text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I really really love this show! I have always liked the 1990's shows of Space Ghost! This show was hilarious and I can't believe why Cartoon Network's Adult Swim would take such a funny show like this off the air. I hope they put this show on DVD or something. The show is about Brak (from the Space Ghost cartoons, SGCC and Cartoon Planet) who lives his every day life with his Mom and Dad and his best friend who likes to drop in a lot, Zorak! My favorite episodes were the one where Zorak gets this really good singing voice and then his voice doesn't give him any money that Zorak made from singing at all. Another episode I like is the one where Brak and Zorak didn't finish their homework and then they go back from Sunday to Friday and they just goof off and then they go back to the day homework was invented and then when they go back to the present homework didn't exist! Another episode I like is the one where Brak's Dad and their next door neighbor, Thundercleese the Robot keep getting into this agrument and then they get eaten by a giant worm. Another episode I liked was the one where Zorak makes a bully stand and then some new guy took over his stand. I also like a lot of the other episodes! One thing that never fails to make me laugh is when Zorak is getting beaten up, blasted and zapped! | 1 |
D.W. Griffith could have made any film he wanted to after the enormous financial success of 'The Birth of a Nation'; he chose to make the most technically ambitious film to that date, 'Intolerance.' He took a risk with such innovations in film montage and form, and the well-known financial train wreck resulted. Buster Keaton doesn't take that kind of a risk with 'Three Ages,' a parody of 'Intolerance.' This is Keaton's first feature-length film of his own (he only acted in 'The Saphead'). He had the fallback plan of dividing the three episodes in this film into three separate shorts, which Griffith did do with 'Intolerance.' Keaton didn't have to. Chaplin had already succeeded with feature-length comedies, so if Keaton was taking a risk here, it was completely calculated.<br /><br />Chaplin had already done a parody of another film, too, with 'Burlesque on Carmen' (1915). Keaton appears to allude to that film, as well. The wrestling scene in the Ancient Rome episode references the swordfight that turns into a wrestling match in Chaplin's film. The comical distance from the plot of both scenes is the same, too. Furthermore, Chaplin's film imitated the glossy style of DeMille's 'Carmen,' and Chaplin's film seemed a tribute to that film. Keaton doesn't attempt the radical editing, narrative structure or monumental nature in his parody, but it seems respectful of 'Intolerance' nonetheless. At least, the stories aren't told completely straightforward as in other post-'Intolerance' films, such as Dreyer's 'Leaves from Satan's Book' (Blade af Satans bog, 1921) and Fritz Lang's 'Destiny' (Der Müde Tod, 1921). There is some mild jumping back and forth between episodes.<br /><br />Where Keaton did take risks, however, is in his physical, daredevil comedy. That's Keaton unintentionally failing to jump across buildings in the modern episode. Reportedly, he was convinced to alter the scene rather than attempt the jump again. And, it wasn't just Keaton who took risks; the anachronistic baseball gag, for example, was rather dangerous. Thus, although in a different way, Keaton, like Griffith, took risks with his big film. And, I think they both succeeded. | 1 |
The movie starts in Mexico where a girl has been cursed, she spits on snakes thru green jello and her friend tries all these crazy spells to lift the curse. He does nothing but chant horrible language that does nothing, so they decide to cross the border get on the train to make their way to L.A. to see his uncle to lift the curse. Comic hilarity ensues. This movie has the same snakes over and over! It has garden snakes and pythons that will never bite. They all make the sound of rattlesnakes which makes no sense. The whole movie has some funny lines, some weak effects, but most important a great ending that leaves you like WHAM BAM WHAT THE HECK JUST HAPPENED!!!!! The whole movie is about a 1, but the ending is a 10, so by my crazy math it gets a 3 overall. When blockbuster has nothing else you want, grab this for mindless entertainment! | 0 |
This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.<br /><br />The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.<br /><br />It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.<br /><br />It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is. | 0 |
The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).<br /><br />If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.<br /><br />The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.<br /><br />No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.<br /><br />I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance. | 0 |
Alright, so I've been dying to see this movie. Stoked about the, "who's who" in horror land that are in the film....well, my friend rented this, brought it over, and we started watching it. It's supposed to be a comedy....I did not smirk even ONCE, until the 40min mark.<br /><br />Does it have to do with the budget? Not at all, in fact, there's films out there that cost CLOSE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and they're amazing (to me anyways). Also, while watching this film, I couldn't help but realize the similarities (i.e., STEALING) to a low budget indie film titled, "ACTRESS APOCALYPSE", read my review about it (it DESTROYS this film BTW).<br /><br />This film...it had potential it really did. It had the "star power", stolen plot (lets film the behind the scenes of the making of a movie...IE..."ACTRESS APOCALYPSE"....seriously, this angers me the more and more I think about),...it really could've been funny. A LOT, A LOT of the jokes fall flat. The acting is alright for what it is. But it dragged on, wasn't funny, and the plot was totally stolen.<br /><br />I give this a two, because it wasn't SOOO AWFUL, but that's the ONLY reason. | 0 |
After eight Moto films the series had run its course, as this last entry demonstrates. Peter Lorre was clearly weary of trying to pump some sort of human interest and entertainment value into the wispy character of Moto, and the dreadful idea of pairing him with a "funny" British sidekick utterly defeats all his efforts here. | 0 |
Dooley and his canine partner, Jerry Lee are together again in this 2nd sequel (?!!?) I sincerely had no clue that they made one sequel let alone two. And for a film that was only slight better than "Turner & Hooch"? This time after Dooley retires, he has to mate his dog (with other dogs, people) and wait around for Jerry Lee to poo. Real classy stuff. I mean come on now. The original had at least a few good laugh. This one has nary a one. Jim Belushi just looks old and worn out. Both Belushi brothers were great in the '80's. If John hadn't died, would he be so bad today like his brother? That thought makes me sad for some reason.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Where i saw it: USA network | 0 |
Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues". | 0 |
This show was a landmark in American comedy as it was the first sitcom to star an all Afro-American cast. Sadly though it was never broad-casted on British TV.<br /><br />The Evans family are a poor Afro-American family living in a tower block. The Dad is called James, he tries to run the house, but his wife Florida always gets the better of him. The three children are the artistic JJ, the moody Thelma and the young intellectual child Michael. Always coming into the house is Florida's gossipy friend Willona.<br /><br />I watched two episodes of this show on youtube (Black Jesus and Sex and the Evans Family- the only two on the site). You may be thinking why has an English viewer watched a series that has never been shown or hardly heard of in his country. The answer is this. In 1976, Britains first all black sitcom came out called "The Fosters" Only two series were made and it now seems forgotten. But I watched an episode and was really impressed. Then I learnt that the scripts were identical to "Good Times". They were exactly the same characters but with different names- Sam Foster was the Dad, his wife was Pearl Foster and the three children were Sonny (a young Lenny Henry), Shirley and Benjamin. Pearl's gossipy friend was Vilma. (To read about The Fosters, I have wrote a review about that). Whilst watching "Good Times" only two things annoyed me. First off was the opening theme tune (awful) and secondly was the audience laughter. I like audience laughter, but in this somebody would say a slightly funny line and the audience would go mad and start clapping. Apart from that it was a very funny show. Let's hope more episodes turn up on youtube and lets hope that someone will release "The Fosters" on DVD in England.<br /><br />Best Episode: Sex and the Evans family- Series 1 episode 6. The Foster's episode of it was called Sex in the Black Community. The other episode I saw, Black Jesus was a title of one episode of "The Fosters" | 1 |
For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.<br /><br />I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - "...this blessed plot, this earth, this England" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose. | 1 |
