text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
A bunch of American students and their tutor decide to visit the ugliest part of Ireland in order to study ancient religious practices. Despite being repeatedly warned about the dangers of straying off the beaten path (by the local creepy Irish guy, natch), they do just that, and wind up with their insides on the outside courtesy of a family of inbred cannibals (the descendants of the infamous Sawney Bean clan, who according to the film's silly plot, upped sticks from Scotland and settled on the Emerald Isle).<br /><br />If you think that porn stars plus low budget horror automatically equals tons of nudity and terrible acting, then think again: Evil Breed is bristling with adult stars, but in fact, there's not nearly as much nudity as one might expect given the 'talent' involved, and the acting, although far from Oscar worthy, ain't all that bad (with the exception of Ginger Lynn Allen, who we know can do marvellous 'French', but whose Irish is lousy).<br /><br />Evil Breed opens in superb style with the brutal slaughter of a couple of amorous campers: after some brief under-canvas sex, the silicone enhanced hottie is dragged from the tent and torn in half; the guy has his arms and legs cut off and is roasted on a spit. It's a very gory start, and bodes well for the rest of the film.<br /><br />Unfortunately, after this promising beginning, things start to go seriously downhill: we are introduced to the main characters, an annoying bunch of twenty-somethings just begging to become cannibal chow, and are subjected to a fair amount of time wasting in the form of some terrible false scares, a lot of blarney about murderous druids from local Irish weirdo Gary (Simon Peacock), and worst of all, some sub-Scream, post-modernistic conversation about the conventions of horror films (how clever!).<br /><br />Then, just as it looks as though the film is never going to get any better, director Christian Viel decides to get serious: a guy gets a knife rammed through his head and there's a gratuitous sex-in-the-shower scene featuring lovely blonde Gillian Leigh (NOT a porn star, but I'm sure there's a career there waiting if she wants it). After that, things improve rapidly as the cannibals kick into top flesh-eating gear, and the film is transformed into a veritable bloodbath: Gary has a machete rammed up his ass (about time!), and is strangled with his intestines; Ginger Lynn kick-boxes a mutant; Jenna Jameson is torn open, eviscerated and has her silicone breast implant gnawed on by confused cannibal; a guy gets decapitated by cheese wire; and Taylor Hayes is seen bloody, bruised and naked with a dead foetus between her legs (apparantly, she's been captured and used as breeding stock).<br /><br />All of this is so outrageously gory that it makes sitting through the less interesting stuff worthwhile, and earns Evil Breed a final rating of 7/10.<br /><br />NB. A very troubled production and studio meddling resulted in Christian Viel eventually abandoning the project. Re-shoots were done and the gore was heavily trimmed for a US release. The good news is that although the film doesn't flow as well as it might have, and is cursed with a terrible ending, the UK DVD (the version I watched) seems to have been left relatively intact as far as the splatter is concerned (only 13s were cut from the film in total). | 1 |
I was first introduced to John Waters films by seeing "Female trouble" on IFC. I was disgusted but for some sick reason i enjoyed it. Then, i picked up the Pink Flamingos DVD in the John Waters Boxed Set. The movie is about Babs Johnson "The Filthiest Person Alive" who lives in a trailer in Maryland with her obese egg obsessed mother,and her deranged son "Crackers". In the movie you will see such sick sights as sex with chickens, drag-queens, people eating feces, torture, and all other sorts of random humiliation. The film has a soundtrack from 60's rock and roll artists. The only problem is that some parts of the film seem to drag on and can get a little boring. I found "Female Trouble" a little more fun. Rated NC-17 for Explicit sex, violence, and disturbing images. Enjoy. | 1 |
The main criticism of AT THE EARTH'S CORE is that it's cheap, the special effects are bad and so on and so forth. Yes, some of the special effects are painfully bad but what a lot of folks overlook about it is that it's actually quite fun, which is very important in my book.<br /><br />In comparison, just look at the latest STAR WARS films: they have the latest, greatest special effects created by the latest technological advances which are capable in creating stunning visual effects as far reaching as the human imagination can imagine and yet, with all the razzle dazzle, those films were as exciting as a funeral. As Yoda would say, Fun they're not! In other words, who cares if the FX aren't the greatest when the spirit of the film is fast-paced, humorous and clearly set on the side of action. I love everything about AT THE EARTH'S CORE: the contrast between stodgy Victorian England VS the wild other-worldly, colorful setting of Pellucidar, the cast of characters, the concept of a lost underground world, the telepathic Pterodactyls, the human slaves rebelling, Jubal the ugly one (lol!), the inspired teaming of Peter Cushing (who's great!) and Doug McClure, the excellent music (it's really good), cinematography by the amazing Alan Hume and last but not least, Caroline Munro. She's effing sexy in this movie. One of the sexiest B-movie babes ever captured on screen.<br /><br />Seriously, anyone who doesn't like this movie doesn't know what fun is. Gimme AT THE EARTH'S CORE over any turgid STAR WARS prequels any time! At least it has Caroline Munro, which no CGI fx can ever recreate. | 1 |
Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.<br /><br />It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.<br /><br />Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".<br /><br />Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.<br /><br />But the fact remains that we don't know.<br /><br />so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.<br /><br />So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.<br /><br />What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".<br /><br />Sad, really. | 0 |
Dr. Hackenstein begins at the turn of last century, '1909 The dawn of modern medical science' to be exact. Dr. Eliot Hackenstein (David Muir) is in the early stages of his rejuvenation of living tissue experiments, Dr. Hackenstein manages to bring a skinned rat back to life which confirms he has succeeded in bringing the dead back to life... It's now 'Three years later' & Dean Slesinger (Micheal Ensign) is round the Doc's house for dinner. As Dean Slesinger & Dr. Hackenstein eat they talk about Hackenstien's experiments which Dean Slesinger has always been opposed to, Dr. Hackenstein shows Dean Slesinger his laboratory in his attic where he keeps the severed head of his wife Sheila (Sylvia Lee Baker) who died in an unfortunate 'accident' & can telepathically talk to him (Christy Botkin provides Sheila's voice apparently). Dr. Hackenstein also show's Dean Slesinger a skinned chicken running around in a cage & explains that with the process he has developed he will bring Sheila back to life. The Dean has some sort of seizure & apparently dies. Meanwhile sisters Wendy (Bambi Darro as Dyanne DiRossario) & Leslie Trilling (Catherine Davis Cox) plus their Brother Alex (John Alexis) & their cousin Melanie Victor (Stacey Travis) are driving along near Hackenstein's house when they crash, they seek shelter & assistance & arrive upon Hackenstein's doorstep. Dr. Hackenstein invites the four stranded travellers to stay for the night. Later on Dr. Hackenstein is visited by two grave-robbers, Xavier (Logan Ramsey) & Ruby Rhodes (Ann Ramsey) who deliver a male body when Hackenstein actually needs female parts for Sheila. Dr. Hackenstein being the genius that he is decides not to waste the opportunity of having three young beautiful specimens available & starts to 'borrow' the bits 'n' pieces he needs to complete Sheila...<br /><br />Written & directed by Richard Clark I was pleasantly surprised by Dr. Hackenstein, I'll state right now that it ain't brilliant by any stretch of the imagination but for what it was I actually quite liked it. It moves at a reasonable pace even if it does tend to drag a little bit during it's middle as things settle down. The script tries to mix slapstick humour like a scene when Dr. Hackenstein is trying to restrain Melanie & she tries to gain the attention of his deaf housekeeper Yolanda Simpson (Catherine Cahn) by kicking out & Hackenstein keeping Melanie behind Yolanda's back who is seemingly oblivious to what's happening, with a touch of gore but I'd say Dr. Hackenstein is more of a comedy than horror in conception & feel throughout. There are some tacky puns & sexual innuendo as well which are always good for a laugh, Dr. Hackenstein to Wendy "would you like to see my instruments" as an example. I also thought the scene when Mrs Trilling (Phyllis Diller) reports her missing daughter's to the bemused detective Olin (William Schreiner) was a pretty amusing sequence going round in circle's talking about why he isn't looking for them even though he has only just been told, why the cell doesn't have a prisoner in it & that if he didn't find the cousin not to worry about it. None of it's flat laugh-out-loud but I must admit I found myself smiling on occasion & found the film as whole to be quietly amusing. There isn't a lot of on screen gore, a few severed limbs, Sheila's decapitated head, some medical stitching & those skinned animals which are definitely fake by the way. I liked the characters in Dr. Hackenstein too, which was surprise in itself. The acting isn't brilliant but to give everyone credit they put some effort into it, lots of exaggerated facial movements & some serious overacting means it's never dull, oh & the three birds in Dr. Hackenstein are fit if you know what I mean. Technically the film is OK as well, once again it ain't going to win any Oscars but I have to give the filmmakers at least some credit for trying to pull off a turn of the century period setting. It doesn't always work, the clothes are at odds with each other at times, the girls look like their from Victorian England while the guys look like their from a western. The house looks as if all the filmmakers did was remove any modern object from the room & stick a few candles in there! It comes across as a little bit on the cheap side but it really isn't a bad looking film at all considering. Could have done without the comedy music though. Overall I ended up enjoying Dr. Hackenstein much more than I thought I would, although that in itself isn't a recommendation. It's certainly is not the best comedy horror film ever made & it certainly is not the worst either. A watchable enough piece of harmless fun. | 0 |
How on earth this film isn't more widely regarded is beyond me.<br /><br />I picked it up for £1, and I'm not exaggerating when I say it's the best pound I've ever spent on a film.<br /><br />The thing that usually lets films about the club scene down is either the music or the actual scenes filmed in clubland.<br /><br />Here, the music and club scenes are completely credible,using some big tunes of the time, and filmed in real clubs, with people actually looking like they want to be there.<br /><br />The performances from the actors are of a high standard all round, although Jason Donovan in particular for me stands out (he was playing Frank N Furter in The Rocky Horror Show in London at roughly the time this must have been filming, so his drag phase was in full flow!), and of course Tim Curry who's eloquent drug land boss is convincing.<br /><br />Simply put, if you're a fan of British film you have to see this, it matters not a jot if you're into clubbing as the film is strong enough as a story anyway.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | 1 |
666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...<br /><br />This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.<br /><br />Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.<br /><br />666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD. | 0 |
How do these guys keep going? They're about 50 years old each, and act as if they're only 30. They play 3 hours of music at every concert, and barely break a sweat. This DVD is their first concert in Rio, Brazil. Although the people don't speak English, they try to memorize the words to the most famous Rush songs, and try to sing a foreign language at the concert with their best friends.<br /><br />From Tom Sawyer to The Spirit of Radio, this concert DVD will keep you in the chair not wanting to pause or move away from the classics that you've listened to when you were young. This is their 30th reunion tour (started in 1974). I went to their Scranton PA concert, and this was just as good, although in PA they didn't play Freewill, so I was upset.<br /><br />They have Freewill, they have The Trees, they have YYZ, The Pass, Driven, Dreamline, Red Sector A, Limelight, Roll the Bones, 2112, and much more. 10 out of 10, because nothing else compares. If you never go to a Rush concert, then at least buy this DVD. | 1 |
"Balance of Terror" is still one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made. It was inspired by the film "Enemy Below" (starring Robert Mitchum), a movie that deals with a cat-and-mouse game between two captains during World War II. In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew play similar game with a Romulan vessel. This is the program that famously introduces the war-hungry Romulans, who are distant relatives of the Vulcans. It is an incredibly suspenseful episode, tightly constructed for maximum effect. It is also interesting to see how the episode contains a series of subplots that add extra layers of meaning to the story. Mark Lenard makes his Star Trek debut as the Romulan Captain (he will later play Spock's father Ambassador Sarek). A must-see episode! | 1 |
