text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Updating of the Clare Booth Luce play and the 1939 movie is a major disappointment. The cast of women is excellent, most of the individual scenes work but nothing hangs together. There is no connection from scene to scene almost as if the film was crafted in parts and then assembled in a vacuum. Granted the story of a woman dealing with her husband's infidelity and how she is helped and hindered by her friends is a less shocking one now in an age when divorce is so common, but at the same time its just as timely as ever, I just wish they could have managed to connect all of the pieces together because as it stands now you really don't feel pulled along by the plot. Wait for Cable. | 0 |
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce return as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this superior tale of Holmes battling the 3rd Reich and the mastermind genius of Professor Moriarty. The film opens up in Switzerland as Holmes is in disguise as an "old bookseller." He must bring Dr. Tobel and the Tobel Bomb Site to England before the Germans can kidnap Tobel. Holmes succeeds and the Germans recuit the evil Professor. Moriarty manages to outwit Scotland yard and LeStrad "Dennis Hoey" by kidnapping Tobel. The only clue left by Tobel is a list of "dancing men." Who will break the hidden code of dancing men, Holmes or Moriarty first? Can Holmes prevent the bomb site from falling into the German hands thereby saving England from the precision bombing techniques developed by Tobel's bomb site? Watch and enjoy. | 1 |
My grandmother took me and my sister out to see this movie when it came out in theaters back in 1998, and so we happily bought the tickets, the popcorn and soda, and walked right in to the theater and sat down to watch the movie. When it was over, the audience didn't applauded strongly, I remember that I heard a few people say that they didn't like it at all, I didn't like it, I thought that it was rather stupid, and not worth seeing. Eddie Murphy was hysterical in this, but apart from him, the whole movie was bad, I rarely laughed at the parts in this, I also remembered that the other people in the theater almost hardly even laughed. And what I really thought was bad was making the animals talk, because talking animals only exist in cartoons, in live action movies, they are totally a mutt! I said that apart from Eddie Murphy's hysterical twist he brings in, this movie is not worth watching, it is rather stupid.<br /><br />I have seen Eddie Murphy in several of movies and I thought that he was funny in those, I have just said that he was the only funny part of this movie, I also have not seen Eddie Murphy in the really "great" movie, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. This movie is not a movie that I would really recommend that you see, because apart from Eddie Murphy, you probably are not going to like this, especially because of a lot the the talking animals in it! <br /><br />I'll give this movie a rating of 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars. | 0 |
A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.<br /><br />There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...<br /><br />I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo. | 0 |
This was stupid funny movie.. Cheech and Chong are the dopiest wasted guys ever... i rate this film a 7.. but if you like this one then go see Jay and Silentbob! There funnier and crazier. Now Cheech is a sellout working on kids movies..... wheres chong? | 1 |
I saw this movie previewed before something else I rented a while back...and it looked decent. I've seen some good stuff from Full Moon video, and thought it was worth a shot... Unfortunately, this was not good stuff.<br /><br />The story is about a possessed bed. A couple moves into a new apartment, discovers the bed, and odd things start happening. Odd things like the woman discovers kinky sex. And the man discovers kinky sex. And the woman draws pictures of kinky sex. And the man photographs kinky sex. And they both start having dreams about dead people having kinky sex. You'd think a movie with so much kinky sex would be good, right?<br /><br />Well.... No. The problem is that this is supposed to be a scary movie, or at least a thriller, and it just doesn't deliver. There is little tension, no suspense, and no fear. Aside from some troubling dreams and visions, there really isn't anything for this couple to be worried about. The whole movie is basically the two of them having these visions and playing around in bed. Sure, you get a monster fight at the end...and some bloodshed...but nothing spectacular... There's only one murder, and one good scare, and that's it.<br /><br />And the kinky sex? Don't get your hopes up (or anything else for that matter). Their idea of kinky sex is woman on top, fully clothed, trying to strangle her mate with a necktie. Not exactly my idea of a good time. | 0 |