Following is a little-known 1998 British film, which was made with a budget of £8000 and has a running time of 70 minutes. When watching it, you'd never expect its director to go on to make it in Hollywood and become one of the most acclaimed and celebrated directors of the 21st Century well, everybody has to start somewhere I suppose.<br /><br />The director of Following, as you probably already know is Englishman Christopher Nolan, who directly after Following would go on to direct the critically-acclaimed independent film Memento; a few years later he would be hired by Warner Bros. to direct the new Batman series, which further brought him acclaim, and so on and so forth. My point is, everybody has to start somewhere even if it's not in the most astounding debut and Christopher Nolan introduces himself to the world in 1998 with Following.<br /><br />When watching it, I couldn't help but draw resemblances to another directorial debut, avant-garde auteur David Lynch's Eraserhead. Following is not a surrealist psychological horror film in that sense, but the similarities are noticeable; most notable, it's shot in grainy black-and-white and has an atmosphere about it that makes it unique. It's hard to describe in words, but it loosely resembles the smoky atmosphere you'd find in the film noirs of old. Hence, it can be said that Following is a contemporary film noir, or a neo-noir. Overall, it's an amalgamation of that and a psychological thriller, and the story is most appropriate to these two genres.<br /><br />The main character is nameless, and the movie's title stems from an early, obsessive-compulsive trait he possessed randomly picking out people on the street and following them, sometimes even for hours on end. During one of these 'stalking expeditions', the main character becomes noticed by one of the people he is following, and is confronted. Turns out that the 'confronter' is a man who is willing to befriend our narrator, and he introduces himself; his name is Cobb, and he's a petty burglar who invites the narrator to follow him on his burglaries.<br /><br />From there, the main character becomes swept up in Cobb's world, and he becomes embroiled in crime, passion and violence as he gets more and more intimate with Cobb. Following is not so much a character study, but instead a film which follows the tumultuous relationship between these two main characters, and the devastating ramifications it has on our narrator. Nolan succeeds in making the film resemble a film noir, and emulates the respective atmosphere well.<br /><br />As a thriller, Following is taut and atmospheric; however as a film in general, it's somewhat of a disappointment. If not that, then one could definitely call it underwhelming. The entire film is shot in a non-chronological and non-linear fashion, and it makes the story and film-experience unique, to some extent this style has been done so many times now it's almost commonplace technique and the story itself is unique to some extent.<br /><br />However, Following is ultimately underwhelming for the entire film, and is disappointingly unspectacular. The story calls for more more action, more suspense and more thrills but it becomes too embroiled in its own storyline, and instead focuses on creating an intricate story. Following does succeed in doing that, but without any other elements it's a film noir that doesn't quite work out; it's got a sense of emptiness which isn't enormous, but still noticeable nonetheless. Furthermore, the film's shocking revelation at the end almost a mandatory convention in film noirs is one that makes us feel cheated; it's unpredictable and comes out of nowhere, but in relation to the story it's disappointing, as it essentially makes the preceding scenes, and the entire film, seem like an enormous waste of time.<br /><br />But the positives far outweigh the negatives, and in the end Following turns out to be a flawed but satisfying film, Yes, everybody has to start somewhere. Christopher Nolan does it with Following, and he does it in a fine manner. A quiet, meek but fine manner. It's not the most astounding movie, and it isn't quite worthy of the accolades the director would go on to receive in the following decade, but it's still a good film nonetheless. When singling out Following, you find a well-made, taut and atmospheric thriller, one which lacks noticeable nuance or innovative style but still manages to grip audiences nonetheless. | 1 |
This is easily the best cinematic version of William Faulkner's fiction that I've ever seen, and I've seen several of the most prominent ones. Filmed in Faulkner's hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, it really captures the feeling of Jefferson and Yoknapatawpha County. Intruder in the Dust is not one of Faulkner's best novel, but, even if it is a cliché to say this, it would be the crown jewel in any one else's career. It beats Harper Lee's good but simplistic To Kill a Mockingbird fifty feet into the ground (I read that one in ninth grade, and that's exactly where it belongs). Two of Faulkner's most prominent characters play major parts in the film, Gavin Stevens and Lucas Beauchamp. Stevens is probably the single most common character in all of Faulkner's fiction. He's a lawyer and he works easily as a narrator, because, unlike many of his other characters, Stevens is a man of logic, not emotion (at least when he's older). Lucas Beauchamp may be the most prominent of all of Faulkner's black characters (he plays a major part in one of Faulkner's out-and-out masterpieces, Go Down, Moses); unlike all of the other black folks in Yoknapatawpha, he refuses to bow down to any white man. He has pride, and many in the white population find that an execrable quality in a black man. One day, Lucas is found standing over a dead white man with a recently-fired pistol in his possession. Most of Jefferson and the surrounding areas don't see the need for a trial, and everyone's pretty sure that Beauchamp will be lynched before the evening's over, or at least the next day, as the murder and arrest occurred on a Sunday. Beauchamp, on the other hand, declares his innocence and tries to get Stevens to help him. Stevens refuses; the case seems open and shut. But his young nephew, Chick Mallison, because Lucas had helped him in the past, is willing to help him now.<br /><br />As far as I know, no Hollywood film of this period deals with racism as overtly as this one. Hollywood films rarely persecute the black population, but instead prefer to relegate them to servant roles. If you're an African American actor, you might as well give up and accept that role as either the mammy, the maid, the servant, or the porter, because that's the only way you'll work. In Intruder in the Dust, there is to be found one of the most memorable non-porter roles a black actor ever had, Lucas Beauchamp. And Beauchamp, as I described above, is no stereotypical character, and might have been hard for audiences to accept. Even today, black characters are usually simple, magical, and kind. The recent arthouse hit Far from Heaven is a great example of that. Beauchamp is kind of a jerk, and he's very stubborn. Although he's perhaps a little less so here than he is in the novel, he's not any kind of stereotype. He's a complex human being. Juano Hernandez plays Beauchamp extraordinarily well. I haven't seen the film in a while, but he also appears in Robert Aldrich's 1955 film, Kiss Me Deadly, as well as the cinematic adaptation of Faulkner's final novel, The Reivers.<br /><br />All the actors are great in the film. I should also praise quickly Claude Jarman Jr., who has the great role of Chick Mallison. The novel takes place from his point of view, and he is the conventional hero of the picture. Jarman is quite an actor; he captures the character (who also appears elsewhere in Faulkner's fiction, narrating, for example, events that happened a decade or more before he was born in the 1957 novel The Town) perfectly. He would appear in another great role the next year in the underrated John Ford film Rio Grande. The only other film of Clarence Brown's that I've seen is National Velvet, quite a different picture than Intruder in the Dust. His job here is exceptional; I really have to credit him with capturing Faulkner perfectly. Other famous Faulkner adaptations are too melodramatic (The Long Hot Summer, filmed in 1958, which I really like despite that) or too cold (Tomorrow, filmed in 1972, which I do not like; that coldness is a complete misunderstanding of Faulkner). The only other one that really does well according to its source material is Douglas Sirk's great 1958 filming of Pylon (really a different sort of Faulkner novel altogether), Tarnished Angels. 10/10. | 1 |
It is definitely not worth spending either money or time. It is the same hackneyed plot of a guy and a girl meeting and falling in love. But this is with a western touch. But it fails miserably in either depicting a love story or giving it the western touch. Never do we feel that the hero and heroin are in love. There is no depth to either of their characters. Probably, with a better cast, some justice could have been brought about to the characters. Finally, it is a movie with no fun, no acting, no theme, no plot, no comedy , no action, no thrill, no romance (i associate romance to something more passionate). Definitely not a movie you would want to go with your family. Overall, if you are looking for a movie with some content, this is definitely not an option. I shall wait for the day when bollywood movies are something that i can wait to watch and i can refer to my friends as a "must watch" movie. | 0 |
A remake of the 1916 silent film, based on the 1909 novel by Maurice Leblanc. The detective series would be made into numerous plays, films and TV series in the UK, the US, and France over the years. This 1932 version starred the smashing Barrymore brothers John (as the Duke) and Lionel (as Detective Guerchard). They would also star together in Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, and several others over the next couple years. Sonia (Karen Morley) shows up in the Duke's bed during a party in this pre-Hayes code film; first the lights go out in the bedroom, then they go out in the main ballroom, then the search is on for the crook and the missing jewelry, as well as other missing valuables... You can tell talkies hadn't been around too long, as they still use caption cards several times. Also watch for a new kind of safe that doesn't need a combination. Well-thought- out plot, no big holes, but no big surprises here either. Not bad for an early talkie film. Clever ending. | 1 |
And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.<br /><br />This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again. | 0 |
I saw this film when it came out. Let me see now--this guy who had earlier skied down Mount Fuji manages to accumulate the funding and hire personnel to document what sounds on the surface like a bold and daring act---to ski down the world's highest peak. Well--AND HERE COMES THE SPOILER--what happens, see, after a large crew of people manage to help him get near the top--and a life is lost in the bargain--he gets on his skis, manages to make it down a very very short way, at which point his PARACHUTE OPENS...and that's that. And instead of burning the footage to hide this amazingly anticlimactic ending to an embarrassing debacle, the guy goes ahead and releases it. SPOILER ENDS I do admire the amazing courage and effort it must have taken the film crew to get some of the stunning shots they got. ANOTHER SPOILER--Oh yes, one of the Sherpas is killed by falling into a crevasse. The narrator, who is quoting the "daredevil skier, casually remarks that, according to the Sherpa religion, since this man's body cannot be recovered his soul will roam the world forever and never know rest. Is it worth it, the narrator muses. YES he answers--because it served the purpose of letting this clown "ski down Everest." I can't remember ever seeing a more meretricious piece of celluloid. This is one to miss at all costs. | 0 |