'Fame' (1980) is brilliant. It's got all these qualities that made the late 70's movies so great. It is proud of its directness and not ashamed of being over the top.<br /><br />What really matters here, is the journey, not the destination. Ignorant idiots with soap opera mentality, will never realize that 'Fame' is about the struggles, anxieties and triumphs of these young people, not about their careers.<br /><br />Ironically enough, none of the very talented actors of 'Fame' made it in Hollywood. 'Fame' marked the end of an era. The end of artistic freedom and experimentation and the beginning of commercialization and political correctness. It's the last statement of a generation that had a voice of its own.<br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
Where to start? Some guy has some Indian pot that he's cleaning, and suddenly Skeletor attacks. He hits a woman in the neck with an axe, she falls down, but then gets up and is apparently uninjured. She runs into the woods, and it turns out there's the basement of a shopping center out there in the woods. She meets a utility worker and Skeletor attacks again. Luckily, like any good utility worker, he's got a gun and shoots at the guy. Doesn't work, everything starts on fire.<br /><br />Cut to some people walking through the woods. Even though they've been hiking together for some time, they sit down and introduce themselves to each other. Wouldn't they have probably done that when they first met? Anyhow, they're "undercover" Delta team members (undercover, I suppose, because that way they don't have to pay to dress them in uniforms). The cute girls are various things such as a sniper school instructor and, oh, I can't remember the rest. It doesn't matter. Eventually they all take their guns out and immediately start aiming them at various things. ? Anyhow, they meet an old Indian who is sitting out in the woods. He wants beans. You know, like pork and beans? He mumbles some stuff, I can only assume that it's the premise of the movie. I relied on having heard the premise from the commercials, because you can't really understand anything he says.<br /><br />So, they walk around the woods some more. All the dialogue is a load of quasi-military, macho BS. I mean all of it, as in every single word. Like "This reminds me of when we were in Kabul" or "This reminds me of when we were in Laos". Skeletor attacks again. Let me give you a rundown of a basic attack. One of the female characters is crouched behind a tree and she aims her gun at the approaching guy on the horse. For some reason, she doesn't fire but yells several times for someone else. Then as Skeletor approaches, she jumps out from behind the tree so that Skeletor can stick her with his spear. Then everybody starts shooting. The bullets cause sparks to fly from the trees. Apparently the folks who made this movie never shot a tree with a bullet. They don't make sparks.<br /><br />Then Casper Van Diem is all of a sudden driving a semi-truck, trying to run over Skeletor. He misses, and the truck slides to a stop. Van Diem is injured, apparently he slid across the seat and bumped his hip on the window crank or something, so he crawls out of the truck and it explodes. Later he's in the woods dying and everybody says a bunch of quasi-military, macho BS. They meet a couple guys in the woods and blow their "undercover" status by immediately identifying themselves as being from the Army. They beat on the guys for some reason, then they go away.<br /><br />Some other stuff happens, people mumble, the camera shakes, etc.<br /><br />I think it comes to an end eventually.<br /><br />My theory is that the Sci-Fi Channel is getting a little annoyed with everyone bashing their movies, so they put this out to remind us all how bad movies can really be. Like, you think our movies are bad? Well, you haven't seen bad. HERE'S BAD!!! Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, the rest of our movies are pretty good in comparison, right?<br /><br />Well, it's just a theory. | 0 |
I wandered into Blockbuster with a friend the other night having decided that we were too broke and too lazy to do active. She decided she wanted to watch Closer, which seemed like such a repellant idea that I had to rent another film for once she'd gone to bed. Looking around I didn't see much that interested me, but saw The Doll Master in the new releases section. Just based on the cover sleeve (A woman with a doll-like face crying tears of blood) I thought this would be interesting enough to rent.<br /><br />As for the film itself, watching it in an almost empty house, with all the lights turned off it was pretty scary. I must admit I've always had a bit of a phobia of dolls since I was a kid (and watched an awful film called Asylum, one of the stories in it involved a mental patient creating a doll which killed people. Lame, but scary at the time) and the first three quarters of this film really hit the spot for me. The first half hour in particular was awesome. The creepy foreboding atmosphere really set the scene well, and without moving the dolls seemed genuinely threatening. But unfortunately as soon as they did start to move it all got a bit cheesy, I was a bit disappointed when moments that could have been genuinely frightening made me laugh because of the way they were filmed.<br /><br />As for the characters, it's a horror film, you're not really expecting anything memorable. I found I remembered names and faces better than most Asian horror films I've seen, which suggests there must have been some hidden character development that I didn't consciously notice. The typical stereotypes are out in force in this movie each one having some kind of character quirk that sets them apart from the others, from shy and quiet Yeong-ha and her doll Damien, to the outgoing bimbo Seon-yeong.<br /><br />The plot itself was fairly cool, even though the ending, which bought together many of the loose strands of plot, seemed a bit confused and didn't really do anything for me, although it did have a couple of really cool plot-twists that I won't ruin here. The basic plot is a bunch of kids are invited to be modelled as dolls by a famous reclusive old doll maker, they have to stay in the creepy house (adorned with scary dolls, some big some small) and things start to happen as our heroine Hae-mi starts to explore areas of the house and things start happening to the other inhabitants.<br /><br />Overall, I would definitely recommend the film, not to watch with too many people as some of the moments would probably make you laugh if surrounded by friends, but as something too watch on your own in the dark, with the windows and doors open just a bit, just in case any dolls feel like watching with you. It really does leave you guessing for most of the film, allowing you to go off on wild conspiracy theories only to completely destroy them later on. If you really get into it and ignore it's cheesiness in places I can guarantee you'll check under your bed before you go to sleep and maybe even leave the lights on.<br /><br />Or maybe that's just me :P As for Closer, it was OK but I preferred this. | 1 |
Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi. For a story that's as dramatic as the one this film attempts to tell, it's a pity the director fails to tell it dramatically. Gandhi My Father is narrated to you like that boring history lesson that put you to sleep at school. Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father. This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son. Instead of showing us how exactly Harilal dealt with this betrayal and what went on in his head, the director just moves along with the story, thus never letting us be witness to the growing resentment Harilal feels towards his father. Which is why when we finally see an outburst from Harilal, it comes off looking like he's over-reacting. <br /><br />The point I'm trying to make here is that we never really get to understand exactly why Harilal became the rebel that he did. We never really understand why he turned to Islam, and then back again to Hinduism. The thing is, we never really understand Harilal at all. And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with. To put it simply, Gandhi My Father promises to examine the strained father-son relationship, but it doesn't so much as show us where the cracks in this relationship first set in. We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with. Show us incidents of their early conflict. For example, it's not enough that Gandhi merely says he's opposed to Harilal's early marriage, tell us why this opposition? It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate. Words are not enough, show us how these incidents shaped the character of Harilal Gandhi.What's more, instead of sticking with the prickly theme of this tenuous Gandhi versus Gandhi relationship, the film goes off on too many tangents, thus diluting the impact of the central theme. This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship. So you see the problem with this film is not that it's a bad film, but it's certainly a very confused film. What happens to Harilal's children after his wife's death? Does he ever have relationship with them? Where do they suddenly vanish after that one scene in which we see them with the Mahatma and Kasturba? None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family. The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen. Practically every single scene in the film opens and closes with fade-ins and fade-outs, never quite seamlessly leading into each other. On the positive side, there is inherent nobility in the film, which you recognise. The filmmaker makes every effort to deliver a balanced narrative, trying hard not to take sides, never once judging either father or son, painting neither as the villain. What the film does do, however, is make clear the fact that Gandhi was a difficult patriarch whose ideals may have shaped the nation, but evidently alienated his family. Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi. It's a wonderful performance, and it's not easy since the role covers virtually the entire lifespan of the character. But Akshaye brings a rare concoction of innocence and despondency to that part and succeeds in making Harilal a pitiable figure. Just watch him in that scene in which he discovers his wife's dead, and you'll realise how much he conveys through body language alone. Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role. The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script. Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay. What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy. And with this film, the director makes us too. | 1 |
I quite enjoyed this movie for two reasons. The first is that it gives an insight into the world of loyalism in northern ireland, which is very rarely treated in movies, most of which tell us about the republican struggle. The second reason is the performances of the actors. I thought they gave very honest and convincing portrayals of a very seedy underworld that not many people hear about outside my native shores.<br /><br />All in all, it is an entertaining ganster movie with stellar performances from a who's who in northern irish actors cast. It wont move the earth, although it may slightly open some peoples eyes to the murky world of loyalist paramilitaries. | 1 |
This is a fact that this is the 1st Saudi feature film to be shown in cinema theaters but not in Saudi Arabia for a simple reason we don't have cinema theaters in our large kingdom .. not only one cinema theater! The government forbidden opening cinema theaters after the Islamic extremists OR the religious police (or both) asked for closing it in the late 1970s & the early 1980s .. accusing the 7th art with encouraging wrong sex relationships and stuff like that .. I don't see a powerful reason why we don't open cinema theaters!! .. we have many videos stores throughout the kingdom, we watch movies in the TV from some satellite channels, we can install the "Showtime" set channels and after all movies in general seems harmless in many ways .. I know many people how go to neighboring countries only to watch a couple of films .. I personally went to Bahrain several times only to watch films in theaters because watching it there is big fun unlike watching a movie home. Saudis pay the most expensive cinema ticket in the world, we travel to watch movies while the rest of the world have cinema theaters around every town. This is one of the problems that we are having!! ..<br /><br />The movie is produced and presented by Rotana Filmed Entertainment which is a major company belongs to the Saudi tycoon-prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (the 8th richest man in the world).<br /><br />The movie's title is a word means literally "how are you?" but it is also a slang means "what's up!", sometimes used as a slang to say "bad" about something and sometimes is used as a slang to tell someone politely to mind his business & not to interfere in someone else's affairs. Anyway, I think they meant (how are you) & (what's up!) in the same time, I could be wrong though.<br /><br />Male actors are from Saudi Arabia like Hisham Abdulrahman who is very famous and has some popularity after winning 1st prize in Arabian realty show more like "American Idol", he works in some TV programs like the Arabian version of "Cash Taxi" .. the other famous actor is Khaled Sami who is funny and has a very good sense of humor .. other actors like Mishal Al-Mutairi, Turki Al-Yusuf and Ali Al Sabea are less famous and they work on some TV series shows. Female actresses are non-Saudis and they did a very good job speaking the Saudi accent .. Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan in leading role & Emeriti actress Fatima Al-Hawsani .. not that we don't have Saudi actresses but are few and not that good.<br /><br />A Saudi critic " Rja Al-Mutairi" who writes for Alriyadh Newspaper (the most popular newspaper in the kingdom) wrote about it saying: "lets not expect much of the 1st Saudi feature film. It was born in unusual circumstances therefore we can't judge it under the usual standards like any other film. It is a fact that the movie hit a huge financial success in its 1st opening days only in Kingdom of Bahrain. The movie is fresh and is about a Saudi family deals (interacts) with controversial fresh issues inside the Saudi society like: women driving cars, the low-shallow thoughts about the arts, the guardianship of the society by a certain group & the differences between being conservative and being an extremist. The ideas are good but you feel you are lost in the middle of the movie. One of the movie's advantages is the beautiful music score by Rajeh Dawood which was good but sometimes it doesn't match or express what's in the picture. Turki Al-Yusuf did a great job .. his performance was the best alongside with Mais Hamdan .. the biggest loser is the leading actor Hisham Abdulrahman who came behind the supporting actors Mishal Al-Mutairi, Ali Al Sabea and Khaled Sami who did a good job within the limits of their roles. <br /><br />after all, " Keif al-hal?" even with all of its disadvantages still an OK movie and it is a very good 1st step of Rotana .. and the movie became the speech of people and streets which is a golden goal to make a strong debates inside the Saudi society about movies in general until they become aware of the importance of the 7th art and other arts"<br /><br />PS: there is another Saudi filmmaker "Abdullah Almohaisen" claims that he directed the 1st Saudi movie titled "Shadows of Silence".<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie yet .. I hope I've been helpful. | 0 |