A film as bad as this should be withdrawn from all stores world wide. So full of boring, dull, unimaginative characters, and with a lead character with such an annoying attitude and dry voice constantly giving a thoughtless voice over for every action and feeling, this film holds the record for the most challenging film I have ever watched. As I had payed money to own it, I felt a duty to see it through, and how I regret it. My head hurt throughout because of the terribly dull characters and their pointless, plot less lives. A bunch of kids who have zero knowledge about anything, are all frigid and worst of all, have terrible dialogue throughout, just mulling around as the main character tries to get a date with the girl. Boring, so much so my friend was shaking with hatred and I was red with embarrassment that I'd thrown away £6. The DVD was on eBay the following day, and I didn't make much of my money back. Avoid like the plague. | 0 |
Agreed this movie is well shot,but it just makes no sense and no use as to how they made 2 hours seem like 3 just over a small love story,<br /><br />this could have been an episode of the bold and the beautiful or the o.c,in short please don't watch this movie because there is a song every 5 minutes just to wake you up from you're sleep,i gave this movie 1/10 cause that was the lowest,and no this is not based completely on a true story,more than half of it is made up.I repeat the direction of photography is 7 or 8 out of 10,but the movie is just a little too much,the actor's nasal voice just makes me want to go blow my nose.Unless you are a real him mesh fan this movie is a huge no-no. | 0 |
I used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of "Get Smart". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.<br /><br />Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.<br /><br />Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.<br /><br />The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.<br /><br />The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.<br /><br />As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy". | 0 |
OK with Coolio in it I should have known better! But Noooooooo.<br /><br />Within 3 mins you've encountered 5 bites from other movies & and TV shows...<br /><br />8 mins Casper Van Dien should have learnt by now! <br /><br />10 mins you're feeling sorry for Tom 'Tiny' Lister Jr. that he has been reduced to doing movies like this.<br /><br />15 mins Erika Eleniak Shows up looking like Zena.<br /><br />20 mins you're ready to shoot you're self...<br /><br />How these movies receive funding is beyond me! And yes I watched the whole thing. The Ending is priceless!!! Just stay away! | 0 |
After Dark, My Sweet is a great, modern noir, filled with seedy characters, dirt roads, and, of course, sweaty characters. It seems that most of the truly great noirs of the last two or three decades have taken place in the South, where the men glisten and the ladies, um, glisten too. Why? Because it's hooooottttttttttt. And because everyone looks better wet (at least the men do - sweaty women leave me clammy). <br /><br />Anyway - there might be some spoilers in here. <br /><br />This film is a wonderful example of everything a noir should be - steady pacing (though some with attention disorders refer to it as 'slow'), clearly and broadly drawn (though not simple) characters, and tons of atmosphere. Noir, if anything, is about moods and attitudes. That's why the great ones are not marked by your traditional definitions of 'great' acting (look at Bogart, Mitchum, Hurt, and Nicholson - they (and their characters) were anything but real - but they had style and sass and in a crime movie that's exactly what you want). or quickly paced adventures (again all great noirs seem to be on slow burn like a cigarette). Great noirs create an environment and you just inhabit it with the characters for a couple hours. <br /><br />After Dark My Sweet let's you do that - and it let's you enjoy the company of some very interesting and complex characters. Uncle Bud and Collie are intriguing - never allowing the audience to know what really makes them tick - and Patric and Dern (I love Bruce Dern, by the way) are pitch perfect, Dern especially (see previous comment). They take the basic outlines of a character and give them depth and elicit our sympathies. <br /><br />The story itself is also interesting. There're better plots in the world of noir (hardly any mystery here - mostly it's suspense), but this one is solid. If anything, the simply 'okay' plot has more to do with Jim Thompson's writing than anything else. With Thompson, plots are almost secondary; he eschewed the labyrinthine tales of Hammett and Chandler for simpler stories with stronger, more confusing characters. Look at a novel like The Killer Inside Me and and you'll see right away (from the title) what it's all about. When it comes to Thompson, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it (to quote Roger Ebert). So, really, the relatively simple plot of a kidnapping is not the point and, if you don't like it, well the jokes on you. <br /><br />Why this is an 8star movie rather than a 10star one is because of the female lead. She's not bad, per se, but she's not Angelica Huston or Anette benning (see the adaptation of Jim Thompson's The Grifters if you don't know what I'm talking about - besides it's a better movie and you should start there for contemporary noir - it's the best of the 1990s and challenges Blood Simple for the title of best since Chinatown). She simply doesn't have the chops (or the looks for that matter) and though she and Patric have some chemistry, I don't have it with her. So there. | 1 |
