see all of that as well as Donald Sutherland singing a song like "They're Going to Find Your Anus On A Mountain On Mars." | 1 |
If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it. <br /><br />It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.<br /><br />However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.<br /><br />"Dominick" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, "Eugene," played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's "Field Of Dreams."<br /><br />Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads "Hulk" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of "slow" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see. | 1 |
This could be difficult to for some people to get into, being used to Hollywood production styles. The directing is uninspired, apparently simply a filming of the stage set-up, and the audio quality is bad here and there (the rustling of people's clothes occasionally competes with their voices, etc.).<br /><br />My friends and I started watching without knowing what to expect, and the first scene almost put us off. It seemed very stagy and cheesy. Then we picked up on the tone of the content, and really started to enjoy ourselves.<br /><br />It is very funny, despite some corniness. Definitely give it a chance if you appreciate great dialog. Also, Helena Bonham Carter is adorable, of course. | 1 |
A trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought "this cant be bad"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the "not so scary" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking "Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about. | 0 |
I saw this movie on PBS the first time. Then I bought the video and watched it countless times. Every time I watch it, I can get something else out of it. It's a real testament to wanting to hold onto a life that was good, but now the world is changing. But you don't have to be older to hold onto the past, even the young characters, like Charlotte don't want things to change. The overall tone and mood is excellent. The cast is outstanding with all-stars like Kathy Bates, Beau Bridges and Arthur Kennedy. And its fun to see the upcoming stars before they hit more recognizable feature films, like Kevin J. O'Connor (The Mummy) and Vincent D'Onofrio (Men in Black and Law & Order: Criminal Intent-one of my favorite shows). Its just one of those movies that stays with you. | 1 |
Hotel Du Nord is a gripping drama of guilt in which Marcel Carne portrayed an entertaining tale of ill-fated love which also functions as a revolt against the cruel world.The film is based entirely on a pair of hapless lovers.Pierre and Renee were mistaken when they believed that suicide would put an end to their misery.Hotel Du Nord has its own inimitable charm as its inhabitants have become an essential part of the establishment.There is an element of togetherness as everyone flocks to Hotel Du Nord to eat,chat etc.Marcel Carne has remained true to the spirit of the films produced in 30s and 40s as Hotel Du Nord has a certain kind of nostalgic feel.Carne,while recreating the life of Parisian roads was able to create a sort of nostalgia for black and white giving a unique genre of poetic realism to his oeuvre.Hotel Du Nord can be termed as a quintessence of cinematographic populism.The 14th July ball scene on the banks of Saint Martin canal remains a magnificent sequence.The film's immense popularity can be judged from the fact that Hotel Du Nord has been declared as a national monument. | 1 |
I don't know much about the Rat Pack, and Frank Sinatra always seemed a bit too self-consciously full of himself to me. So when I call this one of my all-time faves, it's nothing to do with a tribute-band mentality. As another reviewer says, Mad Dog Time is about symbolism, not realism. It's kafkaesque (a pity Kyle MacLachlan is probably the weakest of a very strong crowd, when he was so good as Josef K), it's stylish, knowing, sardonic and slick. Jeff Goldblum is navigating his way around a variety of characters, trying not to get shot and acting deftly rather than dorkily, trying to stay abreast of what he knows and others don't, whom he can outshoot and whom he can't. Gabriel Byrne and Richard Dreyfuss (his best performance) have a ball, and the supporting cast look spot-on. The symbolism, the settings (the one outdoor motion shot with Jeff Goldblum walking down the steps seems really weird after so much lounge lizardry), the dialogue (style, not practicality, is the order of the day), it's all about characters interacting, not really gangsterism. Fun to watch, must've been fun to do. What the critics were up to is really a mystery... | 1 |
The memory of the "The Last Hunt" has stuck with me since I saw it in 1956 when I was 13. It is a movie that was far ahead of others at the time in that it addressed the treatment of the natives, the environment, and the ever present contrast between the short and long term effects of greed. It is as relevant today as in 1956, a cinemagraphic discussion of utmost depth and relevance. To top it off the setting is beautiful and the cinematography excellent. The memory of this movie will be with me to the end of my days. | 1 |
First, I am a big fan of Alien and Alien II - in my opinion both of these movies created and defined the Si-Fi Horror Genre as we know it today. I noticed Lifeforce was often compared to the Aliens saga - after viewing this movie I would highly disagree. There are some okay special effects with the alien vampires, and the story line might have been acceptable. I just can't get past a naked woman space vampire throughout the whole movie, this is absolutely absurd (although she does look good). Add in a bunch of bad British acting and it's pretty much OVER. Most of the movie ends up taking place in London or somewhere in England, so after the first 20 minutes you lose the outerspace setting and any hope of some real Si-Fi Horror action and suspense.<br /><br /> | 0 |