An amazing film, I've only just seen it and I already want to see it again. I'd never heard of Derek Jarman before I saw this film but now I am, I can't wait to see his others. The film takes a whole new perspective of Shakespeare's The Tempest, I'm sure he'd have appreciated it for Jarman's use of the the play's themes of love, magic, darkness and atmospheric tension. OK, OK there may have been a bit of nudity in the film which I hadn't really anticipated but it didn't offend me, it just surprised me and made the film more unpredictable. One Spoiler (for those of a nervous disposition: Fast forward the flashback scene with Sycorax & Caliban and Ariel as their slave, its pretty graphic. Overall, if you are starting to find Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare performances flaccid and monotonous then you need to see this film. Fantastic and surreal, it'll blow you away, but only if you let it. Have an open mind - and then let this film work it's magic on you. | 1 |
I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).<br /><br />If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.<br /><br />I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.<br /><br />It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.<br /><br />Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7. | 0 |
'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.<br /><br />However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.<br /><br />We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.<br /><br />Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.<br /><br />Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases. | 0 |
I heard tell that Madonna was briefly considered for the Catherine Tremell role. Compared to Sharon Stone, Madonna is too coarse and BAUERISCH. She's not even close. <br /><br />EVIL INCARNATE: Sharon Stone is a bit long in the tooth, the ameliorative effects of modern chemistry and surgery notwithstanding. However, she artfully treats us to a frightening personification of evil beyond redemption. In the obligatory sex scene, she projects pure, crystalline lust. Especially her hooded, luminous eyes and a face flat with pleasure. Thanks to brilliant use of lighting and other stage techniques, the harsh lines of age are only occasionally manifest. Rather, she seems to have a slight golden glow (YES, YEATS). <br /><br />The locations gave us a view of London that is a welcome departure from the usual Londonscapes .The Catherine character is so powerful and menacing that I thank my lucky stars that our paths never crossed. I wouldn't have had a chance.<br /><br />THE ORIGINAL BASIC INSTINCT; ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP: I must briefly comment on the original 1992 film, set in San Francisco, a beautiful city worthy of this film. It is outstanding, from the music to the locations to the sets, and so on. Paul Verhoven pulled striking performances out of the cast and crew. <br /><br />That the main Baddie was a woman did not escape the scrutiny of Bay Area Gay and Lesbian activist groups. Attempts at censorship were vehemently denied. SWELL. These philosophical pygmies demanded editorial control over the script, insisting on re-writes that would promote their political and psychiatrically driven agendas. Example: Sanctimoniously alleging sexism and misogyny, they demanded that the lead role be switched from BAD GIRL to BAD GUY. <br /><br />On locations in San Francisco, the gentle, tolerant activists did their best to sabotage filming of the scenes with noise, flashing lights and other tactics. The Executive Producers, Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, vowed to fight any efforts to restrict the artistic freedom guaranteed in our democracy and obtained restraining orders against the disruptive tactics. <br /><br />BLOWBACK: Thanks to the fulminating activists, the film got huge national press coverage - millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Their calls for viewers to boycott the film resulted in a backlash that had customers waiting in long lines wherever the film was launched. It also received widespread critical acclaim. It was, in the words of the reptilian Hackett in NETWORK, "A BIG- TITTED HIT!" Sorry, Gentle Reader; I just couldn't resist that one. Yes, it's a gibe.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that both BASIC INSTINCT 1 AND 2, with their brilliant musical scores, aesthetics and acting, are works of art <br /><br />that deserve protection under our Constitution. | 1 |
While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie. | 0 |
When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.<br /><br />Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.<br /><br />The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.<br /><br />There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.<br /><br />The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.<br /><br />The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D. | 0 |
I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what
but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.<br /><br />For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.<br /><br />Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.<br /><br />There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | 0 |
H.O.T.S. is a fun film for a trip back to when skin flicks had a more positive fun-filled agenda. They were made simply to titillate and have a few laughs. Everything seems less cynical and jaded. The girls all have natural figures and some are Playboy playmates. The simple plot deals with a group of young women who open a non-sanctioned sorority house to get back at the snooty sorority girls who spurned and insulted them. Instead of the mean spirited tricks of today, most of the hijinks are simply innocent fun. The women are decent actresses for this genre and are mostly very attractive. To keep our attention between the topless scenes, we have mafia henchmen, a stolen bear, a hot air balloon, a funky house mother, and the cheapest robot ever seen. There's even Danny Bonnaducci of the Partridge Family. If you have a sense of humor then let yourself go and enjoy some light entertainment. | 1 |
After reading the other reviews for this film I am of the opinion that the high markers are probably paid studio lackeys as the film I saw was absolutely dire, with wooden acting, lacklustre scripting and plodding predictable directing, one of the few plus points has to be the stunning scenery as this film features some stunning backdrops with great sweeping vistas and dramatic skies and wide open prairies, sadly when the most memorable thing in a film is the part featured behind the actors this has to be a warning sign as to the quality of the movie, all in all a thoroughly uninspiring addition to the western genre which even at the very reasonable price it can be obtained on DVD is best to avoid. | 0 |
"Chupacabra Terror" is saved from a '1" by the presence of Canadian cutie Chelan Simmons as the heroine. She is a delight to watch, from the front, back and side. Otherwise, what you have here is your standard monster movie, playing like a low-budget, shipboard version of THE RELIC. John Rhys-Davies plays the captain of the ship on which the monster is being transported. And the very nonscary monster is simply a man in a suit. He does commit about 100 senseless, gory killings, at least, so the body count in this one is pretty awesome. Formulaic, to say the least. I love the moment when Simmons ominously tells someone what chupacabra stands for: Goat eater! Oooohhh...scary! | 0 |
...I saw this on cable back in the late 1980's as I was a big wrestling fan since 1986. I saw this on VHS in a 'for sale' bin and bought it.<br /><br />In 1998, I started training as a wrestler after the Air Force and would always go back to watching this to see how it was a very accurate portrayal of people that are involved with wrestling ( families and friends that wouldn't understand us, the travel, the heartbreak, etc. ). Henry Winkler is funny and sometimes sad to watch as nobody else can understand what a genius he is creatively. A great way to separate himself The Fonz character he played on Happy Days at the time. Plus, look at the cast...William Daniels ( Knight Rider ), Polly Holiday ( Alice ), and wrestlers Roddy Piper and Chavo Guerrero Sr. If you get a chance, watch it. | 1 |
It has to be admitted that the best work of Harold Lloyd ended with his last great silent comedy "Speedy" in 1928. After that he enters sound films (like Chaplin and Keaton and Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields) and does do better than Keaton, but not as well as the other three. Chaplin was rich enough to make his own films as producer (but he paced his films so there were five years between productions). Laurel & Hardy were under the protection of Hal Roach, so production standards for their shorts and sound films were pretty good. Fields first worked with Mack Sennett, than with Paramount, and then free-lanced. Lloyd tried the route that Chaplin took, but with less success.<br /><br />He produced his own films, but unlike Chaplin he did not own his own studio. Also his first two choices were not good (especially "Feet First"). But he did begin to choose more wisely and "Movie Crazy", "The Cat's-Paw", and "The Milky Way" were all good choices. These three (and possibly "The Sin of Harold Diddlebock") were his best sound ventures. They are all entertaining, but none are up to "Safety Last", "The Freshman", "The Kid Brother", or "Speedy". <br /><br />Of the top four sound films "The Cat's Paw" is the most controversial. Ezekiel Cobb's solution to ridding the city that elects him mayor is very extreme for the tastes of 2005. Or is it? When a movie is made dictates what it's politics are: "The Cat's Paw" is from 1934. That second year of the Roosevelt New Deal (itself rather controversial for heavier government involvement) movie audiences saw films like "Gabriel Over the White House" and "The Phantom President", where our leaders did extra-Constitutional actions to rid the nation of internal enemies (and to force disarmament around the globe). Even Cecil B. De Mille got into this act with "This Day and Age", where a bunch of teenagers use rats to force a gangster to confess his crimes.<br /><br />To us, the use of violence to force anyone (even a bunch of goons and boodlers like Alan Dinehart's gang) to confess is repellent. After all, the Supreme Court has protected us from confession under duress. What we forget is that the reforms we are thinking of did not occur until the Warren Court and the Burger Court made them. For example, although Mr. Justice Sutherland's opinion in the Powell ("Scottsboro Boys") Case of 1932 guaranteed every criminal defendant had a right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright did not extend this to ordering court paid counsel to defendants until 1962. The Miranda Case, with it's now well-known anti-self-incrimination warning is from 1963. Nothing like this were considered necessary in 1934.<br /><br />If you study other movies of the period up to 1954 (and even to 1960) tricks are used to get confessions - Kirk Douglas confesses his crimes in front of witnesses in "I Walk Alone" while Burt Lancaster holds a gun to him. When Lancaster leaves, Douglas sneers about confessing under duress, only to see the gun is unloaded. Suddenly he realizes that (legally - in 1948) he has confessed without duress. Hate to say it, to any civil libertarians reading this note, but what Cobb/Lloyd does to Dinehart and his pals in the conclusion of "The Cat's Paw" was not only legal, but would have led to their jail sentences in 1934. We may call it heavy handed, fascistic, or horrid, but it would have worked legally when it was thought up. | 1 |