Today, being President's Day, my wife and I had "The Notebook" DVD, checked out at our local library. It's a movie released in 2004 that fell beneath our radar, as we are big movie goers. I'm a published author with hopes of screen playing my first book. I'd noticed references to "The Notebook" in reviews of other movies which is why I brought it up about us watching and this morning provided the perfect opportunity. We both really liked it. It made my wife cry; we could relate to many things in it with our own, continuing love affair and even I fought back choking up.<br /><br />This afternoon, after lots of chores, yard work and eating, we decided to actually catch a matinée. When we got to the theater, having seen most of the current batch of films playing, we elected to see "Victoria Day" which for some reason was not at the theater, even though both IMDb and my phone movies showed it playing there. So, instead we looked at the poster for "Dear John" and that it was written by the same writer as "The Notebook", making it the obvious choice as we enjoyed 'TN' so much.<br /><br />What a disappointment! First, the characters did not have the same believability or sense of empathy as 'TN'; and we kept commenting throughout all the similarities -- two dozen or so -- quickly causing us to realize this movie was nothing but, as another reviewer commented, "a poor man's Notebook!" It had a real 'cash cow' feeling, meaning the Sparks simply threw a story together, based on the exact template of 'TN' simply to make a quick buck. Not only that, after the 'bug-eyed' trollop improbably 'Dear John's-John' for the wimp cancer patient, we ridiculed the movie with each, passing soapy stupid line all the way through to the end. There were only about 6 of us in the theater during this 4:45pm Monday matinée and my wife even told me to keep it down so I wouldn't ruin it for the others...it was so bad.<br /><br />Seeing this on the heels of 'TN' ensured that the rip off similarities were vividly recognizable and Sparks blatant, cheap attempt at template writing painfully obvious. We only wish we could've seen "Victoria Day" instead...no matter how bad it might've been after seeing this poor entry to cinema. And oh..., for the last 30-minutes, I kept saying "...don't give that cow the coins ...don't give that cow the coins?" | 0 |
This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality! | 0 |
How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.<br /><br />Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.<br /><br />Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of "I love you". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?<br /><br />On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.<br /><br />Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely. | 1 |
This is very dated, but that's part of the charm with this 1933 movie. You can say the same for most Pre-Code films; they're just different, and usually in an interesting way.<br /><br />It was the short running time, the great acting of Spencer Tracy and the beautiful face and sweetness of Loretta Young's character which kept me watching and enjoying this stagy-but-intriguing film.<br /><br />You'd be hard-pressed to find a nicer girl than "Trinna," played by the 20-year-old Young who was already into making her 50th movie! (She started acting as a small child. That, and the fact they made movies quickly back in the old days.) The camera, although in soft focus throughout much of the film, zoomed in on Loretta's face and eyes many times and I was mesmerized by her beauty.<br /><br />Playing a crotchety man with a cynical outlook on life, Tracy's "Bill" slowly transformed into a loving man, thanks to Trinna. Spencer delivered his lines here with such naturalness that you hardly knew he was acting.<br /><br />Although they have small roles, supporting actors Walter Connolly, Marjorie Rambeau, Arthur Hohl and Glenda Farrell leave lasting impressions long after viewing this 75-minute film. I was particularly fascinated with Connolly's role as the minister/father figure of the camp.<br /><br />The story is a little far-fetched but - hey - that's the movies. This story is about two lonely Great Depression victims trying to survive in a "Hooverville"-type camp and it winds up to be a very touching tale. | 1 |
A bad movie ABOUT a bad movie. Is that original, or what? If it is, then that's the only good thing about it. The lovely Ally Sheedy couldn't stop this bomb from destroying movie theaters and VCR's everywhere. It should also be noted, that she, and the other actors hired by Danny Aiello's character were billed as themselves, as well as the characters they played in his D-rated film. Calling it a B-rated film, is too much of a compliment, and would lead to delusions of grandeur. | 0 |
The main character Lance Barton gets killed and to heaven before his time. When heaven learns about the mistake he is given the body of just deceased rich old and white Mr. Wellington.<br /><br />A young black guy in a old white mans body still behaving like the young black man is maybe funny if you see it done by an old white actor. In this movie I ended up reminding myself several times: "Chris Rock is supposed to be an old white guy".<br /><br />The whole concept does not play as intended: The "illusion" is not transported well and the love story is not believable at all. The fact that all you see is Chris Rock playing a young black guy, because the old white person everyone is supposed to see is only shown in small scenes, is to much of a challenge for the viewers "suspension of disbelief". | 0 |
I picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.<br /><br />I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.<br /><br />I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.<br /><br />Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date. | 0 |
Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.<br /><br />This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.<br /><br />I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.<br /><br />If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. "DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT! | 0 |
In the glory days of the 90s (god rest its soul) you could turn on the great Comedy Central at any hour of the day and see the greatest sketch comedy show of all time Saturday Night Live. Whpat a glorious show that was, whether it was the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players or the second golden age of SNL featuring the greats- Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade... and then, it all went to hell. I was first exposed to MadTV about a year and a half ago, and I think I must've passed out from shock. How could a show so terrible prevail for so long? There are so many horrible flaws. I suppose I'll start with the writing. The writing, for most part, is terrible. It is nothing more than kindergarten bathroom humor. The cast, for the most part, is talentless. There are a few sketches I have enjoyed, such as some of Ms. Swan and Stuart, and there are a few talents on the show such as the magnificent Alex Borstein. Phil LaMarr is a talented actor, just not as a comedian. Although there a few sparse ha ha moments, they are not enough to redeem this endless line of horrible drivel populated by babbling idiots. Miss this one. | 0 |
One can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.<br /><br />Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the "quirky French" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled "smart" or "genius." It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy. | 0 |
The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus. Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters- Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and "idiot" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama. There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it up into another plane cinematically.<br /><br />That Thirst also rises up to the awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic/erotic, part dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all.<br /><br />Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape, which doesn't last long over the scope of the story.<br /><br />If it's not as great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of 'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight, Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5/10 | 1 |
I bought this movie last weekend at my local Movie Gallery. It was buy 2 get 2 free and I needed one more so I chose this one. Horrible mistake. The box reads like it would be a really good movie. Well, it starts out like it is going to be this great movie. For about 5 minutes, that is. The movie is about a young woman, Laila, who gets killed trying to save her beau, Jack, from a bull. Laila's dad, Cordobes, is a rancher that the townspeople are afraid of. He assumes that Jack killed Laila because she was supposedly afraid of this bull, and goes on this hunt to find him. That was the first 5 minutes that is good. What follows after that is only gonna get 100 times worse. Whoever wrote the script, in my opinion, had to of been on some kind acid trip or something because nothing else made any sense what so ever. Jack is on the run and finds this traveling radio DJ named Mary who gives him a ride. I think Mary is supposed to be a virgin Mary type character. You know, Jesus' mother. But, who knows, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. As they're running... we get to see bad guys, magical visions, ghostly encounters, flashbacks, etc... And all these things are done in such a way that your brain hurts from trying to figure out what's going on. Needless to say, I took the movie back and exchanged it for something else. It's horrible I tell ya, horrible. And, there is absolutely no bull-fighting in this movie. Unless you count the first minute of the movie. Hope I helped some other people keep from wasting their time on this movie. | 0 |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was deceived into thinking it might be good because a couple of my favorite actors are in it. Now I want to punch Jason Schwartzman in the face for taking this role. I was physically ill after watching this film. I really don't understand Hollywood sometimes. There are so many people trying to break in that I'm sure you can skim off the top and get the very best. That way the worst movie you make is equivalent to Ferris Beullar instead of this sludge. The gags like the hair doll and blatantly ripping off jeans commercials added to the humorlessness of the film. Glad I avoided this film and watched it on TV. This proves that you should avoid January releases at all cost. | 0 |
The not the best movie in the world???? That was an understatement. I personally didn't like this movie at all. Not because of the story line, not because of the graphic violence, and the nudity. The nudity didn't really need to be in it, it did nothing for the story, except maybe the girls were going through a rough time, and being naked probably messed them up even more. But one of the things in the movie that I hated.. was that it was sooooo dark. You couldn't really make out what was going on. I think if it wasn't as dark, and you could see where they were, then it might not have been so bad. All you know that its a basement somewhere. You see no house, no road, the killer in it, all you could see was half his face for about 5 seconds. I wanna see some stuff in a movie. It gets boring after 20 mins of pretty much darkness and all you see occasionally is a flashlight or a wall. Then you will hear the girl sobbing. There was nothing that really stuck out to me that was good about the movie, maybe the suspense in the first 10 mins of the film... but not the suspense of how the movie is going to end, but the suspense of.. will I get to see anything in this movie but a few naked bodies and various flashing lights. But honestly people, this was a Saw meets Blair Witch Project wannabe. Both top notch movies, and both with the correct lighting to figure out what was going on. Forget this movie if you can see.. if your a blind person.. you might wanna rent it to hear the screams if your into that sort of thing. But then again if you are blind, your probably not reading this either.. so anyway... BAD MOVIE!!!! | 0 |