French director Jean Rollin isn't exactly known for great films, and this confusing mess is one of the reasons why. One of the most confusing things about this production is the title. For a director who is well known for directing erotic films about lesbian vampires; you would expect a film with the word 'nude' in the title to be a particularly bare-breasted one; but in fact, there's not a lot of nudity here at all. Instead of erotic lesbian vampires with no clothes on; we've got a cumbersome plot about a man who wants to unlock the secret to immortality, a young woman whose affliction might hold the key and a suicide cult, who don't get to do much. The film starts off promisingly with a sequence that sees a young girl carried off by a mysterious bunch of people in masks under the watchful eye of a young French man, who also happens to be the son of a man of importance. Through his investigation, he soon discovers that this woman is not just a normal lady, and as he delves deeper into the cult; he discovers that cannot be killed by bullets, drinks blood and can't go out in daylight...sounds like a clear cut case of vampirism to me.<br /><br />Jean Rollin keeps the fantasy atmosphere going throughout the film, but it fails to be interesting because the plot is so badly executed. It is possible to keep up with what's going on, but only because there's so many other films that follow similar plots to this one. The director seems to know that he's messed up the plotting too, as the climax is basically an excuse to explain the film to the audience. There is a twist thrown in at the end also; but the film would have been better without it. I guess this was Jean Rollin's attempt to be a little original, but it comes off as a ham-fisted attempt at such, rather than a logical continuation of the story. The cinematography is fairly neat, with lots of the plot taking place in suitably Gothic locations. The girls on board complete what is a pretty picture, and what Rollin's film lacks in logic and consistency, it somewhat makes up for in style. In the film's defence, it was made in 1969; which somewhat explains the lack of shocks but I can't recommend this movie as it doesn't have much about it that is worth taking note of. | 0 |
OK, I don't want to upset anyone who enjoyed this film but it was a really bad movie. Just the way the scenes were edited and the acting, it made me cringe at some points. I really tried to enjoy it but it was like a student film, they must have had the smallest budget. I really liked the story line to an extent and the characters were likable but the film on a whole was just awful. Also, why is it that in almost every film with lesbian characters one of them has to either commit suicide or die or turn straight?!?! This is so sending a wrong and unrealistic message. I gave it 3 stars and everything considered I think that was very kind of me. Only watch this film if you want to laugh at how bad it is. | 0 |
The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.<br /><br />Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.<br /><br />Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10 | 0 |
For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.<br /><br />This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.<br /><br />Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one. | 0 |
Uzumaki has a very unique story and I will never look at spirals the same way again. Not really spine tingling horror, this film has a dark morose, acid trip feel to it. During certain parts, was it just me or did you see vortex visuals? The camera shots are interesting and the movie lets your imagination run wild. The bizarre supernatural feel of this film draws you in just as the title suggests. Acting is done well and the town setting itself seems wrong with to begin with.<br /><br />This may take a few viewings for it to sink in. A great trippy film. | 1 |
Ever wonder where that episode, "Tuttle," came from in the middle of the first season of M*A*S*H? Well now the cat's out of the bag: they got it from this Soviet film, a satire on how dumb the Tsar is, due to the slip of a pen (rendering the phrase "the Lieutenants, though ..." into "Lieutenant Kizhe" which has no meaning) and nobody being honest or gutsy enough to contradict him and just tell him the truth -- Kizhe doesn't exist and never did. So they make up an imaginary life for him and eventually kill him off. And 40 years later, David Ketchum and Bruce Shelly borrowed this zany plot and gave us essentially the same story, only on the other side of what had become the Cold War, proving that people in high positions can be equally dumb no matter what their loyalties may be! | 1 |