This movie only got a 1 because you can't give a zero! if you have a weak tummy AT ALL don't watch. animal rights people you don't want to watch either. it makes people vegetarians i swear i witnessed it happen! the only cool parts are the case and the fact that its a true story. its really really super creepy that this guy worked at ADT while he killed people! still feel safe when you punch in that little code? i don't! He had access to every code in Kansas!!!!!! I hated the movie it was not scary it was mentally scaring! Do your self a favor and don;t rent/buy this movie i think it cost about $20 to make that INCLUDES their OVER paid actors!!!! | 0 |
If you're a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.<br /><br />I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the "bad grrl" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.<br /><br />You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.<br /><br />The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought "gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there", then you are in for a treat.<br /><br />They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.<br /><br />Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the "Monicans" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.<br /><br />The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.<br /><br />The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess. | 0 |
The movie has an excellent screenplay (the situation is credible, the action has pace), first-class direction and acting (especially the 3 leading actors but the others as well -including the mobster, who does not seem to be a professional actor).<br /><br />I wish the movie, the director and the actors success. | 1 |
From the mind of Harry Alan Towers comes another piece of cinematic sludge. Supposedly based on the work of H. Rider Haggard, the only similarity it bears to anything Haggard actually wrote is that it takes place in Africa (albeit an Africa that has dinosaurs - which our intrepid adventurers use to pull their canoes!), and has some characters with the same names.<br /><br />Our heroes (David McCallum, Patrick McNee and John Colico) set out to seek treasure, armed only with a medallion, and end up precisely where the treasure is, purely by chance. On the way, they meet a motley assortment of extremely lame monsters, pick up a French chef, and McCallum has an affair with the Queen of Phoenicia.<br /><br />It's so ridiculous, it's a hoot. That's the only reason I didn't give it a 1. | 0 |
**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.<br /><br />Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.<br /><br />Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.<br /><br />At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.<br /><br />The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.<br /><br />We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.<br /><br />With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway. | 0 |
If scientists behaved in a way that H.G. Wells was confident they would in the future, history wouldn't quite have turned out the way it did in Things To Come. Were almost 80 years past the point that Wells wrote The Shape Of Things To Come on which this film is based and no closer to the world he describes than before, in some ways farther away.<br /><br />Though such well known players as Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke are in the cast, they're more caricatures than real characters. It's the main weakness with the film, it's devoted to Wells's philosophy of science will solve all problems and the rest of us are backward fools.<br /><br />Massey's characters, two generations of the same family holds that supremely optimistic view. Cedric Hardwicke is a skeptic who feels man is rushing too far forward. And Ralph Richardson is a warlord arisen from the destruction of another Thirty Years War fought with modern weapons. By the way as the atomic bomb had not been invented, poison gas was deemed to be weapon that almost destroys mankind.<br /><br />According to Wells, science and conquest can never mix. Scientists as a group are far too above the world of politics to engage in such things. In Wells's lifetime scientists certainly fled the rightwing fascistic governments of Hitler and Mussolini. Those same folks however in order to defeat them, subordinated themselves to the Allies and fashioned the atomic weapons that ushered in the modern age. If they behaved as Wells would have liked them to, someone like Albert Einstein would have headed a junta of scientists who would have established a new order after World War II. <br /><br />Wells got it wrong both in time and in development. He apparently never envisioned the computer as well as atomic power. Computer programmers are far more likely to be our rulers in a brave new world than scientists at the moment. Still Things To Come, aided by the direction of William Cameron Menzies and the sets created offer an interesting glimpse into the mind of H.G. Wells, certainly a respected thinker of his time though he didn't quite get right the shape of Things To Come. | 1 |
Ok i am a huge Traci fan so her just being in the movie automatically makes it rank at the 8.5+ rating. But even besides her being in it i thought it was a good movie especially for it being an HBO movie. But i am afraid if you take Traci out of the movie it would just be ok. But a person can't do that she is in it and she is a wonderful actress. She just keeps getting better and better. | 1 |
I hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, "Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man." But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.<br /><br />This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.<br /><br />Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.<br /><br />Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.<br /><br />The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young. | 0 |
I always wondered what happened with that magic kind of feeling the old Slovenian movies seemed to have in them... Well, in time I wondered if that feeling was just the nostalgia. Or did that "feeling" decide to pack its bags and say "goodbye" somewhere in the middle of our cinematic history, and then never came back? Or did it? Because for me, it came back the first time I saw "Ekspres, Ekspres". And it was it's old self again.<br /><br />There are three qualities of this movie that makes it somewhat unique and as enjoying as it is to watch - the smooth flow of the story, the warmth of the colors and, what I appreciated the most - the lack of excessive use of verbal communication (something many of other (not just) Slovenian screenwriters should at least consider). There is no use for words, when you can understand each other just as well (yeah, or better) by other means in use. Just watch Bakovic and Cerar. Uh.<br /><br />So this, in only so many words, is why I would recommend "Ekspres, Ekspres" to all of you, as a must-see Slovenian movie, regardless of what you may heard of Slovenian films (if you ever even heard anything , that is...).<br /><br />Oh, and that scene, where Bakovic is dancing to Vivaldi's music... A treat.<br /><br />Treat yourself. Watch it. | 1 |
This was the most unrealistic movie I ever seen.<br /><br />I can't believe that the writer and director didn't see that almost all the movie looks like a SF one.<br /><br />For example: <br /><br />1. It is impossible for the killer to stay on cold glaze and after 10 hours to get up so quickly.<br /><br />2. You can't get electrocuted trough a water pipe like in the movie.(believe me, it's my domain)<br /><br />3. With a saw you can cut 10 pipes in 10 hour very easy. Let's say that the chain was made from steel but the water pipe was rusty and it was made from iron.<br /><br />4. If you try to cut your foot with a saw you faint (in the best case, it's more likely to die because your hart fails) before to get to the bone(shin).<br /><br />And there are more other examples. | 0 |
Don't let any reviews (critics, IMDb users or mine) influence you seeing this movie. I read only the plot premise and became intrigued. After watching, this movie, in my opinion, is definitely worth seeing. It gives a perspective on life that many have probably not contemplated. Its is not however, as Leland himself says, a movie that "can be wrapped up in a neat package with a bow and everything." Other user reviews on this website claim to have a psychological background and imply that the story is not feasible. Quite obviously they missed the entire point of the movie, which is disappointing. to say the least.<br /><br />In short, it is a well acted, well directed movie. The story is not a feel good one, but I feel if you don't come away from the movie feeling good, you may just have missed something. To characterize it as "art house" is unfair, in my opinion, but as our society likes labels, this is probably the one that fits. If you find you know everything there is to know about the world... I'd suggest skipping this one. If you feel movies should be a form of escape "from the world"... you won't find it here. But if you do watch it... you just might find something in yourself. | 1 |
Don't believe all of the negative reviews this movie receives. Yes, it is cheaply made. Yes, the gore is laughable. And, yes, the acting is sub-par. However, this is a textbook example of an early slasher flick, and if that is your "thing" (its mine!) then you will enjoy this one. There are enough good aspects to this movie to more than compensate for the drawbacks. For one, the score by a then unknown Christopher Young is very creepy and accents the violence perfectly. The ending is a welcomed break from the predictable upbeat endings of most movies. And last, but not least, the setting is what made the film for me. The makers of this film could have done a much better job "dressing" the set to make it more believable as a college dorm. However, if you can overlook this flaw, the setting is great. Four collegiates all alone in a huge, abandoned, condemned building just waiting to be torn down.... it reaks of possibility. When watching, allow your imagination to do some of the work and you may enjoy this film as much as I did. | 1 |
Directed by Samuel Fuller, who also wrote the screenplay, Pickup on South Street is a tough, brutal, well made film about a pickpocket (Richard Widmark) who inadvertently aquires top-secret microfilm and becomes a target for espionage agents. Also involved are Jean Peters as a tough broad who is used as a courier by her evil ex-lover Richard Kiley. It's film-noir at its best and although the performances are very good its grand character actress Thelma Ritter who steals the movie. As Moe a weary street peddler selling neck ties (and who also sells information) she is terrific in a role that brought her another Oscar nomination. Its amazing that Miss Ritter was nominated six times for an Academy Award and she never won. This should have been the role that copped it for her! | 1 |
I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.<br /><br />I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.<br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!<br /><br />However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.<br /><br />1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously. | 0 |
Of course the average "Sci-Fi" Battle Star Gallactica fan will hate this. That kind of makes me happy. I don't like those cheesy sci-fi shows especially Battle-star Gallactica and that is why I like this show.<br /><br />The creators of the show got a lot of heat for making this (the unconventional sci-fi way) and it was worth it. I read on Wiki that they wanted to appeal to everybody including women and not just sci-fi nerds.<br /><br />This is probably the most promising show since Lost. It has the most interesting, clever, and deepest script of any show in some time and it is truly unique.<br /><br />What I love most about the show is that it kind of plays out like a great Anime! From young teens running around shooting guns, to and extremely well balanced and complex script, to robots it reminds me of something that came from Japan except a little bit better (most Anime is too confusing). | 1 |
My dog recently passed away, and this was a movie I loved as a kid, so I had to see it to try to cheer up.<br /><br />(Beware of Dog, I mean Spoilers.) This movie isn't just for kids and it's far from ordinary. It was set in New Orleans in 1939. First and foremost, the dog was not portrayed as an extra family member in this film, but as an adult with his own complicated life to deal with.<br /><br />In the beginning, Charlie is not too different from his dishonest and brutal business partner, Carface. He is money driven, greedy, and just escaped death row, as he states in the start of the feature. The difference between Charlie and Carface is that Charlie can learn and is willing to listen to others; Anne Marie and his sidekick, Itchy. Carface will not even listen to the fat, ugly dog with the big glasses who happens to be closest to him.<br /><br />Carface attempts to murder the hero, because he wants 100% of the profits in their business and won't settle for only 50% - a highly unusual way for a German Shepherd mix to die. Also, being eaten by a prehistoric sized alligator who ends up sparing your life because you can sing is highly unlikely whether you are a dog or not. This is a cartoon, and that's why it is logical here.<br /><br />Carface's method of revenge is through murder, while Charlie believes success is the best revenge, financial success that is. After surviving death, he starts a business by taking Carface's source of financing, a highly talented girl who possesses the ability to communicate with animals. They win a whole bunch of races, and Charlie tells her he'll give the money to the poor - hint hint: Charlie and Itchy live in a junkyard, and are therefore poor. He uses the money toward his casino/bar/theatre, and not the other "poor." The reason why Anne Marie has the ability to talk to animals is that she has compassion, and she listens carefully. She teaches Charlie ethics by pointing out his gambling, lying, and stealing. Charlie tries to make up for it by buying her dresses. She added the ethics that his business needed, while Charlie did management, and Itchy provided construction.<br /><br />Carface uses violence and property damage to tear down Charlie's business, which is unprotected by the government. Charlie loses everything and all he has left is this little girl. In the end he had to choose between her life and his own. He first grabs the watch out of self preservation, and sets it down when the girl started to sink. Both the girl and the watch were sinking, and he had to choose which one, and he chose the girl.<br /><br />The great part about this movie that focuses on a person's ability to learn right from wrong over time, and a child's ability to cope with the natural occurrence of death of their pet, is that it never shows anyone dying! The watch symbolizes his life, and the watch is shown being submerged and stopped. All the deaths were suggestive, even for the villain. I didn't cry during this movie until now, and I have gotten so much more out of it, that I had to write it down and share it with you. | 1 |