It's been a long time since such an original, quite funny, black comedy has surfaced. If "Eating Raoul" is on your top 100 list, do yourself a favor and find "Undertaking Betty" immediately. The subject of death being funny has been attempted before (see Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov in "Mortuary Academy"). While that movie has some brilliant moments of black comedy, "Undertaking Betty" is much more steady, with a better cast. Who could imagine that the undertaking business might be fertile ground for an original, uplifting, and heartfelt comedy? I was surprised and you will be too. I highly recommend seeing "Undertaking Betty" - MERK | 1 |
Fairly good movie, but not a true story.<br /><br />Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?<br /><br />Jens | 0 |
Over the GW is a near failure of a debut feature, and not because it's not without trying...Actually, it is. It's a shamble all the more because it's writer/director/technical everyman Nick Gaglia went through the same rehab cult that he depicts in the film. Sometimes a first time filmmaker, full of the vigor that comes with getting a thumbs up or two from fellow film students, goes headlong into style that is way too disjointed, unsure, and dramatically frustrating that the personal side of the story, the extremely personal side, gets smudged in the purpose of telling a good story. Gaglia, who was 13 when put into a horrid program that basically tortured and brainwashed their "patients" with crazy group scare tactics, psychological mind-f*** sessions that could go on for days, and attitudes from the rehab leaders that would make most Nazis cringe, escaped finally when he was 15. I'm glad he got out, though it might help if he now goes into a real rehab for his film-making skills, if only for a couple of days, to learn things like, say, structure, proper lighting, fluid camera movement, subtlety with actors, and other basics that are perpetually lost here.<br /><br />It's all the more frustrating because Gaglia is dealing with a subject that should be shown more to the public (there was recently a Newsweek article referring to a similar AA cult-rehab). Many times one wonders if certain personal character studies might work better as documentaries as opposed to narrative dramas. This is an ever-nagging sensation throughout Over the GW, where it almost feels like Gaglia wants to tell the truth but doesn't know how to communicate it properly through his characters. The character that one would think is closest to him, Bronx teen Tony Serra (Gallagher), who is taken by his mother to a rehab in New Jersey, would be closest to Gaglia, is actually much more of a one-dimensional being, where there is very little back-story (we see a brief freak-out, in black and white, in his old home) and little connection to his mother (Moriarty), who has more potential that is never tapped aside from a cold stone who passes her kids off to another. But there is a story to go with his two-year crisis, I guess.<br /><br />Right off the bat things get rough (a nude cavity search in the first five minutes), and soon it's clear that instead of medical care it's more like a cross between anger management and some bizarre religious sect, where the head doctor Hiller (Insinnia) is a total over-controlling loon. But soon Tony's sister Sofia (Donohue) gets thrown in to the program, and as opposed to Tony's repeated moments of outrage and supposed non-compliance, she goes head-on through the whacked-out three step program and once released becoming a runaway. At times there are bits in this fractured nightmare, where there's one woman, a 22 year old mother who has been in the program a year and a half finds she's become a prisoner not allowed to leave, and when the father of the main siblings comes and pays an enraged visit to Hiller when Sofia finally returns to them, that do contain some raw power, very brief glimpses of Gaglia being able to at least garner some leverage in pure melodrama.<br /><br />But these are moments few and far between. It's not just the unsuccessful characters, who are mostly reduced to stereotypes that veer into being like hysterical D.A.R.E. rip-offs (maybe some of them, like an angry black youth, the passive-aggressive counselors, or even Serra's older sister who is ratted out by the siblings as having taken a hit off a joint and almost thrown into the program, would resonate more if there was more time given to develop any of them). It's that Gaglia is so unfocused in his multiple roles on his tiny $30,000 budget that not one side of whatever potential talent he has can come through. He over-uses tints, mostly with a shade that looks urine-coated), he jiggles his hand-held DVX camera as if it's supposed to be intense ala City of God, occasionally a character will just shoot into frame randomly, his choices of music are like the worst selections possible from pseudo-indie soft-rockers, and there's even inane fake interview scenes with Nicholas Serra (inspiration ?) and Krakowsky that feel about as false as possible.<br /><br />Could Gaglia just not get any interviews with the real victims he was with and resort to would-be artistically cathartic plan B? Bottom line, no matter how much from-the-heart true life stories may appeal to you, don't bother seeing it in the theater, or even on rental, unless you love a final scene with two kids staring off into the digital-hued Hudson river sunset with the final words reading: Dedicated to the Kids. Oy. | 0 |
Okay, let me start off by saying that, on the whole, I don't like anime very much. I've enjoyed a couple of the oft-cited "classic" series, but regard the medium as a whole in exactly the same way that I do American television: namely, that a good 90-95% of it is utter tripe, with the remainder falling anywhere from "watchable" to "decent." This being the case, it's no wonder that I don't like the self-deprecating anime parodies out there. I don't get most of the jokes, and the medium itself enforces a certain style of humor that doesn't appeal to me at all - loud, hyperactive, lowbrow, and completely over the top.<br /><br />So, when I started watching this series at the behest of a friend, I was primed for disappointment after the first couple of episodes. I figured that the characters were supposed to represent cliché characters from shopworn story outlines, and that their actions were supposed to be similarly satirical. I could kind of see where it was coming from, but didn't think that it was all that clever - lots of "wacky, fun-filled high-school shenanigans and goings-on, only now we're being ironic about it." At about the third episode, my opinion drastically changed.<br /><br />It was at that point that the strengths of this series started to manifest themselves. The quirks of the non-chronological episode order, its snarky sense of self-awareness, and, above all, clever humor with (gasp) a well-executed straight man.<br /><br />In what I consider to be a rarity in any medium, this show presents well-thought out, witty interactions between diametrically opposed characters. Protagonist Kyon's perpetual sense of vaguely annoyed resignation provides the perfect foil to the actions of title character Haruhi's generic "anime-like" exploits. It's a break from formula, and it works incredibly well.<br /><br />Based on that strong foundation, the series further succeeds with a truly phenomenal level of attention to detail. As previously stated, the episodes air out of chronological order. I considered this to be a gimmick at first, but it works surprisingly well. The chronological sequence of events makes sense logically, but the aired order of the episodes more closely follows the traditional structure of Aristotelian drama. The order chosen leaves no narrative gaps that cannot be filled by simple inference (but while it is possible to guess what happened in an unaired "preceding" episode, one still feels compelled to watch exactly how those events unfold), and superb planning prevents any plot holes or contradictions. I watched this series a second time immediately upon completing it the first time, and I was amazed at how well even seemingly inconsequential events were all tied together.<br /><br />The last point is indicative of the extreme attention to detail in every area of the series. While the stock "anime" character designs grate a bit, the background art is exquisite, realistically rendered based upon actual photographic references. Animation quality is also excellent at important points. For example there is a musical performance late on in the series in which the characters are shown actually playing a song - this may sound trivial, but the subconscious effect of watching (film-quality) animation which actually corresponds to the soundtrack is incredible.<br /><br />In short, I love this series for some reason. By its very nature it is something that I generally dislike, but its execution is so unique and well-carried out that I can't help it. | 1 |
This movie was more of a passage into manhood for one gay man, and how he must deal with everyone. His mother is depressed, his younger sister is a pain, his older sister is somewhat accepting. The relationship looks good with his boyfriend/exhooker and he leaves his family to try life with this first guy. Unfortunately, the new guy screws around on him and says it really didn't mean anything. Our young gay man goes bonkers and ends up in the looney bin and eventually leaves, dumping his new lover and starting over. We are left with him starting over and viewing, not participating, in happiness. So maybe things will go better for him in the future. The ending was kind of a downer but the whole movie was entirely realistic and so I will let this real ending slip bye with a high rating. | 1 |
If I could give this movie less than a 1, I would certainly do that. I had read a review of this film in the LA Times and I found myself walking by the theater and remembered the review. My wife and I were game and we thought it can't be as bad as the critic said - you know critics. Sure enough... Give me a break with the awful acting, horrible camera work, poor use of the budget (that has been mentioned over and over again as an excuse). I've worked on films with smaller budgets that are 100 times better. It's the Director and the Producer that makes films work - they choose the teams. That's it. If they don't put it together and make it work...it simply won't. So, they didn't - and it doesn't. I don't think they can... I just had to take the time to write this review...though I'm sure the film crew doesn't appreciate this review - I hope I'm doing you all a favor with my wish for you to do well, but - in another career. Good luck. | 0 |