For readers who have already seen one of Miyazaki's films: he is still in top form and made another worthwhile experience. Okay, you don't need to read any further now.<br /><br />I already guess most readers are older than the two protagonists of this picture, so I should say Ponyo is not so much a family film as a chance to remember the feeling of being a small child: discovering the world as you wanted to see it, making up your own rules and boasting an exuberant enthusiasm at doing things on your own for the first time. Ponyo swerves away from many of the problems that all-age films tackle. It never condescends, all the characters have good genuine hearts and believable problems.<br /><br />The two main characters may be two of the most believable children I ever saw put on screen. They are not simple minded, arrogant or naive, just curious, enthusiastic and learning the ways of the world. They are so easy to love, but even more easy to identify with. Many films regard children from the outside, as the adult looking into a world only a child could enter. Ponyo brings everyone back to that world. In Ponyo, there lies the first time to learn and choose what you care about most, which the film values with high esteem. It is worth it to remember, to feel it again. | 1 |
This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, "what's the message?"). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel "The Karamazov brothers", in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to "they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour". What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening. | 0 |
Okay, let's not get confused here. If this is a sequel to a remake of an original horror classic, does that mean it also automatically is a remake of the original horror classic's sequel? Here's to hoping that's not a general rule, as Wes Craven's own sequel to the original "The Hills have Eyes" released somewhere during the mid-80's is easily one of the worst and absolute most redundant horror movies ever made. Part two didn't have an actual plot and re-used footage of the original only to further exploit the success of the genuinely gritty and petrifying premise. Craven also wanted us to believe even dogs suffer from flashbacks and painful memories, as the loyal German Shepard of the Carter family re-experienced his bloody fight with one of the mountain hillbillies. There were quite a bit of alarming signs indicating us that this sequel would be a horrendous failure as well. The remake came out barely one year ago and here's the sequel already? The incredible speed of its release righteously causes you to question the quality of the script. Don't they need a little more time if they want to come up with a film that should be scary, menacing and disturbing? With his excellent film, Alexandre Aja nearly single-handedly altered the general opinion about horror remakes, as he had the courage and intellect of changing essential elements in the plot and adding more nauseating gore than anyone could ever had hoped for. Also, Aja is quite a talented young director and made himself noticed with his French instant cult classic "High Tension", but who is this new director? Aja's "The Hills Have Eyes" was an unexpected hit, appreciated by both experienced and older generations of horror fans as well as the younger and over-enthusiast target groups. It's a really good film and, even though an avalanche of new sequels and clones will be inevitable, it's highly unlikely that one of them will ever equal the surprising quality level of Aja's smashing hit. Bearing all this in mind, plus a rather large dose of personal skepticism, I must admit this rushed sequel really isn't as awful as anticipated. The screenplay is routine and clichéd horror fodder, introducing a fairly large number of characters with few or even no backbone and tastelessly depicting how they get slaughtered by traditionally repulsive-looking freaks. After the events of the first film, the US army has set up a camp in the middle of the New Mexican desert to investigate the effects of the nuclear tests, which took place there in the 50's and 60's. For the horribly mutated survivors of the miner's community that stayed there during the radioactive testing, the scientists and researchers form a tasty starter until the main course of incompetent soldiers arrives by truck. They are just supposed to drop off food and supplies but encounter their ultimate military training exercise when faced with the relentless humanoids that live inside the remainders of the mines.<br /><br />This basically is just another by-the-numbers slasher with dumb characters who are, even after losing several of their friends already, still stupid enough to separate themselves from the group and act like easy targets to kill. It's also very easy to point out which ones will make it out of this adventure alive, especially when one of the soldiers is against all types of violence and another one continuously stares at video images of her cute 3-year-old son. "The Hills Have Eyes II" completely lacks as to be expected originality, logic and plausible situations. The mutated miners aren't nearly as menacing as their colleagues in part one, mainly because they aren't organized this time and only just behave like drooling and sex-hungry prototype monsters. Since you don't care for the amateur G.I. Joe "heroes" and definitely don't feel any sympathy for the eyes in the hills, this film is a whole lot less compelling and involving than last year's original. Most peculiarly, this second film isn't nearly as violent and gory as the first! Sequels usually compensate the lack of suspense and the absence of surprise-twists with extra bloodshed and more graphic killing sequences, but the action in this sequel is really tame compared to the sick footage featuring in its predecessor. There are a handful of scenes to satisfy the bloodthirsty horror fanatics mainly showing soldiers falling down cliffs or getting shot by their own guns but there sadly aren't any outrageous pick-axe battles or virulent dog attacks. What a shame! What's the point of a sequel if it even fails to surpass the level of grossness and/or gratuitous filth of the original? Luckily enough the film is never boring or unnecessarily sentimental, and you'll have the most fun spotting all the things that don't make the slightest bit of sense! For example, wallets falling out of people's bloodied heads, women without any muscle power cast as tough-ass soldiers and my personal favorite assigning the ONE soldier with a speaking disability to operate the radio communications. | 0 |