Ah, McBain
The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always to me personally, at least remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse
McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it. <br /><br />Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass. <br /><br />Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and last but not least a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms". | 1 |
I saw the movie before I read the Michelle Magorian book and I enjoyed both. The movie, more than the book, made me come close to tears on several occasions. This film touches the deepest points of the human soul and never lets go. I encourage as many people to watch this masterpiece as much and as soon as possible. I give it ten stars. | 1 |
Zombie Bloodbath is a movie made by zombie fans for zombie fans with a true love of the Horror genre. As I understand it from the commentary and things I have read, it was made during the huge Midwest flood of 1993 when half of Missouri was underwater. Buildings were under water. cars and houses were underwater. One article said that zombies and the crew from this movie would help sandbag the river after shooting each day. The fact this movie got made at all is a miracle. It is like a huge mashing of every zombie movie ever made put through a Troma filter. It is a party movie to enjoy with friends who like loads of splatter and goofy characters. And it is fast paced and energetic and really funny.<br /><br />A toxic spill accident in a nuclear power facility causes people to melt down or turn into zombies. The local Government covers it up, tears down the factory and builds houses over it. Some ground shifting (?) causes a cave opening to develop and some new residents find the cave and unleash the undead on the newly built community. From there it just gets crazy and gory and fun.<br /><br />I have read these reviews on here a few times. And it seems obvious to me that the same person attacked this fun little movie three times as a different reviewer, using fake names. They use the same words and sentences. Zombie Bloodbath is cheap. It is raw. It has some bad acting. So does half the movies made. There is much much WORSE out there than this fun movie. If you hate this film so much, don't buy it. There is no need for personal attacks and to call the crew or cast "Trailer Trash." And it is obvious you are not from Australia or England. It is just upsetting that this great service, the IMDb does not catch people using it just to trash others. There are bad reviews and good reviews, and I don't mind those. I give both bad and good reviews myself. But it is painfully obvious that some fool just wants to use this forum to personally attack the director of this movie. Sad.<br /><br />Some of these so called "Reviewers" even basically sue their "review" just to promote their own movies. One called this film Boring - well, love it or hate it, one thing you can NEVER say about this film is that it is boring. It moves fast and never has a dull spot.<br /><br />Oh and this reviewer from The Netherlands??? Um - LIAR. You tried to post this same review at Amazon and it got yanked there. The SAME review only it said it was from Missouri.<br /><br />This nonsense HAS to stop. Love it or Hate it - give it a real review or type nothing. It is obvious you have not seen the films.<br /><br />But for the record, I have and though this one is not nearly the best that I have seen, it is far from the worst. And even the worst I would give an actual REVOEW and would not attack the director personally.<br /><br />Hope this review helps some people see through the stupidity going on here. | 1 |
One of the worst Arnold movies I've seen. Special effects were terrible. Script was horrible. Hopefully his next movie will be much better like T2, Total Recall, True Lies and Eraser(not as good as the rest). Watch Stigmata if you want to see an apocalyptic future movie. It's much better. | 0 |
Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished "packages",a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of "product" and craft a personal work of art. Of course there has always been the "Art for art's sake - money for Christ's sake" ethos in film-making,but now "Ars Gratia Artis" has,in all but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century ago,having made the hugely influential,"Laura","Where the sidewalk ends" and "The moon is blue",he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel "The man with the golden arm" in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in "From here to eternity",the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called "The Life",in truth a murky area occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in "The Life",and it's dog eats dog down there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success as many actors subsequently "doing" cold turkey have,with the passing of the years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in "It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world". Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger. | 1 |
Anyone who has a remote interest in science fiction should start at the basics. Everyone says STAR WARS and STAR TREK are the best science fiction films to begin at, which is fine but the truth is THE TERMINATOR and this movie, SOYLENT GREEN, are far better choices than those series. SOYLENT is probably science fiction 's best kept secret. It remains one of the biggest, yet most forgotten films but the impact of its setting is becoming more a reality with each passing day. Charlton Heston overdramatizes his role, yet it works. Edward G. Robinson, in his final role, makes the most out of it in SOYLENT GREEN more than anyone else and his final scenes are touching.<br /><br />It is Manhattan in 2022, the world is overcrowded and food is an unbelievable fortune (a small jar of strawberry jam costs $150). A big executive for the Soylent company is murdered and police detective Thorn is on the case.<br /><br />The secret of soylent green is not a mystery if you do research on the movie. SOYLENT is enjoyable to watch, but the whole screenplay is a joke. It is just as cheap as the entire production. The screenplay and the over dramatics of the actors made the movie, yet were completely hilarious. Everyone seems to be a moron and no one knows the rules, specifically cop Thorn who likes to just waltz into people 's apartments, peruse around shamelessly and steal anything he wants. The character 's interactions keeps your attention on the movie, but still you realize that SOYLENT GREEN sucks. An enjoyable piece if you have the time, but do not expect anything more. | 0 |
The saddest thing about this film is that only 8 people cared to leave a review of it and NO-ONE felt it worthwhile leaving a comment on the message boards.<br /><br />Made the same year as Philadelphia...the Tom Hanks Oscar-winner... this is the film that people REALLY should have seen and given awards to. There is more humanity, life, love, tenderness and beauty in these two people than in just about any other gay film I have seen... and it is all true.<br /><br />In order for this to be printed I need to leave a few more lines of text: suffice it to say that anyone who REALLY wants to know what it was like to be gay in the 60's and 70's, and to understand just what AIDS was like before the modern drug "cocktails" allowed people to breathe a little easier... this is the film to see. <br /><br />Oh, and I will add a personal comment about AIDS. Despite everything, there actually has been a silver lining to all the horror. When AIDS first arrived, it was called the "gay cancer", and governments preferred to "let them die" rather than spend a red cent on research to help save a bunch of fags. Then it became clear that AIDS would also be a heterosexual disease. But the government wasn't ready for that; So when straight people began getting ill too, the only organizations and associations that were available to them were those which had been set up by gays themselves (examples: The Names Project: the quilt memorializing all those who died of AIDS; Act Up etc) The result is that people who probably would never have come in contact with gays in their ordinary lives suddenly found themselves counting on them and needing them, because no other organizations existed. This close contact, in my estimation, is what finally broke down the barriers of prejudice and allowed the straight world to finally accept gays as equals. When AIDS first came on the scene, many of us thought that the straight world would use it as a way to come down even harder on us... and that probably would have been true if straights didn't suddenly become ill too; nevertheless, the strides that have been made in gay liberation - to the point that, as I write this, there are at least 5 countries in the world that accept gay marriage - these gains would probably have taken a lot longer without AIDS to bring us together. It is sad to think that all those people - both straight and gay - had to die before our common humanity became more obvious - but if what I am writing here is true, and I think it is - then there is a bit of comfort to be taken in realizing that all those people did not die in vain. | 1 |
It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell. | 0 |
I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.<br /><br />Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.<br /><br />Oh wow... | 0 |
this show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well "Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show. | 0 |
I hated this crap, every Friday as part of tgif it was on, and consistently sucked big time with stupidity each and every week. If you want to see something funny go watch "No On Would Tell" Starring Candice Cameron and Fred Savage, it really is hilarious, shows exactly why no one ever goes on to a good film career after doing a terrible TV show. This show really makes me sick, I hate those kids, and bob saget needs to go jump off a bridge for ever making this crapfest. I've seen funner stuff everywhere else but here. I AHet writing 10 lines! Watch 'full house' to see the least humanity has to offer in the way of arts and entertainment. | 0 |
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.<br /><br />I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.<br /><br />*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****<br /><br />Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.<br /><br />I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards. | 1 |
I managed to see the MTV premiere of this movie last night and I needed to tell everyone that this movie brought the thunder. Obviously this movie will be most enjoyed by fans of the D as it has plenty of in-jokes for those that have seen the HBO series and has more than enough D for newer fans and the mass of soon-to-be converts. The music really shines with the new songs "Kickapoo" (which is much better than it sounds), "Master Exploder" (possibly the 3rd best song in the world) and "Dude (I totally miss you)". There are a load of excellent scenes (the car chase, the rock-off, the meeting) and cameos (including Dave Grohl as Satan!). I really could go on for hours but I don't want to give the movie away. Go see it. You won't be disappointed. | 1 |
If there's anything worse than this movie I don't want to see it. I remember so many amazing things--a nun dropped out of a coffin to make a raft for a little blond boy; the little blond boy himself adored as a god; lots of stock footage of Peru as an ideal vacation spot. Shining Path and Alberto Fujimori should blast away any notion that Peru is a vacation paradise. The whole thing is so awful that Plan 9 or even Robot Monster is an aesthetic treat by comparison. This film should be bombed and strafed and bombed again. | 0 |