Just how bad? Well, compared to this movie, Cannibal Holocaust is Citizen Kane. There's the stilted acting, the atrocious dialogue, the half baked plot and like its companion piece way too much in the way of on screen animal slaughter that was actually done. Unlike Holocaust, Ferox is a straight forward movie. It doesn't pretend to be a pseudo documentary. In some ways that helps the production in that the film is very sharp and crisp compared to Holocaust's graininess. Unfortunately, we are once again given a group of people who are morally reprehensible. They torture the natives and essentially bring everything that they get upon themselves. There's really nothing in this film that makes it worth your while. I was fairly lenient with my review of Holocaust due to some actual attempt at a statement and style, but in Ferox's case there is no reason to watch this unless you solely get off on blood and gore. | 0 |
This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.<br /><br />I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion. | 0 |
Set in the mid 1800's when the British is clearing New Zealand outback wilderness to establish colonies. The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders. The Maori is an indigenous tribe and a dangerous people for the Europeans to deal with. By the time Sarah's child, which she calls "Boy", is born, his father is dead. By the age of six, "Boy" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.<br /><br />Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie. Sutherland is a total waste. Also starring are: Cliff Curtis, Stephen Rea, Temuera Morrison and David Rawiri Pene. This movie is rated R for some sexual content and violent battle scenes. I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime. | 0 |
Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.<br /><br />I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.<br /><br />This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far to old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.<br /><br />Lastly, the musical score is excellent. | 1 |
Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.<br /><br />With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.<br /><br />Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.<br /><br />The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.<br /><br />Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.<br /><br />If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks. | 1 |
This film seems to get bad critiscism for some reason. Probably just by the mass populace. Anyhow, this is actually a very interesting movie. The film is an under-budget sci-fi movie which actually works, due to an interesting storyline and well done scenes. <br /><br />This movie may not be for everyone though. If there are any Sci-Fi fans reading this, I truly recommend this movie if you like good ole science fiction. The film has crazy ideas. The setting includes nations going to war with GIGANTIC machines which the entire countries invest all it's money in! The world has been divied up into territories. Anyone can challenge anyone else to a war, or rather, a 'robot-duel'. The method of warfare is cleaner than nuclear war, since now everyone is wearing those breath masks. Definetly a movie that makes you think. Intelligent, well written, and good effects for the measly budget.<br /><br />I tend to like movies which have small budgets and actually work. | 1 |
Ten years after the first movie, James Belushi, one of the most gifted, and over looked light comedic actors of the last twenty years, returns as Detective Dooley for this movie.<br /><br />If you are expecting more of the same from the first movie, you will be disappointed, but this is still a good movie. Realizing that all the Dog vs. Man battle of wills scenarios had probably been used up in the first movie, this one turns slightly more psychological in its approach as it concentrates on a criminal with a fixation with Dooley's recently deceased wife after she rejected his book, and blames Dooley for her death.<br /><br />The script may not be the best, but the movie allows both Belushi and Christine Tucci to show their good acting ability, while still retaining enough of the light humour of the first movie to make it work, and the chemistry between the two stars is there for all to see.<br /><br />An easy, light going movie, which, while maybe not worth a purchase unless you are a true fan of either the first movie or Belushi, definately worth a watch when it comes on TV.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's "One Thousand Days of Sodom". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.<br /><br />Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.<br /><br />I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.<br /><br />Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.<br /><br />According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).<br /><br />The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed. | 0 |