I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed. <br /><br />All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
In this approximately 34-second Thomas Edison-produced short, we see Annabelle Moore performing the Loie Fuller-choreographed "Serpentine Dance" in two different fantastical, flowing robes.<br /><br />Moore was one of the bigger stars of the late Victorian era. She was featured in a number of Edison Company shorts, including this one, which was among the first Kinetoscope films shown in London in 1894.<br /><br />Loie Fuller had actually patented the Serpentine Dance, which Moore performs here in robes (as well as entire frames) that are frequently hand tinted in the film, presaging one of the more common symbolic devices of the silent era. Supposedly, the Moore films were popular enough to have to be frequently redone (including refilming). The version available to us now may be a later version/remake. Moore became even more popular when it was rumored that she would appear naked at a private party at a restaurant in New York City. She later went on to star as the "Gibson Bathing Girl" in the Ziegfeld Follies in 1907. She appeared there until 1912.<br /><br />The short is notable for its framing of motion, which, especially during the "second half", becomes almost abstract. It somewhat resembles a Morris Louis painting, even though this is almost 60 years before Louis' relevant work.<br /><br />You should be able to find this short on DVD on a number of different anthologies of early films. | 1 |
I'll be honest with yall, I was a junior in high school when this sitcom first aired on ABC I didn't think I would like it at all. But with John Ritter in it i felt that it had a little potential in it, plus their was something else with it I liked. The acting was great, not a lot of horrible 2nd rated comedy lines, John Ritter always brings his A game when it comes to comedy . This was a great show to watch, and I'll tell you why it was a great show. My father who never watches sitcoms at all, he just watches movies, sports, and law & order, he actually sat down with my 3 brothers and 2 sisters, my mother, and myself, and watched the show I think because John Ritter was in it. I honestly think this show would still be running if John Ritter God rest his soul i wish he hadn't passed away. | 1 |
I like both this version of DORIAN GRAY and the MGM version. Both add a little girl early in the story who grows up to have an association with Dorian (this is not in the original book), and that is my only complaint. I especially like Angela Lansbury as Sybil Vane and George Sanders as Harry in the MGM version, but Shane Briant as Dorian in the TV-version is much better looking (I think) and far more ruthless than Hurd Hatfield in the MGM version: I think Briant is more true to the novel's Dorian. In the end, this is a very good adaptation of the novel (it even hints at Dorian's liaison's with men, as does Wylde, which could not be done in the MGM version). | 1 |
Combining serious drama with adequate comedy is touchy at the best of times. LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE Muslim WORLD pulled it off thanks to a topical subject and a fantastic script; not to mention Albert Brooks' excellent broodish character portrayal. But MAN OF THE YEAR can't come close by comparison. It has a messy message folded in with forced jokes and a twisted love story that is completely unbelievable.<br /><br />The premise initially seemed very promising. Put a Jon Stewart-like comedy news guy up for President of the United States and see what happens. This independent runner is Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams, RV), a successful TV personality who is pressured into running by his audience. Along with him comes his manager Jack (Christopher Walken, CLICK), and his writer Eddie (Lewis Black). Seeming to have very little chance at a successful run, Tom Dobbs amazingly wins the election.<br /><br />But did he? Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, THE EXORCIST OF EMILY ROSE) is a computer whiz at the company who designed the new software for electronic voting at polling stations. She finds a glitch in the system that is quickly swept under the rug by the company's owner and his dark attorney Alan (Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY). Poised to lose billions of dollars if word of this gets out, the company's evil men decided to discredit and/or kill Eleanor to make sure she never tells anyone. But Eleanor is able to get to President-elect Dobbs and finally spill the beans (this is where the unbelievable love story starts blossoming, too). Dobbs goes onto Saturday Night Live and explains everything to the world, thus removing himself as the newly elected President and ending the careers of those at the computer company ...oh, and saving Ms. Green's life.<br /><br />Does any of this sound funny? The comedy is forcefully wedged into the story and is often awkward. Robin Williams blazes for a few moments during a debate but is quickly doused as the gravity of how he became President bears down on him.<br /><br />The message of the film is interesting and debatable, too: that special interest owns presidential candidates. I'm sure there's substantial truth in this, and if you wanted to make a movie about it you could. If you wanted to make a comedy about you could. But Man of the Year isn't it. | 0 |