Gabe Ryan (Frankie Thomas) gets out of reform school and goes back to the slums. His sister (Ann Sheridan) does her best to keep him out of trouble, but it just seems to follow him. Aside from his associations with the Termite gang, Gabe is followed by real-life gangsters who have a scheme to set fire to random buildings to collect the insurance. They need someone to blame for the arson, and Gabe is it. It is up to the Termites to work the law in their favor and give the gangsters their just desserts.<br /><br />The the scene that introduces the Dead End Kids is really quite good. The boys wander on over to the new resident's furniture on the street, and proceed to make it their own. They talk to each other in phoney posh accents and talk about drinking tea together; Bernard Punsley takes a nap in a chair. The boys then proceed to start a fight with the new boy, but after he proves himself a good fighter, they ask him to join their club.<br /><br />The initiation scene is rather good too, filled with mischief that seems dangerous at first, but is really rather clever and innocent.<br /><br />Later, when Billy Halop studies to become the boy mayor, he has a dream about schoolwork. This is wonderfully staged, with tiny holograms of the kids walking on his face and firing questions at him.<br /><br />Angels Wash Their Faces is a great title because it plays off of the success of Angels With Dirty Faces, and really tells what the kids are doing. Notorious for bad behavior on and off the set, these boys make nice in this film. But rather than seem disingenuous, it makes for some great laughs. This is a preview of what many of the boys would become in The Bowery Boys series. We even get a few garbled words from Leo Gorcey. | 1 |
The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely. | 0 |
.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......<br /><br />in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........<br /><br />last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....<br /><br />she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.<br /><br />The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......<br /><br />There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital.... | 0 |
What an incredible fall for Sean Ellis.<br /><br />You gather a bunch of your friends at home, all hyped about the follow up work of Sean Ellis. You have an vague idea of the plot, no spoilers that could kill the fun, very high expectations.<br /><br />It is late at night, perfect atmosphere for a movie of this type.<br /><br />15minutes passes and you start telling yourself it is bound to pick up, at 25mins you start wondering if you should just go to sleep and save this for another time when you can fully appreciate the expected not existent subtle touches. Over the half hour mark you realize half of your your hyped up audience is already asleep and call it a day.<br /><br />A few days later when you exhaust all other material to watch you go back to this, in the middle of the day this time, hoping your mood will keep you awake this time. 10 minutes later you find yourself fastforwarding the unbelievably and needlessly long intermediate transitions and images. Any other stuff I would have given up already but there is cashback and its legacy. But that legacy can only carry you so long, this is a new level of boring movie-making, imagine a short story extended to a novel with just descriptions, this is what it is.<br /><br />Decent cast is wasted, there is no cinematography that leaves you in awe like cashback either. There are films that annoy you, there are films that lack certain aspects, or just cheesy, unfortunately this is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Final words, stay away. | 0 |
I'm a sucker for a decent superhero movie. (I'm not counting super bug budget, no storyline Batman's either)<br /><br />A couple of my favorites are The Phantom and a budget movie called The Demolitionist. The Black Scorpion can be added to that collection.<br /><br />If you've seen the Demolitionist then get this movie. It's basically a copy of that heroine. (It even stars the same guy in both movies)<br /><br />If you haven't, then let me explain...a cop's father is murdered and she seeks vengeance. She laces up the black outfit (a sexy catwomanish, skimpy outfit that looks absolutely great on Joan Severance) and goes out to kick some booty.<br /><br />It's a fun, action packed movie, mind you, you may not wish the kids to see it...without screening it first to see if you approve of the pretty graphic sex scene Severance has in it. Which in my opinion, was a bonus (alright, give it an extra star <grin>) | 1 |
Spoilers!<br /><br />From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!<br /><br />If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?<br /><br />After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up. <br /><br />I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"<br /><br />This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place. <br /><br />Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty. <br /><br />9 of 10 stars.<br /><br />So sayeth the Hound.<br /><br />Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider! | 1 |
A Disney movie that dares to do something different should at least be awarded for effort. "Holes" doesn't make the same mistakes as one would expect from a Disney movie about troubled teenagers put in a camp. For the first time events are not explained in details. The flashback scenes really do serve a purpose and present several mature topics that may surprise the viewer. I must admit that at first I was a bit put off by the seriousness of the movie. But soon I realized that we had to endure those moments to see the beauty of the story. Besides the story this movie also does a good job of questioning some methods that are used in correctional facilities. (One example where Caveman is forbidden to teach Zero to read because they have to dig holes in order to build character,like learning to read won't contribute to that). "Holes" is a movie that is smart and beautiful. A must watch! | 1 |
I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander Leesville, Louisiana I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander<br /><br />Leesville, Louisiana | 1 |
Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars) | 0 |
The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.<br /><br />The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.<br /><br />Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.<br /><br />God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to. | 0 |
I remember watching this movie many years ago on VHS at a friends place. At first I thought it would be a boring car movie. But much to my surprise it ended up being one of the best movies I can remember watching for its time.<br /><br />It has a good story line and best of all it has some awesome Aussie cars and street racing. I really loved Fox's car the most which was a worked Dodge Charger. The paint work which was done on this car was truly outstanding in my opinion :)!<br /><br />There's also a black two door blown 57 Chev which comes into the movie later on. <br /><br />I actually managed to get a copy of this movie on VHS last year at K-Mart over here in Australia. I did have plans of converting this movie to DVD myself as I believe it is a movie worth the conversion. But much to my surprise this weekend while I was browsing the DVD movie bin I came across it on DVD. So of course I grabbed it while I could as it was the only copy there.<br /><br />Anyway if you really want to see some classic street racing with real muscle cars, including a great story line without a rice burner in sight. Then this movie is for you!!!!<br /><br />Here is some additional info taken from the back of the DVD.<br /><br />He'll Win At Any Cost Fox is a young man that lives in the fast lane. He believes he is the fastest man on the road - but street racing is illegal. If he doesn't accept his latest challenge he could loose his girl... if he does accept, he could lose his life. Living dangerously, living fast and winning at any cost is their obsession. They don't turn back, the don't give in.. and the don't ask for help. | 1 |
I had expected a fairly straightforward R-rated graphic, sexual, crude teen-comedy when I sat down to see this... it turned out to be fairly accurate... only it was far more sick and disgusting than I would have thought. I don't know if the director/writer Gregory Poirier is sick or deeply messed up sexually, but I doubt that a normal person could have made a movie like this. I could probably have taken it if it was just that, if the only thing that was wrong was it was that it required a tough stomach... but it isn't. The film is also horribly mean-spirited and disturbing... every single character that has more than one full second of time on-screen is an extreme... sexually, mentally or physically. I don't know if this is just the director's sense of humor, but I just found it to be... wrong. Just wrong. Even in a comedy, there is supposed to be some seriousness. The plot is stupid. The acting is bad. The characters are inconsistent and poorly written... all of them. There isn't one single likable character in the film. The humor is disgusting and goes way too far. The film is just so incredibly poorly done that I really don't think it's worth anyone's time. If you like R-rated, crude comedies with plenty of sexual innuendo and graphic stuff, watch The Groomsmen, or, better yet, American Pie... or Road Trip, my personal favorite. But don't watch this. I can't possibly describe to you how bad it is... you would have to experience it for yourself. However, this is one of those times where I'll say that you're better off wondering. That way you can just imagine that this film goes very close to the bottom... without knowing that it goes through it, and far lower than that. This movie most of all looks like a group of horny teenage guys got together, put together a film crew, and every-time one of them got an idea, they filmed it, and later put the entire thing together. It lacks structure, consistency and taste. I recommend this only to horny teenage guys who have seen every single other R-rated crude teen comedy and who don't care about quality. Everyone else... do the sensible thing; avoid this. It's not even worth it to see the booty. Believe me. 1/10 | 0 |
The first time I saw this was when I was with a date, and she thought it was an awesome movie. I didn't.<br /><br />The second time I saw this was last night on TV. It still sucks.<br /><br />As a love story this sucks. As having Julia portray a street hooker, this is repulsive. To me she was a librarian with a miniskirt and heels. She had no tough shell to her. She wasn't tortured, anguished, enraged, starving or anything else. Her "HOOKER" character was so flawed, like comparing a cubic zircon to a diamond. The two simply don't fit, no matter what they look like.<br /><br />The ONLY cast I felt was worth watching was the 2 bitchy saleswomen, whom were excellently cast. They did such a fine job that I hated them for the few seconds that they were on screen. They had real definition, for the minor roles. OK, so the movie wasn't entirely trash...the two ignorant saleswomen saved the film.<br /><br />Aside from those two women sales people, the rest of the cast...including the big names was just crap. Either everybody was an ass-kisser or had absolutely no reason to fill any dialog in the movie aside from just complimenting Julia Roberts or kissing ass to Richard Gere.<br /><br />This was a movie about how when you walk around in high-heels and a tight skirt in Beverly Hills, people leer at you and guys who work in hotels gawk as if they just had a baseball bat struck to their face.<br /><br />While in reality, the women who are dressed to the nines in Beverly Hills are hookers and prostitutes to a higher degree, but since they aren't wearing the gaudy Madonna looking jewelry or the patent boots, they can look down on the others who do.<br /><br />The hotel cast was sickeningly sad to watch, and anybody who had any real character had less than a minute of screen time.<br /><br />This is an insult to romantic movies, comedies, dramas and even to prostitutes who face wealthy customers on a daily basis with hopes of having their lives work out perfect.<br /><br />The story is about Julia Roberts being PIMPED (yes PIMPED) by a multimillionaire in a business suit and limousine.<br /><br />She is still owned, still told how to act, how to move, what to wear, what to say, where to go and what to do. He is more controlling than a street pimp, but the folks at Disney/buena vista butter it up to make it easier to swallow.<br /><br />Had Richard Gere been a black man with a gold tooth and an AK-47 at his side instead of an attaché case, this movie would be about how a woman has to struggle to get away from the harshness of prostitution. Same story, different characters will make a very different outlook.<br /><br />Oh yeah, change the white man for a black man or Asian or Spanish, have the land business deal be changed to a deal of weapons or narcotics and the entire concept of romantic comedy is thrown away.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Pretty Woman is still trash, dressed with ribbons and bows.<br /><br />I didn't like it 15 years ago, when I didn't understand it and was led by the Hollywood hype. I hate it now that i can see past the pretty decorations that is called "love".<br /><br />This movie is NOT a romantic comedy. It's a story on how to control a woman as long as you have the means and income to do so.<br /><br />This is an insult to strong women, weak women and women in general, as well as to my television screen.<br /><br />Do I hate it? Yes. Does it suck? Yes Would I recommend it to you? NO...well maybe if I really hated you.<br /><br />Will this review get posted? We'll see.<br /><br />Anywayz, that's all for now. | 0 |
Tycus is one of the worst films direct to video films that I see ever.<br /><br />I am not amazing that this product does not appearing at the cinema.Bad Visual effects (The start is dreadful)Bad actors (I don´t understand Why appear in this film the great Dennis Hopper)and Bad screen Without sense.My alternative:Armaggedon or Twister. SENTENCE FOR TYCUS:Do not watch this film. | 0 |