...but you can see it from here.<br /><br />I definitely don't understand why anyone would recommend this movie. Not a bit of plot, not suspenseful, not well-made. No point to having made it, really.<br /><br />Completely forgettable in ever way. | 0 |
This film is great! Being a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents..." I just knew I would love this film. And love it I do. I finally got round to buying a copy of this film early this year. However I was annoyed to find that it had been cut! So I'll keep looking at car boot sales for the original version.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is about Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmondson), who tries to impress his girlfriend (Dawn French) by claiming to be a drug dealer. However, Dennis is overheard bragging one night in the pub and nicked! So Dennis turns supergrass but the trouble is he doesn't know anything and starts to make up lies and dig himself into an even deeper hole! The irony of all this is that there is drug smuggling going on down in Devon.<br /><br />This film is not as funny as I expected but it is still a really good film with some good laughs and a great soundtrack. It also has the best scene ever in a British film (Robbie Coltrane's walk across the pier set to "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.<br /><br />So if you are a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents...", of any of the cast members, or a fan of British comedy see it A.S.A.P!!! | 1 |
Tian's remake is no good at all. I only click on his remake documentary to see Wei Wei, the original actress back in the classic 1948 film say a few words to the crew. We are going to meet Wei Wei this Sunday (28/3/2010) after the showing of Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun in the Hong Kong Film Archiev. Wei Wei is almost 90 years old in silver hair, her cameo appearance in Hong Kong films is always a surprise to her fans. In this year's Hong Kong Film Festival, a special program is dedicated to Fei Mu, director of this epic movie and Wei Wei's still shot from the movie is being seen all around in Hong Kong. My son, who turns 21 this year, is surprised Wei Wei was so beautiful then. | 1 |
"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars | 0 |
Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle. | 0 |
I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10! | 1 |
This was the WORST Christmas movie I ever saw. I took my two small children to see this. It was the darkest, most dismal plot- family has no money, mom loses her job, father gets killed in the bank, bank robber steals family car with both kids in the back and after high speed chase, drives off the bridge and drowns them in the river. Mom is left all alone. No wonder her Christmas spririt is gone. Christmas angels do not rescue children that have drowned, and Santa does not bring back dead fathers! I thought this was the WORST message to send children. Better to tell them that there is NO Santa than show them a movie like this!! | 0 |
At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.<br /><br />Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.<br /><br />I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles. | 1 |
This has got to be one of my very favorite Twilight Zone episodes, primarily for the portrayal of two lonely souls in a post-apocalyptic environment.<br /><br />The cobweb-strewn shops and rubble-laden streets are eerie in that particular way the Twilight Zone does best.<br /><br />While the parable can be a bit heavy-handed by today's drama standards, it is an excellent one - using the setting to make a statement relevant to the human experience, as well as geopolitics, in a way that is timeless. The entire drama rests solely on the shoulders of Mr. Bronson and Ms. Montgomery, who do not disappoint. (May they both rest in peace.)<br /><br />A true classic. | 1 |
I once lived in the u.p and let me tell you what. I didn't have the foggyest idea what the heck this "bear walk " is. I never heard of it the whole 10 years I was up there. It was really funny in the beginning but went down hill quickly. | 0 |
I really enjoyed this thriller! I wanted to see it again as soon as it was over. The cast was excellent, the plot was suspenseful and entertaining, and it was just an overall enjoyable movie! I would rate this as one of the best thrillers I've ever seen! The girls in it were really cute also, especially Denise Richards. She was very ornery throughout the movie and gave her character some OOMPH! | 1 |