I am so excited that Greek is back! This season looks really eventful. Im glad that Casey is trying to get serious about school but is still involved in the sorority. Its really funny that she wants to go into politics & that they're highlighting her 'scheming talent.' I loved Calvin's new haircut! It makes him look more mature. They should shave Cappy's head, as well. All the guys are hot but Calvin is definitely the hottest! I cant wait to see more of him! I'm especially interested in what happens between Calvin, Adam, & Rusty! I also love Rebecca. She's really pretty. I actually think that Rebecca & Calvin should hook up. go for it, Calvin! Join my team! | 1 |
Toy Soldiers is an okay action movie but what really stands out is the amount of effort that the scriptwriters and director put into portraying American counter-terrorist forces accurately. Just check out the end credits--there are more than a dozen US military officers and officials listed. The movie accurately portrays the FBI as having control of the hostage situation but turning it over the US Army's Delta Force (who are unnamed in the movie as the Pentagon was still denying their existence at this time) once the President waived the Posse Commitatus Act of US Code. The US Army forces at the end are accurately dressed and armed for the time. And even the use of an AH-64 Apache for air support--which might seem a bit over the top, is not terribly unrealistic. Far more expensive and frankly better movies have portrayed American counter-terrorist forces with far less accuracy. | 1 |
On a scale of 1-10 "Suicidal Sweetheart" got an 11 from me and from everyone else at this showing. The picture was incredibly funny. I told my wife "It's obvious that this man walks on water but across a bed of fire, that's a bit much." This is one of the very best blends of comedy, satire and uses of innuendo I have seen since Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein". I can't believe this picture was not picked up by a major studio.<br /><br />This "Film Festival" audience was sophisticated and was able to pick up on every comic innuendo either visual, spoken or implied. The characters are real and the combination of a great script and a great casting was obvious. Max and Grace are real people with real problems that are dealt with regardless of the odds of success. It keeps you smiling while being serious and laughing with all the indirect humor brilliantly built into this production.<br /><br />To sum it up, this is a "must see" picture. | 1 |
This happened to be just starting on TV when I opened it, and as I felt too lazy to change the channel, I ended up watching it. Man, was that fortunate.<br /><br />This film is more of a fairy tale than a demanding drama, and at times openly sentimental one. It is definitely what one could call a feel-good movie, and I usually find such either boring or irritating. Yet this film is so very well done I could not help but love it. The script will not twist your brain; it is conventional, but flawless. The actors are brilliant, every single one is a perfect fit for the role. There is not much of a score, but the bits of music enhance the movie beautifully.<br /><br />If you can appreciate other things than expensive pyrotechnics, vicious murders or saving the world in a movie, do watch this if you ever have the chance. 5/5 | 1 |
I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.<br /><br />Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.<br /><br />I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.<br /><br />Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.<br /><br />In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I tried. I really, really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. It's not that I don't "get it" -- I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. The truth is, the movie is infantile in construction, long-winded, and painfully disjointed.<br /><br />I suppose that if you are of Alfred Hitchcock's school of thought "Don't tell them, show them," then you could try to appreciate this movie, but you would still be hard pressed.<br /><br />First of all, The Terrorizers tries stream-of-consciousness in the style of Jean-Luc Godard and fails in this. Edward Yang seems to understand the basics of the technique, but he's very unskilled at it. (Perhaps he gets better with age; I don't know as I haven't yet attempted other Yang films.) The point is, he uses a dearth of "show, don't tell" that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. Sure, he gets in some visually arresting images, but they don't draw the story together, and they don't help to make it any better.<br /><br />Additionally, the major concept behind stream-of-consciousness and "show, don't tell" is that with the right images, the right drama, repetition, and tight correlation, the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences; not to say that these will be the correct inferences, but those can be amended as the story progresses, and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. In this, Edward Yang sorely disappoints. The viewer is constantly on the periphery. There is no reason to be drawn in, no reason to consider the characters or their motives, no reason to get emotionally involved, and really, no reason to stay alert.