Inspired by Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN concept of two men swapping murders in exchange for getting rid of the two people messing up their lives, THROW MOMMA FROM THE TRAIN is an original and very inventive comedy take on the idea. It's a credit to Danny DeVito that he both wrote and starred in this minor comedy gem.<br /><br />ANNE RAMSEY is the mother who inspires the film's title and it's understandable why she gets under the skin of DANNY DeVITO with her sharp tongue and relentlessly putting him down for any minor infraction. BILLY CRYSTAL is the writer who's wife has stolen his book idea and is now being lionized as a great new author, even appearing on the Oprah show to bask in adulation he should be enjoying. Thus, DeVito gets the idea of swapping murders to rid themselves of these nuisance factors.<br /><br />Of course, everything and anything can happen when writer Carl Reiner lets his imagination roam with unending ideas for how the plot develops. And it's amusing all the way through, providing plenty of laughs and chuckles along the way, as well as a good deal of suspense.<br /><br />For devotees of black comedy, this one is guaranteed to please. | 1 |
....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.<br /><br />Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.<br /><br />As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.<br /><br />Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)<br /><br />You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.<br /><br />It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!! | 0 |
I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.<br /><br />The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun. | 0 |
The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical "white-trash", the movie's "plot" was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to "entertain" people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker. | 0 |
This movie contains real animals been killed, like a monkey been eaten by a snake and an crocible been cut open. I find this totally deranged and sick, and seriously question the mental health of the director of this trash.<br /><br />This movie is so stupid and daft, that it has no logic at all.<br /><br />There is a lot of boobs and sex in this movie, still don't bother viewing this trash for that, if you want to see boobs and sex, watch a porno instead. There is also rape scenes in this movie, which i found disgusting, like women been raped and cut up, and eaten. This movie is for sadists and those who get their kicks, seeing people been cut up and eaten.<br /><br />A lot of the animals, like the monkey that appeared in this movie, there is none in the jungles of New Guinea. The local characters, most of them appeared to be Asian and none look like they come from New Guinea. It looks like, this movie was made around the grounds of a resort, which i bet it was.<br /><br />Stay away from this trash, its sick and deranged. | 0 |
It was the tag-line "in the tradition of American Pie" that fooled me into renting this movie. What I got was a piece of junk in the style of Jackass, with the major difference that compared to this Jackass the Movie seems like a Citizen Kane.<br /><br />This movie made me regret that I rewarded other movies with 1 out of 10, because now I can't go beneath that. This one makes quite some bad movies look like cinematic feats.<br /><br />I actually turned it off after 45 minutes, and that's something I very rarely do. But it was just too plain boring, stupid, uninteresting and unnecessary.<br /><br />Can't believe some people actually reward this with 10 out of 10. What did your parents do? Drop you on the head when you were just a child? Or was it the very first movie you ever saw, so you got nothing to compare it to? Are you still a virgin and are breasts all you ever think off? Something must be wrong, at least.<br /><br />My advice: stay clear of this one. Even if your in the mood for a simple movie that doesn't require thinking, choose something else, or you'll regret it for sure. | 0 |
Andrew Gurland's "Cheats" is his fictionalized "true story" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.<br /><br />*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson | 0 |
Wow baby, this is indeed some fine Asian horror/gore, and a crazy outlandish movie. This is a Japanese splatterfest that reminded me a little of Tetsuo, except in this case with all the blood and guts, there is a bizarre love story. It's hard to imagine how they even dreamed up this visually stunning movie, with some unique alien creatures that infect humans as parasites, turning them into part machine or I guess cyborgs. The only thing wrong with these creatures after they take over a human, is they need to kill each other and eat the other. hmmm, yum yum. This would probably be called industrial splatter or something like that, with a superb soundtrack to add to all the fun. The movie also borrows a little from Carpenter's "The Thing" in creature design and effects. I would put this in the must-have category for gorehounds, as there is non-stop carnage and some very fine gore. And a must-have for stoners, because you don't even need to read the sub-titles, the visual images alone are enough of a mind trip. The design of the little creatures that inhabit the human body like a fetus reminded me a little of Frank Henenlotter's movies, which is another homage to some excellent gore films with a sense of humour. "Meatball Machine" is great fun for gorehounds, there is no doubt about it, and I simply loved it. | 1 |
I really liked this movie. I've read a few of the other comments, and although I pity those who did not understand it, I do agree with some of the criticisms. Which, in a strange way, makes me like this movie all the more. I accept that they have got a pretty cast to remake an intelligent movie for the general public, yet it has so many levels and is still great to watch. I also love the movies, such as this one, which provoke so many debates, theories, possible endings and hidden subtext. Congratulations Mr.Crowe, definitely in my Top Ten.<br /><br />P.S. Saw this when it first came out whilst I was backpacking in Mexico, it was late at night and I had to get back to my hotel and I had a major paranoia trip! Where does the dream end and the real begin? | 1 |
Mani is back wit a Rathnam(gem) he manages to capture the mental trauma of a small girl searching 4 her mother they way he goes about showing the problems-in Ceylon is a treat.. .. Tis movie is a must watch.the musical score does enhance the viewing pleasure.. Rahman a find of Rathnam has given some great tunes the lyrics r apt 4 the movie the locations used for the movie are very good and makes viewing pleasant the movie starts of in a light manner moves over to capture the feelings of the girl finally goes on o shed light into the life of people in war torn places across the world this is yet another classic from ManiRathnam | 1 |
Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film! | 0 |
My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8/10 | 1 |
The final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked. | 0 |
I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a "true believer" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure. | 0 |
A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.<br /><br />As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better. | 0 |
I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point. | 1 |
I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: "I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!" "Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film." "This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it." So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.<br /><br />Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.<br /><br />The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say "yes" to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.<br /><br />I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.<br /><br />The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into "I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before." Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.<br /><br />I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of "People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span." I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason. | 0 |
If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter. <br /><br />The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.<br /><br />William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.<br /><br />Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.<br /><br />The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time. | 0 |
I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.<br /><br />The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.<br /><br />As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.<br /><br />Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid. | 0 |
Story starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.<br /><br />The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy! | 0 |
Shopping, sunny skies, beaches, boarding school for rich teenagers and perfectly happy endings. Welcome to the life of Zoey Brooks and her friends. Zoey Brooks is portrayed by Jamie Lynn Spears, the self proclaimed actress who got her claim to fame by being the younger sister of the international pop star Britney Spears. With her lovely blond wig in the first season and an attempt at hiding her monotonous country accent, it's confirmed that Nickelodeon has indeed gone to the dogs with nepotism. When Kristin Herrera, the actress who portrayed Dana Cruz in the first season, left the show, all hope vanquished as she was the only decent actress. The female casting is a complete disgrace but the male casting has potential for a teenage media. If they continue to pursue Jamie Lynn Spears as the picture of perfection, very many people will have to lower their standards. With hope, they will soon find that you can't make a career out of nothing. Jamie Lynn Spears is useless for acting, singing and anything else she attempts for that downward spiral she calls a career. There is no wondering why she is a self-proclaimed actress. Critics would most definitely proclaim her as something other than that. | 0 |
I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.<br /><br />Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.<br /><br />The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap. | 0 |
If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy." | 0 |