a scarily real drama, there isn't another drama out there that has scared the crap out of me like this has, the characters are not your typical Islamic terrorist, you have a blonde haired, blue eyed guy who is as dumb as he looks, he is a converted Muslim. A well respected business man, who pretends to be Jewish and a Frenchman who has converted to Islam, but has clearly taken the word of the Koran to a whole new level. The hero of the plot is Darwyn, who is an undercover FBI agent who has infiltrated the terrorist cell, and has to do all sorts of god awful things to prevent himself from being detected. The first episode is a small taste of what's to follow. Although it is about Islamic terrorists the drama has a unique way of pointing out that not all Muslims are extremists, which is comforting to those concerned with racism, considering half the terrorist cell are Islam converts, it makes you think that maybe they are the ones to be afraid of. The most chilling drama I've ever seen. The reason its so chilling is cause you never know who your friends, your husband or your neighbours really are. Terrorists can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. | 1 |
I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets "no respect." I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.<br /><br />In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)<br /><br />This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.<br /><br />The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.<br /><br />It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.<br /><br />There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on. | 0 |
Cassie (Sandra Bullock) is a hyper-serious police detective. As an ex-boyfriend once tried to kill her and, indeed, left her grievously wounded, she is determined to bring those who harm others to justice. As the result of her near-death experience, also, Cassie favors one-night stands and trusts no one. One day, a woman is found dead in the woods near Cassie's community. She has been murdered heinously, beaten severely and left to die alone. Naturally, Cassie will stop at nothing to find the murderers. Assigned to help her is fellow officer, Sam (Ben Chaplin). He soon discovers Cassie's relentless attitude and all-consuming instincts when she asks him to pick up a sample of vomit that has been left at the scene for analysis, among other actions. The trail soon leads them to two high school students, Richard (Ryan Gosling) and Justin (Michael Pitt). Could these teenagers really be responsible for the planning and execution of the perfect "joy" killing? This is an intriguing film, but viewers should be warned that the subject matter is grim indeed. Killing for the "sport" of it is seldom the topic of films that are of the "all sweetness and light" variety and this one is no different. That said, the cast is great. Bullock, without a hint of her talent for comedy, is terrific as the police officer whose own past compels her to lock up the evil folks of the world. Chaplin, too, is quite nice as the detective who is both attracted and repelled by the forceful Cassie. As for Gosling, he gives a most memorable performance as a brilliant mind with a satanic soul. The production values for the movie are good, too, with appropriately fine costumes, settings and photography. If you are a fan of Bullock's looking for a laugh, this is not the one for you. But, if you adore mysteries, even those with the grimmest of plots, you will find this tale enthralling. | 1 |
Why take a perfectly good original drama, based on a perfectly good novel, and remake it as a quasi-musical? And cast it with actors exclusively lacking in singing or dancing talent? Somewhat akin to "Showgirls" or the two most recent "Star Wars" films, "Lost Horizon" is full of unintentional laughs. Who can forget Sir John Gielgud smiling uneasily in his Dali Lhama outfit, overseeing an interpretive dance to the Republican party ("Family")?<br /><br />Or Sally Kellerman warbling lovingly to George Kennedy, doing her best Cher impression as she hops from one rock to another ("Every Little Thing You Do")? And my favourite, Bobby Van embodying the strength of America's education system ("Question Me An Answer")? I can't wait for the DVD release, as hopefully it will contain comments by Liv Ullmann, who will finally explain what she was thinking when she agreed to do this film! | 1 |
This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.<br /><br />This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience. | 1 |