<br /><br />Finally, Yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell, not the story that the movie itself is telling. His art moves in one direction, but like a large dog he can't control, he's constantly yanking the lead, trying to get it back onto the course he wants, not the one that it is naturally following. The most egregious example of this is the ending. The ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband's revelation. The ending of the book that the movie is focusing on, (and by extension, a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. If Yang had chosen to end at that point, he would have had a much more powerful piece, leaving the watcher in suspense -- does the story play out as the book says, or does Yang's "real world" play out differently? Asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that Yang painfully needs. Instead, he continues to tell the story he wants to tell, straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what? For the sheer sake of lingering on a main character -- we didn't' need to know more about her superficially, and Yang wouldn't feel the need to tell us if he hadn't made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with. <br /><br />Why else does Yang prolong and torture his movie? To get in some more of those "visually arresting images." The movie truly suffers for it. It wants to end, it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled, but instead, Yang pushes on. Instead, Yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on, causing him or her to constantly ask "so what?" The first ending, the one that Yang ignored, that was good. The second ending, well, my thought was"so what, who cares?", because it's not as if it is introducing something that hasn't been put forth in the storyline already... but the last ending? That really was a waste of time. Not only did the "real" ending leave me disengaged, but I also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. Yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum-melancholy-noir-tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along.<br /><br />My last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather its post-production. The subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. Long sentences stay up for a second or two, while short ones stay up far too long. Also, as Yang quickly changes images, the subtitles are removed from the screen. This is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed, because there's not much dialog going on anyway. | 0 |
This Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep. | 0 |
Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.<br /><br />I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.<br /><br />I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break. | 0 |
A delightful piece of cinema storytelling in a simple but effective way. Cinema after all is a visual media and Igor used its full potential. A young restless man boards a train with no destination in mind. In one of the compartments he meets with a girl. Words are not exchanged but their laundry washing are and from there we are taken on a ride with other peculiar characters and situations. The two leads are perfectly cast as their unique features tell you a story that needs no words. | 1 |
I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.<br /><br />I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did. | 0 |
Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.<br /><br />Yech!!! | 0 |
Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this "movie" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.<br /><br />Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.<br /><br />I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.<br /><br />Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.<br /><br />Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.<br /><br />Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong... | 0 |
Good Times was a groundbreaking comedy about the first nuclear black family living in the Chicago projects. Whether or not, you live in the inner cities, ghettos, suburbs, or rural countryside, this show is still a treasure to watch and observe a family being just a family rather than a show about a poor black family. But they don't dwell on it. They find humor and have strong family values and morals. Despite the story behind the scenes, this show was worth keeping on the air except I didn't like them killing off the father which I agreed with Esther Rolle who fought hard to keep the family together. But despite all the fights behind the scenes, Good Times was a show about a family. We all loved JJ's dynamite and his antics. We watched Janet Jackson's Penny grow up a little. This show was groundbreaking to show despair in drugs, gangs, and alcoholism. Without being to preachy, The Evans always tried to do the right thing rather than do something wrong to get out of the ghetto. | 1 |