Three years ago, Rachel(Therese Fretwell) was partying at the lake with her friends when her brother falls out of a boat and drowns. Rachel's friends think it is time for her to stop beating herself up and taking blame for something she had no control over. So grab the brew and something to chew and head back to the same lake that has been in Rachel's constant nightmares. As expected, a bloodbath has already started when two of the friends are splattered before even heading to the party. This flick has the feel of a high school play where everyone forgot their lines and 'winged it'...very badly! Writer Marcos Gabriel gave himself the meatier role as Rachel's boyfriend Leo. Outside of Fretwell and Gabriel there are some pretty lame acting and a few characters you would like to choke the crap out of before they get 'offed'. Giving attention to a few more players that had the nerve to appear: Erin Gallagher, Andrew Williams, Jasmine Trice and Derek Nieves. This is one MEMORIAL DAY you wouldn't mind missing. | 0 |
Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.<br /><br />By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.<br /><br />This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.<br /><br />While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.<br /><br />The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?<br /><br />In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.<br /><br />In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?<br /><br />The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out. | 0 |
It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love. Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero. Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me now.<br /><br />I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love stories in movies. | 1 |
When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.<br /><br />Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.<br /><br />Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.<br /><br />Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.<br /><br />Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.<br /><br />Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.<br /><br />And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's "perfect crime" of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.<br /><br />Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't. | 0 |
"Midnight Cowboy" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time "Star Wars" was released.<br /><br />The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, "Midnight Cowboy" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. "Midnight Cowboy" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10) | 1 |
You know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He ("Rusty," our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.<br /><br />By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the "pet" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar? <br /><br />I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting. <br /><br />Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean "lovers" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age. | 0 |
This film has got to be ranked as one of the most disturbing and arresting films in years. It is one of the few films, perhaps the only one, that actually gave me shivers: not even Pasolini´s Sálo, to which this film bears comparison, affected me like that. I saw echoes in the film from filmmakers like Pasolini, Fassbinder and others. I had to ask myself, what was it about the film that made me feel like I did? I think the answer would be that I was watching a horror film, but one that defies or even reverses the conventions of said genre. Typically, in a horror film, horrible and frightening things will happen, but on the margins of civilized society: abandoned houses, deserted hotels, castles, churchyards, morgues etc. This handling of the subject in horror is, I think, a sort of defence mechanism, a principle of darkness and opacity functioning as a sort of projective space for the desires and fears of the viewer. So, from this perspective, Hundstage is not a horror film; it takes place in a perfectly normal society, and so doesn´t dabble in the histrionics of the horror film. But what you see is the displacement of certain key thematics from the horror genre, especially concerning the body and its violation, the stages of fright and torture it can be put through. What Seidl does is to use the settings of an everyday, middle class society as a stage on which is relayed a repetitious play of sexual aggression, loneliness, lack and violation of intimacy and integrity: precisely the themes you would find in horror, but subjected to a principle of light and transparency from which there is no escape. It is precisely within this displacement that the power of Seidl´s film resides. Hundstage deals with these matters as a function of the everyday, displays them in quotidian repetition, rather than as sites of extremity and catharsis - a move you would encounter in said horror genre. One important point of reference here is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Fassbinder also had a way of blending the political with the personal in his films, a tactics of the melodrama that allowed him to deal in a serious and even moral way with political issues like racism, domination, desire, questions concerning ownership, sexual property and control, fascism and capitalism etc. Seidl´s tactic of making the mechanisms of everyday society the subject of his film puts him in close proximity with Fassbinder; like this German ally, he has a sort of political vision of society that he feels it is his responsibility to put forward in his films. During a seminar at the Gothenburg Film Festival this year, at which Seidl was a guest, he was asked why he would have so many instances of violated, subjugated women in Hundstage, but no instances of a woman fighting back, liberating herself. Seidl replied that some may view it as immoral to show violence against women, but that he himself felt it would be immoral not to show it. An artistic statement as good as any, I think. Thank you. | 1 |
Done in a mock-documentary style, late 60's subversives and supposed detractors of the mainstream government are arrested and given a choice. Upon sentencing for their wrong doings,there is a choice of going to prison for 7 years to life or spending three days and two nights in a southern California desert at Punishment Park. In the 100 degree heat, the prisoners are to trek fifty some odd miles to an American flag for their freedom. US and state law enforcers will follow two hours latter. If the dissidents are captured it means prison.<br /><br />Appearing in this pseudo-documentary: Carmen Argenziano, Katherine Quittner, Mary Ellen Kleinhall, Stan Armsted, Scott Turner, Patrick Boland and Kent Foreman. | 0 |
For the most part, "Michael" is a disaster ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.<br /><br />Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime an apparent angel living on Earth out of their sight?) <br /><br />Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's "climax" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately "Michael" is a long, long ride through cinema heck. | 0 |
A lovely little film about the introduction of motion pictures to China. Captures the amazement of film's first audiences pretty much as it's described to have been worldwide, and uses actual Lumiere films for most of the actualities. I don't agree with other people about bad acting on the British fellow's part - I thought he was fine, but the Chinese lead really stole the show. In any case, I found myself with a smile on my face through most of the movie. People who fear subtitles might note that a lot of the film is in English (which for some reason is given subtitles as well as the Chinese on the DVD). | 1 |
Kidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts and<br /><br />pines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.<br /><br />Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fading<br /><br />Confederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.<br /><br />And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.<br /><br />I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog. | 0 |
Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.<br /><br />Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car. <br /><br />Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.<br /><br />What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen. <br /><br />Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.<br /><br />Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into. | 0 |
I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.<br /><br />I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others. | 0 |
This would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination. | 0 |
I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script... | 1 |
How sad it is when a film as wonderful as "Jurassic Park" slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. The newest sequel, Jurassic Park III, has given no thought to characters, a story, or pretty much a script, and instead relies on non-stop dinosaur action, which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. The dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology, after 7 years of CGI advancements, it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. The introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make.<br /><br />Go see "Shrek" again.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Posh Spice Victoria Beckham and her alleged new adventures after just moving to LA for work purposes (footballer hubby David is now a Galaxy LA player after his transfer from Real Madrid) was originally going to be a full series,but was thankfully abridged to just one hour or so.But even in this form,it is still numbingly interminable.<br /><br />Like virtually all 'reality' TV shows,most of the incident comes across as blatantly faked,with the programme itself even admitting that Posh's newly appointed personal assistant is an actress.An Ugly-Betty lookalike,we hear some lamely written and performed banter early on(with an obvious joke about Becks' apparent dalliance with a previous,and rather more glamorous PA Rebecca Loos,though her name is not mentioned) with further sequences involving a fake blow-up doll to trick the paparazzi and hopeless attempts to pitch a baseball.<br /><br />This could have been more entertaining if all had acknowledged it was a piece of fluff,and had an actress or impersonator in the lead role.Talented impressionist Ronni Ancona would've been perfect and is better at being Posh than Posh herself is,and if this more sensible decision had been taken,much more fun and amusement would've ensued.Sadly,we are left with the real thing here (Ms Ancona may have rejected the script as too weak anyway),and although there are odd scattered attempts at self-deprecation and irony,it never remotely works because of prior info of La Beckham's considerable wealth beforehand,and her non-ability at delivering would-be jokes;despite the intentions to send up her image,Mrs Beckham comes across as a shallow egotist,and her weak one-liners don't persuade us she has any humorous self-awareness.I suspect that if a more realistic fly-on-the-wall documentary approach had been taken,namely Posh walking down any street in LA and being totally ignored (instead of the frantic,staged scenes of mild hysteria on show here), and associates making unscripted jibes about the previously mentioned Ms Loos,this would've made marginally better TV,but being sycophantic PR material,the bony one herself would never allow such events to happen.