A dangerous psychopathic killer Jacob Goodnight is holed up in the abandoned and rotting Blackwell Hotel,alone with his nightmares until eight teenage delinquents show up for community service duty along with the cop who wounded Jacob four years ago.When one of their own is kidnapped by the killer and her fate uncertain,the remaining petty criminals must fight for their lives..."See No Evil" was directed by the porno filmmaker Gregory Dark and it stars WWE superstar Kane as remorseless psychopath.The supporting cast is terrible and there are no surprises to be found here,but there is enough extreme violence and gore for slasher fans to enjoy.Overall,I liked this film and you should too,if you are into mindless slasher flicks.Sure,it's cliché,but who cares.7 out of 10. | 1 |
This is a really amazing story and the most amazing part of it all is that it REALLY happend! In case you haven't noticed: it's based on a true story.<br /><br />(Possible spoiler)<br /><br />Imagine the shock and horror of discovering that your own father was once a SS officer in WW II.<br /><br />It's a very intriguing story and I'm really surprised the movie is rated a lousy 5.3 here on imdb.com.<br /><br />my rate: 7 | 1 |
This is loosely based on the ideas of the original 80's hit . It's set in the modern day as we see a base in Afghanistan get destroyed by a UAV right at the start.<br /><br />And that's exactly where the movie jumps the shark. UAV's aren't armed. They could be but I don't think it's ever been tried for real. We get to see the computer that has masterminded this operation, called R.I.P.L.E.Y. We are introduced to "hacker" Will Farmer (he's good at chemistry & electronics which doesn't make him a computer hacker) & his love interest, Annie) & Will's 1st attempt at hacking is not only a complete failure his IP address is also logged and Annie guessed who it was. We also meet Wills mom who works for a chemical company.<br /><br />Wills taking money from his neighbours bank account (Mr Massude) isn't a hack (he helped him set up the account), we then get a nod back to the original movie where they decide against playing Global Thermonuclear War & they play The Dead Code. The trace the RIPLEY office are running is NOT on Will but on Massude's pc so all the evidence they were gathering was useless against Will.<br /><br />Exactly why RIPLEY shut Will's machine down isn't explained (he's only playing an online game?) & also why it felt the need to have to shut down all the electricity in the entire block he lived in as well. Why a counter terrorism agency would see this as a viable target is extremely questionable. As for RIPLEY activating his mobile phone? I think not, it wasn't connected to the pc and the message wouldn't play unless he actually answered the phone so there's more bad "hacking" science there too.<br /><br />RIPLEY agents arrive at Massude's home, take him away & Will is given a envelope which turns out to contain a lot of money. Will searching for the licence plate of the car that took Massude isn't a "hack" as you never see him break into the DMV computer. The RIPLEY agents who grab Dennis in the airport as he's looking for Will have no authority to arrest or detain him. Will's mother hadn't "been stealing chemicals & Bio agents" either. And even if she did they had no right to arrest or detain Dennis. Patriot Act or not.<br /><br />I don't know why Will was worried about being arrested for any crime in Canada as its a totally different country with different laws to the US.<br /><br />The computer has gone rogue and all the action its taken against Will, his mother & Dennis wasn't sanctioned by a Government agency. The phone phreak we see Will do is the 1st show of any hacking skill in the movie, we also get a hack into RIPLEY which seemed too easy for such a powerful system.<br /><br />The "guy" who ran into Annie at the airport & was also watching them in the street was nothing to do with RIPLEY & the laughable notion that RIPLEY could track a cellphone whilst underground was as stupid as the idea that a computer reads lips.<br /><br />Another reference to the original movie when they mention Stephen Falken as the designer of the system RIPLEY replaced, the Joshua Project. We discover that the "guy" who ran into Annie is Falken (not played by the original actor sadly) who faked his own death.<br /><br />We also get to see WOPR as "what's going to help" them beat RIPLEY and they kept the same voice used back then. Falken & WOPR are destroyed too quickly after being hardly used at all (the same explosion should kill Will, Annie & the Russian. It's also unlikely they'd create a self-contained computer system that has the ability to nuke or drop chemical weapons on the country it operates out of.<br /><br />The whole "Decontamination" plot & idea are totally unbelievable. Those kinds of orders would have to go through the President or Joint Chiefs Of Staff. So yet another laughable & unbelievable idea.<br /><br />The IP hacks against RIPLEY aren't done by Will, he just contacts one of his friends who suggests & implements the idea. It's excessively laughable that Will would get a login just from increasing RIPLEY's operating temperature. Having Joshua as a backdoor into RIPLEY (especially after it had been blown to bits) is an incredible cop-out and screams of a very desperate writer who had no ideas left and wanted to get this movie over and done with.<br /><br />There is an awful good where RIPLEY is playing Dead Code and we see a countdown (saying 17 minutes) then RIPLEY says "Decontamination in 30 minutes", how crap is that when they can't even keep up with their own timer? RIPLEY's attack mission against Philadelphia is halted (far too easily in my opinion) and it decides to attack Joshua in its internal circuits and reroutes the missile aimed a Philly to Washington where RIPLEY is stationed. The idea of the Nuclear exchange to make RIPLEY realise what she's doing won't work (surely she'd already know if she had Joshua insider her as he'd already learnt this lesson in the original movie?) is yet another nod back to the original movie.<br /><br />Their cop-out at having RIPLEY repeat Joshua's exact same words form the end of the original movie just goes to show how many original ideas they were unable to come up with.<br /><br />If you want to point fingers for bad & stolen ideas the men to blame are Randall Badat & Rob Kerchner. This is an awful movie and is best avoided. | 0 |
But I doubt many were running to see this movie. Or "Some Came Running Out Of The Cinema". Okay, that's a bit harsh.<br /><br />The film starts in an unintentionally comical way: Frankie-boy comes back to his hometown after many years (this already smells of clichés) and the whole town is shaken by his arrival: he is talked about, everyone wants to talk to him, and every woman he meets flirts with him like there's no tomorrow - even his niece hints that she would gladly have dropped her date to chat with Frankie-boy a little longer! Even his pretty niece wants a piece of him! Sounds like one of those laughable "Mike Hammer" episodes where EVERY single female wants Stacey Keach. And, like Stacey Keach, Frankie-boy is anything but a good-looking woman's wet dream. In real life, someone like Sinatra (without the fame) wouldn't get within 100 m of someone as beautiful as MacLaine. But in this Hollywood movie it's the other way around: MacLaine is absolutely nuts about Frankie-boy, but HE couldn't care less! Sinatra plays his "cool" shtick much too often in his movies, and it is rarely credible. Dean Martin is kind of miscast; he isn't miscast as a card-player, but rather because of the accent which simply doesn't suit him. MacLaine is charming as ever, but she plays a caricature - and this reliance on caricatures is one of the basic problems with the film. The main characters are all some sort of stereotypes out of bad or seen-it-all-before movies and cheap novels; Frankie is the "cool cat" who comes back to town to get all the women, and he couldn't care less about his writing (which, predictably, eventually garners recognition); Martin is a sleazy but friendly card-player; MacLaine is the dumb, but very likable bimbo; Frankie's blond love-interest is a snotty literary expert; Frankie's brother is the successful guy who married into his wife's business and has a lousy marriage; and so on. Clichés.<br /><br />The story contains a couple of coincidences which are a little too far-fetched for my taste: Frankie just happens to bump into his niece in a locale; his niece just happens to be meters away from her daddy when the latter kisses his secretary for the FIRST time; and then there is the awful, stupid ending.<br /><br />In it, a drunk guy bent on killing Frankie-boy somehow manages to find him in a carnival of all places! The place is utterly crowded, with the typical noise and chaos - plus it's happening in the evening - and yet the guy somehow finds Frankie (in spite of being drunk as a doorknob) and shoots at him. But guess who he kills? MacLaine. She jumps in front of the bullet to save Frankie: a cliché which comic-book writers might cringe at. This utterly pathetic, over-dramatic, and annoying ending certainly cannot please any, even semi-intelligent, viewer. And this happens on the same day that MacLaine and Sinatra got married! The writer of this nonsense seems to have read crappy dime novels his whole life - how else is the writing of this movie to be explained? There is even a card game in which a brawl ensues with Frankie & Martin vs. some cliché caricatures out of the writer's "vivid" imagination. (It was like a damn Western suddenly.) Another dumb thing is the way Sinatra was crazy about the boring snotty-nosed bimbo and pretty much ignored MacLaine. As the movie progresses we find out that Sinatra finds MacLaine to be too dumb for him, just as the blond bimbo finds Sinatra to be too low-class for her. There is a certain snobbism and disdain to be detected in the script regarding MacLaine. MacLaine is treated as worthless by everyone, while the blond bimbo is treated as a princess and an intellectual; the ironic truth is that the latter's character comes off as rather dumb and not at all as intellectual; her behaviour, comments, and opinions are mostly clichéd, silly, confused, pretentious, and primitive. At least MacLaine's character KNOWS that she (MacLaine) is dumb. There is another irony that I didn't fail to notice: Sinatra had trouble finding an ending for his latest story - much like the writer of this movie, and that's why he came up with the corny, crappy finale.<br /><br />The film basically has a solid cast, and the photography is nice, but the script, though sometimes okay, relies to heavily on silly nonsense instead of on reality-based characters and events.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Shirley MacLaine and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail. | 0 |
I watched the first 10 minutes of this show I think I'm gonna barf now! One worst shows on TV. It's not even funny. It's so lame it's disgusting. I gave it a second and third change couldn't even make it through five minutes. Don't waste the time. This is one of the many shows that need to go bye bye. Speaking of regular night time shows that need to go. All the shows on CBS. All the Shows on ABC. All the Shows on FOX and Joe Buck. All the shows on the new CW network. All the shows on NBC.(Accept The Law and Order series). All the Morning and Afternoon talk shows. All the Court TV shows. And every reality show out there!! Every stupid game show. period the end! All the Home improvement shows! And all the Media News. all it is.Is a 24 hour loop of bad news. Yes,I do have Favorites Monk,The law & Orders thats it for me. | 0 |
I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.<br /><br />So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap. | 0 |
" Now in India's sunny 'clime, where I use to spend my time as a soldier in the service of her Majesty the queen . . . " so goes the famous poem penned by Rudyard Kipling. This is the literal foundation upon which the movie "Gunga Din" is based. If you are fortunate enough to watch this legendary Classic, you will enjoy films the way they use to make them; for the sheer pleasure. Taken from the script of the established novelist and poet, this is a story of a humble Indian native named Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) who works as 'a regimental beasty' during the British occupation of India during the 18th century. His greatest wish is to become a soldier. The water boy is part of a British Calvary contingent threatened with death by a notorious blood cult of Kali called the 'Thuggee.' Three particular soldiers stand out in this company who are noted for their bravery and comradeship. First is handsome and debonair, Cary Grant playing Sgt. Archibald Cutter. Next is Victor McLaglen as courageous Sgt. MacChesney and finally there's flamboyant Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Sgt. Thomas Ballantine. All three and their fellow soldiers are surrounded by a hoard of mountain stranglers led by their fanatical leader called the 'Guru' (Eduardo Ciannelli). Amid the Chaos of war, is the brave water-boy who hopes to earn a place in the army by playing a bugle he found. A solid story for an old black and white film which needs little fanfare for anyone looking to enjoy a classic. **** | 1 |
I just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?<br /><br />I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts. <br /><br />Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate movie | 0 |
For many years Ed Wood's Classic 'Plan 9' has been considered the worst film ever made. Forget it The Roller Blade Seven is infinitely worse. The cast is made up of famous peoples brothers and almost famous or has been actors and actresses. The plot along with the budget and script are non-existent. The running time is made up not in the classic Ed Wood style of using stock footage. Instead there is endless slow motion and repeated action. And as for The Roller Blade Seven aren't even seven of them!<br /><br />You must see this film just to know how bad film making can really be. Giving independent film makers everywhere hope. | 0 |