See No Evil is the first film from WWE films. Yes WWE, Word Wrestling Entertainment, pro wrestling. Of course being that it's a WWE film a wrestler has to star in it, the wrestler being Glenn Jacobs aka Kane. Which is not really important as if you didn't know Kane or what WWE stood for you would never know it had anything to do with the wild word of wrestling, as the movie has nothing to do with wrestling. See No Evil is gross out horror film, it has some moments were the some people may jump but for the most part it's just saying, hey look how gross we can get! Not that there is anything wrong with that. Jacob Goodnight (played by Kane) is sort of a Jason type character, his mother tortured him as a kid with strict (understatement) Christian beliefs and has warped his mind. Now he's a big scary chopping killing machine. 90% of the movie takes place in an abandon hotel where Jacob stalks six teenagers (surprised?) and a handful of adults. I could explain why they are in a creepy old hotel but eh, who cares? Despite it's lack of originality See No Evil is well made, for what it's supposed to be. Kane plays an awesome killer and needs little make up to be scary. One flaw in the movie is the most annoying possibility people survive, I really looking forward to having them being horribly killed, but alas, does not happen. I wish the film didn't have the stigma of wrestling attached to it, although like I said the film has nothing to with wrestling, people are still closed minded enough not to want to see it because, given of course if they are a wrestling hater. Then again the movie may also make money because Wrestling fans will want to see it. Either way, See No Evil has top notch effects and little CGI, and like I said, it's quite brutal so like I say it's good stuff....if you like that sort of thing. | 1 |
This film is about a single mother who is happy go lucky to the point that she is almost irresponsible, and her sensible teenage daughter who is undergoing adolescent turmoils.<br /><br />"Anywhere But Here" is an engaging film from beginning to the end. Both Ann and Adele are described well right at the start, so we get to know how different their personalities are. Clashes inevitably ensue, and they are engagingly presented. I find myself so drawn to their state of minds and their circumstances. it is as if I am living their lives, feeling what they are feeling.<br /><br />Susan Sarandon gives another excellent performance in "Anywhere But Here". She is charismatic, happy go lucky, hedonistic, warm and loving all at once. I have always liked Susan Sarandon, and I think she is grossly underrated.<br /><br />"Anywhere But Here" is a captivating emotional journey. | 1 |
A sadly predictable, clichéd story about a woman who was no better than she should have been. Sadly, too, the screenplay is by the once-great experimental novelist John Dos Passos, from an original by French exotic potboiler Pierre Louys. This time Marlene Dietrich is Concha, a manipulative, cold-hearted Spanish beauty. Don Pasqual (Lionel Atwill) raises her from the cigarette factory, but she ditches him. He warns his tall young friend Antonio (Cesar Romero) against her, but to no avail. A duel ensues, Concha reproaches Pasqualito for trying to kill the only man she ever cared for, so he doesn't: he points his pistol at the sky, but Antonio shoots him. But instead of going off to Paris with the young victor, she goes back to the man who would have died for her. With an unexpected bit by Edward Everett Horton as a Spanish Governor. Dietrich plays the part of a Spanish woman by moving constantly, twisting at the waist and posturing and then twisting back, flouncing, tossing her head, and so forth. And she makes faces, and has a curl in the middle of her forehead. The photography is strangely crowded: no outdoor scene can be shot except through a tangle of bare trees, no interior scene can be shot without so much busy detail that it's almost impossible to follow people moving across a room, no consecutive scene of Dietrich can be shot without a major wardrobe change. The carnival scenes are so full of confetti and streamers it's almost like an underwater scene in the Sargasso Sea. | 0 |
I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run. | 0 |
Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation
or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat
um
discriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either. | 0 |
Nazarin by the acclaimed surrealist Bunuel is ovbviously an attack on the Catholic Church and its loss of values. It is not a visual film and I think it would have played better on the stage. Bunuel takes us through this man, the nazarene that lives like Christ lived; a true follower i.e. in poverty, and without a care for property and what the next day bringeth. Some might call it a parallel to Christ's story but any follower and practitioner of the word, life should be like Christ in a way. But in essence Bunuel also inquires into the ogle of man's selfishness and need to sin and how goodness may save us all. It is a bold statement to make that may enliven, or recite to memory the movie for some. Truth, be told the Nazarene is also selfish because he gives without wanting in return or asking for it. His selfishness is his folly and the two women who follow him represent the sides of a coin;with the same face on each side. Lots of people represent sides of a coin in this movie, all with both faces the same. But the movie isn't exactly memorable once it ends and one could attack many of its ethical perforations and effusions within the movie's own doctrine. Not top-notch Bunuel but a "surreal" dream sequence that bunuel stages whithin where the message of the movie is framed and is worth noting for it shows you the capability of the director, Bunuel. | 1 |
This is absolutely beyond question the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in fact that I plan on renting it again as soon as I can find it. This movie makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like an Oscar contender. Just LOOKING at the actors makes me want to laugh out loud. I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. It's awfulness aproaches perfection.<br /><br />The plot is based on a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon in San Francisco (I think). That's as far as I can go ... I am laughing too hard. I know it shouldn't be funny but ..... *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*<br /><br />MOVE OVER ED WOOD !!!<br /><br />Regard's *DATo* | 0 |