<br /><br />Having said that,the later scenes where she made a special appearance at the baseball stadium where she was indifferently presented in front of an uninterested crowd show it will be tough times ahead if she wants to make it big in Hollywood.Her colleague Scary Spice (aka Mel Brown) also found it impossible to make it big residing in the movie capital despite her affair (which was not consummated) with big name Eddie Murphy.<br /><br />The Spice Girls were of course a massively successful bubblegum pop group in the mid 1990's,more so in their native Britain but still popular briefly in other countries,including the US.They were certainly good fun at their peak of glory (1997) when there seemed to be a glorious period of optimism in the UK with Cool Britannia and a New Labour government which The Spice Girls seemed to sum up better then anyone else at the time,even if it was somewhat manufactured.But they were never outstanding musical or singing talents,and UK optimism seemed to fade rapidly later that year (the starting point was arguably the tragic death of Princess Diana),as did The Spices' themselves.Their presence on the music and entertainment scene soon became repetitive and obvious,and if they had all quietly moved out of the public eye permanently with dignity to enjoy their fortunes, then we would have all had pleasant memories encrypted on our mind without any guilt.Unfortunately,the emergence of the hideous 'celebrity' culture in the UK towards the start of the millennium has put paid to those imaginings,and we have all suffered thousands,if not millions of stories about the Spices since,Posh being the worst offender,with the rest of her colleagues not too far behind.It was recently announced that there will be a reunion tour soon,which is baffling as they have never gone away and they certainly don't require any additions to their swelling bank accounts.Maybe it's because two of them are struggling single mothers,perhaps?<br /><br />Good,it's soon time for Becks' adventures on a revelatory documentary next,I can hardly wait.............<br /><br />Rating:2 out of 10. | 0 |
Watching this film today I got the feeling this thing was missing about 10 to 15 minutes or so from the beginning of the story. John Wayne rides up on this trading post/saloon out in the middle of nowhere to meet with the owner about some robberies. All he sees is the signs of a massacre, some dead bodies, signs of a fight and no one alive in sight. That's because the owner's daughter is hidden in a secret room, the kind you find in old English murder mysteries.<br /><br />The reason you find those hidden rooms in those kind of stories is that they were formerly priestholes. Catholic families clinging to the old faith in 16th century England built these things to hide those on the run from royal authorities because of their faith. Not something you see in westerns, but a good gimmick.<br /><br />Unfortunately because of bad editing or writing or both we never know exactly what brought Wayne to this place exactly. But this was a B western and not even a good one at that.<br /><br />Gabby Hayes is in this and he's clean shaven and playing a mute part of the time. An unusual circumstance for the garrulous Gabby.<br /><br />If you want to bother and find out what happens and see a whiskerless Gabby Hayes then see this film. | 0 |
i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle! | 0 |
The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.<br /><br />One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc. | 0 |
What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's "Le Divorce", with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched "Le Divorce" you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. "Belle-Maman" leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists. | 0 |
If one would see a René Clair film with the kind of distracted semi-attention which is the rule in TV watching - one might be better off doing something different.<br /><br />Watching "Le Million" with all attention focused upon what takes place before eyes and ears will reveal a wealth of delightful details which keep this musical comedy going from the beginning to the end with its explosion of joy.<br /><br />In the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende a journalist once wrote: "In my younger days I saw a film which made me feel like dancing all the way home from the cinema. This film is on TV tonight - see it!" | 1 |
There's the danger with the critic/philosopher Slavoj Zizek with his film, directed by Sophie Fiennes, which takes together a wonderful amalgam of silent, horror, sci-fi, surreal and other contemporary thrillers together to make his points ofr Freudian comparisons to overload. But in the Pervert's Guide to Cinema he also makes even the more far-reaching points a point of departure from any other analysis I've seen on a collective section of films. While it doesn't cover the expansive territory Scorsese's movie documentaries cover, the same attachments are there, and Zizek has a definite love for all of these "perverse" examples and films, primarily the work of Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin and Tarkovsky. Yet one shouldn't go into seeing this- if you can find it that is, I got to see it almost by luck- thinking Zizek will just try and dissect all of the psycho-sexual parts or parts referring it in an obtuse, deranged manner. If anything he opens up one to points that might never be considered otherwise- would one think of three of the Marx brothers as representations of the Id, Super-Ego and Ego (Harpo's example is most dead-on for me).<br /><br />He's not just one to take on the classics though, he also considers the food for thought in The Matrix and Fight Club- in representations of the split between fantasy and reality and if the matrix needs the energy as much as the energy needs the matrix for the former, and in the attachment of violence in dealing with one's own self as well as ones double in the latter. He even throws in a piece from the pivotal moment in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin becomes Darth Vader, and the implications of shunning away fatherhood under that back mask at the very moment his children's births happens elsewhere. The ideals of fatherhood, male sexuality, the male point of view in turning fantasy into reality (at which point Zizek rightfully points to as the moment of a nightmare's creation), and female subjectivity, are explored perhaps most dead-on with Vertigo. This too goes for a scene that Zizek deconstructs as if it's the Zapruder film, where he dissects the three colliding points of psycho-sexual stance in the 'don't you look at me' scene in Blue Velvet.<br /><br />Now it would be one thing if Zizek himself went about making these sincere, excited, and somehow plausible points just face on to the camera or mostly in voice-over as Scorsese does. But he goes a step further to accentuate his points of fantasy and reality, and how they overlap, intersect, become one and the same, or spread off more crucially into some netherworld or primordial feeling for some characters (i.e. Lost Highway) by putting himself IN the locations the films take place in. Funniest is first seeing him in the boat "heading" towards the same dock Tippi Hedren's boat heads to at the beginning of the Birds; equally funny is as he waters the Blue Velvet lawn he goes on to explain the multi-faceted points of Frank Booth; only one, when he's in Solaris-like territory, does it seem a little cheesy. But Zizek seems to be having a lot of fun with this set-up, and after a while one bypasses the potential crux of this gimmick and Zizek's words come through.<br /><br />There were some films I of course would've expected, chiefly from Hitchcock and Lynch, but a treat for movie buffs come from seeing two things- the movies that one would never think of seeing in a film about films titled the Pervert's Guide of Cinema (top two for me would be the Disney Pluto cartoon and the exposition on Chaplin's films, albeit with a great note about the power and distinction of 'voice'), and the ones that one hasn't seen yet (i.e. the ventriloquist horror film, Dr. Mabuse, Stalker, among a few others) that inspire immediate feelings of 'wow, I have to see that immediately, no questions asked.' Zizek is a powerful writer with his work, and puts it forward with a clarity that reminds one why we watch movies in the first place, to be entertained, sure, but also to have that actual experience of sitting down and having something up there, as he put it, looking into a toilet. It's probably one of the greatest films about cinema, and in such a splendidly narrow analysis of how Freud works its way into films regarding desire, the Id/Super-Ego/Ego, and of the supernatural in fantasy, that you may never see...unless distribution finally kicks in, if only on the smallest levels. | 1 |
this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'<br /><br />the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.<br /><br />the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.<br /><br />overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script. | 0 |
Very interesting to find another reviewer who had the exact same reaction to this movie as I did: It was a heck of a lot better when I was 10 or 11 years old.<br /><br />Seeing it more than 30 years later, it's still okay, but it only mildly held my interest. What seemed hugely funny back then was only mildly amusing.<br /><br />Also, things that were astonishing to me as a 10-year-old came across as just silly. For example, in one scene Trinity is walking along and fires his revolver behind him and kills two men without even looking. In fact, he doesn't even bother to look and see if they're dead, because he knows he hit the mark. Um, yeah, right.<br /><br />In addition, a lot of the dialogue sounds quite wooden. Sorry, but 35 years later, it hasn't really aged that well.<br /><br />Although it's been a long time since I've seen that one as well, probably a better Terrence Hill film than this one would be My Name Is Nobody. | 0 |
Now my friends, films like "La Bête" (aka "The Beast" or "O Monstro")only can be done in the old continent :),in this film we see all: horses dirty sex, nymphomaniac kind off gorilla, non sense dialogs, etc, etc, etc... In the serious terms now,its an allegory, that men sometimes could be bestial, visceral and brutal,Walerian Borowczyk (the director) shows us the loss of innocence, sexual violence, rape and brutality. Its a astonishing cinematic experience, bizarre and full of grotesque scenes. For all fans of European shocking exploitation, i recommend this film.If you like this one i recommend: "Orloff Against the Invisible Man" and "Alterated States". | 1 |