A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.<br /><br />My Grade: D- | 0 |
This unintentionally amusing mid-80s TV movie is based on the premise that sex bomb Donna Mills (in a mostly appalling wardrobe throughout) is a neglected housewife, pining for her sexy past as a cheerleader. She escapes her empty life by fantasising about random sexual encounters with one of the many attractive men she comes across, finally giving into her fantasies and indulging in a bit on the side, although all she really wants is to reignite the flames of passion with her boring husband James Brolin.<br /><br />There are many laughable aspects to this film, Mills' first foray into co-producing (later, following her departure from Knots Landing, she found great success as a trashy TV movie queen starring in mostly issue-of-the-week melodramas through most of the '90s - she usually played a victim of some sort, clearly determined to wash her hands of the wonderfully wicked and entertaining conniver she played for so long on Knots). Funniest are the drawn-out fantasy sequences, filmed as though they are meant to be soft-core porn (wind and smoke machines, backlighting, porno music), but as this is a network TV movie the scenes are all very chaste and ultimately not very sexy at all. The most amusing (and bizarre) scene has Mills taking a walk on the wild side downtown among the spiky-haired punks (complete with Robert Palmer soundtrack). <br /><br />Less laughable is the dreadful dialogue that the cardboard characters are forced to utter (pity poor Cicely Tyson as the mandatory psycho-analyst, or Veronica Cartwright as the mandatory best friend, or even pre-Babs James Brolin with that daytime soap style of clenched fist anger.)<br /><br />Of course, as in all of these sorts of films, we learn that all problems can be solved through psycho-therapy and then the film just becomes silly, as we explore, briefly, the reasons for Mills' "shocking" behaviour (as if it can't just be that she wants a good shag!)<br /><br />Vacuous. | 0 |
What a surprise; two outstanding performances by the lead actresses in this film. This is the best work Busy Phillips has ever done and the best from Erika Christensen since Traffic. This film certainly should be in Oscar contention. See this movie! | 1 |
A film so insecure the creaters perhaps hoped to milk an original film noir classic title, "Farewell My Lovely", thinking the gullible would assume it a remake. The characters are so foul and unappealing that it deserved its cold reception when first released. Time only adds to it its absurdity. Having none of the guile, cinematography, desperation or despair of classic noir it relied instead on a convoluted and senseless crime plot that would have easily resulted in several arrests within hours. As if that weren't enough it threw in an utterly sexless attempt at erotica in which at least one of the participants hadn't bothered to bathe in several days. This only made this mess all the more painful to watch. Find a good classic forties or fifties film noir instead of wasting two hours on this failure. | 0 |
I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random "A," "B," or "C" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with "A." Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.<br /><br />After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to "lock in" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the "killer card" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.<br /><br />A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.<br /><br />A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.<br /><br />B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.<br /><br />C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.<br /><br />My choice is "B," but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show. | 0 |
Four Friends is one of those films that you go to without any expectations, only to find yourself knocked for a loop. You sort of file it away, but then you hear the song "Georgia On My Mind" by Ray Charles, and images and vague feelings begin to flicker on the edge of your consciousness, and then you remember this crazy film which made you laugh and cry, almost at the same time.<br /><br />Why is this film so memorable? First, at least for people who lived through it all, because it captures so well the tenor of the times - its dashed hopes, its successes, its sincerity and above all the emotional roller-coaster ride that leads to a poignant nostalgia. And then, the acting is just so amazing. Danilow, all angst and passion, Georgia, as difficult to grasp as a will 'o the wisp... but enchanting, nevertheless, and Louis, the handicapped room-mate with charm to spare who attacks life with gusto and takes each moment with a wry smile, because he knows only too well that it just might be his last.<br /><br />How long has it been since you saw a film that made you really care about the people in the story? Even if they were far from perfect? The film presents you with people whose choices are not necessarily commendable, but the film never moralizes, it just allows us to appreciate the human condition in all its variety... even the minor characters have a well-defined personality and a history, which is why this film seems so real even when some of the actions and reactions might seem over the top... because that's the way life is, when you think about it. And why this film engages you with a complexity that is defined by character. Truly an amazing and satisfying experience. | 1 |
before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.<br /><br />the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.<br /><br />the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.<br /><br />the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).<br /><br />live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.<br /><br />3/10 | 0 |
I am a huge fan of the first four Ju-on projects. I own them, and watch them every few months. I lend them to co-workers and friends just so they can get a good scare from quality Japanese film making. I think Takashi Shimizu created a great story, and presented it very effectively in these four installments.<br /><br />I was somewhat excited about The Grudge 2 opening in theaters. I saw the first American Grudge before watching the four originals. The Grudge was actually pretty good. Of course, the originals are better, but I got a good Halloween scare from the 2004 American Grudge.<br /><br />The Grudge 2 started off badly, and went down from there. I kept waiting for it to get better, to make sense, to show Shimizu's talent - nothing like this happened. The thing that's great about Shimizu's Ju-on work is the story. True, it's usually told in a disjointed style that you have to think about to connect its components, but it is still a great story. There was no story in The Grudge 2. It was a series of gratuitous deaths from characters that you never had time to even start to care about.<br /><br />The editing was atrocious. Disjointed (as in the Japanese originals) is one thing, but the complete randomness of scene sequence was exhausting. I just kept thinking, "This is so stupid," and, "No - he didn't really sell out this much did he??" It made me want to walk out of the theater, run home, and watch the original work, simply to reassure myself that Shimizu has not always made this dumbed-down, generic, boring, non-sensical, thrown-together tripe.<br /><br />If you really have your heart set on seeing this movie, I suggest you wait the 2 months to rent it. Really. Two of the five people in the theater with me walked out about 45 minutes into it. I debated on whether to do that myself. Going home and cleaning the house actually sounded like a better way to spend my time at that point.<br /><br />I am truly shocked at how bad this movie was. Let's pray Sam Raimi doesn't put out more cash to make The Grudge 3. It's just not worth it anymore. Sigh. | 0 |
I am a new convert you might as well say. I borrowed the dvds from my local library. I have been interested in samurai since watching 'The Last Samurai.' My dad told me he used to watch Shintaro when he was a kid. He said that it was pretty good. We are up to series 3. I absolutely love it. It takes a little to get used to the dubbed English voices over the characters speaking Japanese but I really enjoy it all the same. It is a little strange to watch the slight pauses when the ninja stars are thrown at characters and they stick into a tree or wall. I was not used to this but I am now. But I suppose that's the technology they had in the 60s. I've noticed that Shintaro is kind, friendly, willing to help those in need, he's very humble, most of the time he doesn't big note himself (he only says he is better than the enemy ninja). I admire Shintaro for these qualities. It's really interesting to watch the swordsmanship that Koichi Ose has. It is amazing. This series is for anyone who are interested in samurai. | 1 |
I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.<br /><br />That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.<br /><br />Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off. | 0 |
As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed! | 0 |
It's 3:30am.<br /><br />I just saw this movie about six minutes ago and it is fantastic.<br /><br />A teenage girl has a night of passion with her mom's lover and it ruins everybody's lives. The really interesting thing about this movie is that you can't really place the blame on any one person.<br /><br />Everyone performed perfectly, and the story was thought-provoking.<br /><br />You should definitely see this movie if you can get your hands on it.<br /><br />I give it a 10. | 1 |
In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, "beauty alone, is lovely and visible at once
it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which we can perceive through our senses
Else what
if the divine, if reason and virtue and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become consumed by love?" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio. Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself. <br /><br />It would be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice. Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist. Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife, along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying himself. <br /><br />Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, "reality distracts and degrades us;" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him. <br /><br />Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend, we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him; his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of his work is in the decay of beauty itself. <br /><br />In this film we are treated to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define his art. | 1 |
Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster. | 0 |
Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a "100 best" list.. "Hustle and Flow" was great, so was "Fargo", and "Oh, Brother, where art thou," from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet! | 1 |
This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.<br /><br />DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.<br /><br />Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.<br /><br />Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.<br /><br />Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.<br /><br />The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.<br /><br />I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it. | 0 |
What. Uh...<br /><br />This movie is so dissociative and messed up that I literally lost a bit of my sanity after it was over. I will never be the same person again. I'm trying to put my finger on what, exactly, is so completely insane about it... It's not just the hilarious techno music, or the "outside of time" medieval/Blade Runner/wild west/Highlander setting, or the weird CGI "Grendel" monster that looks like a man made out of animated sausages, or even the "Grendel's mother" monster, which looks like some Alabama table-dancer who grew claws and tentacles when she stayed in the tanning bed too long. All of those things are weird, but what's really the strangest thing in this movie is the acting. I simply can't explain. This script is obviously, hellishly silly, but the actors exude deadly seriousness through it all. Lambert is always weird, and usually kind of boring, but for this one he's gone into Dolph Lundgrin territory: I can't help but just start laughing every time he talks.<br /><br />I will give this movie some credit for being completely scatter-brained and crazy as opposed to conservative and boring. I'll always take a bizarre disaster of a film over an utterly mediocre one.<br /><br />Warning: if you are planning on watching Christopher Lambert as Beowulf, be prepared to spend several hours thereafter wandering the streets in some kind of nightmarish, hyperactive-catatonic daze. It's true. When I was done with my Beowulf spirit journey, I woke up in the middle of the Siberian tundra in a puddle of blood and milk. There was a dead wolf lying next to me, and I later found I had a handful of human teeth in my shirt pocket. My VHS copy of Beowulf was sitting on a hastily-constructed stone altar nearby, enshrined with candles and wilted flowers. The tape told me to walk. I rose and I walked. | 0 |
A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End".. | 0 |
Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap." | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.