This movie changes its way a third of the way in.its totally pointless boring and stupid.i hated this movie so much that i will never watch it again.some bad films can be really funny. this is just a British art house picture that should never of been made.1 out of 10 | 0 |
I totally agree with the other poster. NEMESIS is one of the best of the Christie adaptations with a superlative plot and cast.<br /><br />The scene involving Liz Fraser as the mother of the murder victim is a study in acting at the finest level. This underrated woman was a fave in Brit films in the 1960s who never got a mainstream break in US films. Check her out as Julie Andrews's friend in the 1964 THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY.<br /><br />All of the perfs in this prod have a chance to shine with and without the peerless Ms. Hickson who was never nommed for an Emmy for her Marple work. Shame on them! And dig the lesbian CID agents! :) | 1 |
This is a very good, under-rated action/drama/and slightly historical movie.<br /><br />The basic story concerns Rob Roy's borrowing of 1000 pounds, its theft, and the problems it causes for his family and indirectly his clansmen.<br /><br />Cunningham( Tim Roth) is an amazing villain and character in this story. Brutally cold and if you watch his face he seems to be able to turn his eyes off and look completely evil.<br /><br />Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) is excellent too, but i think the writers used the word "honour" 1 too many times.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is strong, and the whole movie is very well acted and filmed.<br /><br />The Action is exciting and the sword play very realistic, but not too gory. The story is good and you really want Rob to win.<br /><br />All in all just shy of a classic. | 1 |
(Mild Spoilers) Frankie Machine had been dealt a bad hand in life. A card dealer at an illegal gambling den in his Chicago neighborhood he was busted when the joint was raided by the cops and given six months in jail. <br /><br />While behind bars Frankie was treated for his heroin addiction at the prisons hospital and learned how to play the drums as part of his rehabilitation program. Now out of prison and back in his old neighborhood Frankie is trying to put his life back together by getting a union card in the Musicians Union and then a job as a drummer in a band and put his old life behind him but instead it catches up with Frankie in no time at all in "The Man with the Golden Arm". <br /><br />Otto Preminger's ground-breaking 1955 film about heroin addiction with Frank Sinatra giving the performance of his life as the drug addicted card sharp Frankie Machine, the Man with the Golden Arm. Frankie tries to getaway from the life that he lead but has this monkey or, better yet, gorilla on his back that just won't let him. Soild performances by the entire supporting cast starting with Frankie's friend Sparrow, Arnold Stang. Sparrows attempt to get Frankie back on his feet by shoplifting a suit of clothes for him ends up putting him and Frankie in the slammer, and almost back to prison, until his former boss at the gambling den Schwiefka bailed him out. <br /><br />There's Frankie's psychically as well as emotionally crippled wife Zosch, Eleanor Parker, who sees that her hold on Frankie is slipping and is slowly driven to madness murder and suicide. There's Frankie's drug dealer Louie, with Darren McGavin in one of his first acting roles, who's hold on Frankie is only good as long as he stays addicted and Louie goes out of his way to make sure that he does. <br /><br />There's the owner of the gambling joint that Frankie works at as it's top card dealer Schwiefka, Robert Strauss, who like Louie goes out of his way to get Frankie back to work for him even though if he's arrested again Frankie's hopes for a new and better life will go down the drain. And then there's Frankie's next-door neighbor and friend Molly, Kim Novak,who goes to almost impossible lengths to get him over his addiction by locking him up in her apartment. It's there that he goes "Cold Turkey" and almost ends up dying trying to kick the habit in one of the most harrowing sequence ever put on film.<br /><br />A no holds barred movie with explosive performances by everyone involved makes "The Man with the Golden Arm" one of the great classics of realism in motion pictures coming out of the 1950's. | 1 |
Oh, it's an excellent piece of work, to be sure. In fact, several of the best scenes in cinema, or at least in Bergman's cinema, are to be found in this film. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow are as good as you would expect. Do these two give bad performances? Sven Nykvist delivers some masterful, although unconventionally masterful, cinematography. The script is quite good, especially in individual scenes. Sometimes the film lags, and the pace is uneven, though probably intentionally. <br /><br />So what's the problem? Well, the film is too bleak for its own good. Other Bergman films are similarly bleak, but nowhere near this harsh. Eventually, I just gave up and I started to become a little irritated. I was greatly affected often during the film, but, by the end, I felt uninvolved. It's a great film, but I doubt I'd ever watch it again, nor suggest it to friends. Or, if I did suggest it, I'd be very sure to warn them of what's ahead. 8/10. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.