It's a waist to indulge such great actors in such a weak and boring movie. Besides all the unanswered questions posted in the other comments, what's so difficult about capturing the robbers? Just eliminate the bank workers, see who was at the bank-from all the cameras' footage angles-prior to the robbers entry and you have those extra 4 remaining robbers among the hostages. Where is the suspense every body is talking about? It was so obvious the moment the hostages were asked to change into this identical uniform that they were all going to walk out the front door... seen it many times. At least Mr. Spike Lee could have seasoned the movie with some good music score and artistic shooting. The Movie is not worth it. Pronto! | 0 |
Robert Florey and James Wong Howe gave this a frightening, Expressionistic look. Scenes are shot at weird angles -- especially scenes involving figurative and literal lady-killer Zachary Scott. His sociopathic behavior presages another superb, medium-budget movie, "The Stepfather," by more than two decades.<br /><br />The entire cast is excellent, though (though no fault of her own) it's hard to think of Joyce Compton as anyone but the singer in "The Awful Truth.") Scott, Bennett, Emerson, DeCamp (especially, and though playing an older woman looking gorgeous) -- they couldn't have been topped.<br /><br />Setting a creepy lodger-in-the-house-of women story against a background of psychiatrists is a risky trick that pays off beautifully. Nothing corny at all.beautifully. Nothing corny at all.<br /><br />The resolution is a little pat, unfortunately. Not Emerson's getting together with Bennett. That makes sense. But Scott is dispatched too quickly. I seem him more as a Mr. Ripley character, who could have escaped everything -- the botulism, the murder rap, the jealous sisters -- and disappeared into the great world beyond this story. That would not have impeded the essentially happy ending of the secretary and her boss finally getting together. | 1 |
I would like to vent my displeasure at NBC Canceling Las Vegas. The show had been Top Notch for the past 5years. Tom Sellecks addition was great. He really brought a nice fresh addition to the show. What does NBC have now? Lame reality and night time game shows. I mean come on Keep the Old and Tired Law and Order? Not even putting Jack McCoy as DA can keep the show interesting. Gee let's keep quality program like Deal or No Deal or ED? ER should be put out to pasture to. NBC is worse now than it was in Pre Seinfeld Cheers days. With cable and internet, NBC cannot afford to fall flat on its face.PLEASE BRING BACK VEGAS! i remember when Homicide Life on the Street ended the way it did. At least they had a two hour series final. Hey CBS are you listening? Please pick up Vegas it is a great show. | 1 |
Making a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.<br /><br />What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.<br /><br />I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.<br /><br />The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social/political commentary.<br /><br />My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good. | 0 |
This is a feel good film, about one person's dreams and the drive or push to realize them. It is a beautiful and inspirational film. Why do some people have to try and find fault with every film that comes out, especially the good ones. Dennis Quaid gives a good solid performance in this true story of Jim Morris, a science teacher and high school baseball coach who is pushed by his team to take one more shot at a professional baseball career. With excellent supporting cast, including Brian Cox, as the crusty old ex navy officer who has let so much of his son's achievements go by without his support. It was good to see him as something other than a villain in a film. If I have one complaint with this film it is this: Don't ever let Royce Applegate sign the national anthem again. <br /><br />Seriously, this film belongs to that handful of great baseball films like "Field of Dreams" and "The Natural." It rates two thumbs up and a big "well done." | 1 |
I saw this stage show when it was broadcast on PBS in 1983. I was involved in local theatre at the time and had seen some pretty incredible stuff out of the Dell Arte Players, but Bill Irwin floored me.<br /><br />I was most impressed at how a man of his size (he's quite tall and beefy) could fold himself up into a small box without so much as a pause for adjustment and move across the stage at a dead run without even a whisper of sound from his feet if he chose not to make any noise.<br /><br />Most amazing for me, though, in this performance, was the way he rose to his feet during the jack-in-the-box / marionette piece. Those who saw this show will recall that when he climbed from the box and collapsed to the floor with his body limp and limbs akimbo, he "pulled" himself up by the top of his head as if by a string, and rose not just to his feet, but to a full ballet pointand did it in one fluid, seemingly effortless motion. Just consider the strength, grace, balance and focus such a series of movements must take in order to accomplish them the way he did! Add to his physical prowess his strong and believable characterization skills, and there lies a consummate actor / performer. My jaw dropped at the movement and my heart broke at the portrayal of a puppet who is determined to be more than just a lifeless thing in a box.<br /><br />As to the unfortunate (yes"tragic" would be a better word) unavailability of this piece in home media form, I have noticed that much of PBS' works are not available on tape or DVD. Sometimes, PBS shows will be available for direct purchase from them for a limited time immediately following a broadcast, but they seldom stay on the market for long. There are exceptions, of course, but these are mainly the science and history documentaries; rarely does an arts piece remain in print for longassuming it ever made it into VHS / DVD to begin with. I don't know why this should be so; certainly, PBS could use the income from home media marketing of their shows, but they don't take advantage of it much. This is a shame. There are many things I've watched on PBS that I wish to own, but pieces such as "The Regard of Flight" are, I'm afraid, a one-shot, once in a lifetime treat, never to be repeated on PBS again and never to be available for home media purchase. That really sucks. I'm lucky to have caught it when I did.<br /><br />Oh, yeahour local library did get a copy of "The Regard of Flight." And yesit was stolen. | 1 |
Red Eye is a thrilling film by the creator of Freddy Kreuger, Wes Craven. Wes Craven depicts the story of a regular hotel worker Lisa. After attending the funeral of her grandmother, she decides to take the red eye flight. During waiting, she meets this man named Jack Rippner, (how fffrreeaakkyy is that?) and they sort of become friends. Ironically, both sit right next to each other on this plane. Then this is when the horror starts. This movie is thrilling and to the weak hearted people who don't like thrilling/horror films, well lets say that its possible that they might pee in their pants. This is an excellent example of a bone shaking production. Wes Craven did well with this film. He chose the right actors, like Rachel McAdams, an intelligent, sexy girl who knows what she's doing and is cautious of everything when she's acting in a film. Cillian Murphy, the scary and horrifying actor who can chill your bones at his amazing acting being the bad character in this film, and his face can really widen your eyes. Wes Craven did an excellent job and I hope that he makes more films like this one. | 1 |
I've noticed that a lot of people who post on the "Kerching!" board seem to hate this show, which I actually find very surprising. I think it's one of the best British kids' shows there is. It's a shame it's ending because it's very funny (if a bit cheesy sometimes) and has great characters. The main character is a little like Del Boy, although quite a lot smarter. With his 2 best friends he tried to make a million pounds for his mum by starting an online business and adopting a pseudonym of "Rudeboy". His friends are Seymour (who likes to cook) and Danny (who is simple minded and the comic relief character). Throughout the show, some characters have left and new ones have come in, but it's always been entertaining and improving. | 1 |
Who gave these people money to make a movie? There was nothing funny about it. The fact that the farting dog was the funniest thing about this piece of sickness says it all. First of all, it has nothing to do with Christmas, it just took the name and counted on all those people who liked the Chevy Chase original. They took Randy 'I have no talent, I m just a fat and sweaty pig' Quaid (the only wrong thing about part 1) and made a 'movie' about him...There are only morons in his family, but not the 'aren't they cute' kinda moronic, but the 'don t touch me' kinda moronic. Watching this pile of dirt helps you hope that everyone who takes part in it DIES! They didn't even bother to get the effects in order...when they re on the boat, the only thing that moves is the fake background...when pigface Quaid is in the water you can tell by the lighting that it's in a studio. This movie was sexist (uncle Nick), racist (uncle Nick) and should never have been made..never...throwing the money into a volcano would have had so much more use.<br /><br />Well I hope I reached some of you...Nobody warned me and now I m scarred for life Merry F*cking Christmas | 0 |
It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by Warner or some other professional movie house.<br /><br />Copies of most episodes are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of copies.<br /><br />As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run, but only 15 are noted here.<br /><br />Some of the series writers, such as Richard Matheson, went on to become noted authors.<br /><br />Excellent series, well written, well staged and well produced.<br /><br />Michael Weldon,<br /><br />Udon Thani, Thailand | 1 |
(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.<br /><br />Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.<br /><br />This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.<br /><br /> The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars. | 0 |
I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties. | 1 |
I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.<br /><br />Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.<br /><br />Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.<br /><br />This film is special. Get it, now! | 1 |
Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.<br /><br />Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.<br /><br />ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.