I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, and ended up really enjoying it. It lacked authenticity and believability- Some of the things that the characters said and did were completely bizarre, and a lot of the script seemed like it was ad-libbed (perhaps this is typical of Woody Allen? Excuse my ignorance) but the whole audience in the theater was laughing so hard. It wasn't even at the jokes in the movie per se, but at the whole movie itself. The acting reminded me of Seinfeld's acting, where he tries not to laugh at his own jokes- they are corny, but if you don't take the movie too seriously, you can really appreciate the humour of the ACTORS, not the CHARACTERS. If you're looking for a random movie, and you like Woody Allen, I'd definitely recommend it! | 1 |
Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...<br /><br />Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.<br /><br />Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...<br /><br />Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense. | 0 |
Robert De Niro, Cuba Gooding Jr., Hal Holbrook, and all the rest of the actors and actresses in "Men of Honour" have combined to make this a fine movie. Mark Isham wrote the filmscore, so you know the music is truly fine, too.<br /><br />But: After noticing a slew of goofs, loopholes, and over-dramatic heart-string pluckings right from the start, I had to make a vow to ignore them and sit back to enjoy the film. If you can do that, it _really_is_ good.<br /><br />The story of Carl Brashear, a true-to-life hero, is inspirational enough to last a lifetime. Look him up on the internet... The entire story is more amazing than the film, as the Director admitted in his comments. There were only three African-American U.S. Navy divers in World War II. However, none reached the status of U.S. Navy Master Diver. Carl Brashear was THE first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver. AND he was the first amputee diver to ever be certified or recertified as a U.S. Navy diver. (Resounding Applause).<br /><br />On the negative side of the movie's ledger: Should I tell you of only one of the many "loopholes"? Yeah, I'll mark this comment as containing "spoilers" and do so... The early, pivotal scene where the helicopter hits the radio mast and sinks into the sea: They'd never have had the time to suit up a full Mark V diver, even if he were the legendary Master Chief Billy Sunday, in time to be only "... a couple of minutes late" saving the pilot.<br /><br />So, for loopholes, goofs, and over-dramatization, I derated "Men of Honor" from a perfect 10 down to a 7.<br /><br />Will Hollywood EVER realize that the unalloyed truth is so much better that their over-dramatic approach to story-telling? I doubt it. Too bad! | 1 |
Set in World Depression Era Prague, this is the story of an ambitious store clerk who is falling in love with a mystery woman with whom he has exchanged romantic letters, only to discover that the mystery woman is none other than the sales girl from his shop, who seems to be constantly bickering with the colleague. Add a little twist (the owner is convinced that his favorite employee -Stewart- is having an affair with the owner's wife), leaving Stewart briefly 'fired', along with an admission that the sales girl 'liked' Stewart all along, the happy ending is inevitable.<br /><br />Although VERY dated (references to poverty and -I have a wife and two kids to consider- are over-used, along with the indication that many small objects of pleasure, like a musical cigar box, are out-of-reach for common people's enjoyment), this film is much more effective (and more credible) than the 1990s re-make "You've Got Mail". In the re-make starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, the actual odds of the chain-of-events are so unbelievable that the viewer's intelligence is grossly offended.<br /><br />"Shop Around The Corner" is an innocent stroll down memory lane into a less complicated, less hectic, and more romantic time and place known as a novelist's Utopia. Lovers of Classic Romantic Comedies will enjoy this picture! | 1 |
This movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: "LAME". Nicholas Stoller write the movie "Yes Man", but direct "this" maybe he should stick with writing.<br /><br />I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of "Knocked up"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the "band guy" just get on my nerves<br /><br />Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring cliché one. | 0 |
I loved this movie but then again I am a big Cronenberg fan. If you have not seen a David Cronenberg film then this is not a good place to start. Scanners, The Fly, Rabid would be a place to start and then work up to Videodrome before checking this one out. This is certainly one of his best and takes the interactive game phenomena one step beyond.<br /><br />In this game the players plug a bio-engineered game pad through a jack inserted into their spinal cord and get into the game directly through their nervous system. It is very hard to tell you more without giving away the story and the plot but it is enough to say that this is a game you will not forget. It is full of Cronenberg's slimy body works, dark foreboding scenery all populated by a great cast including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law and Willem Dafoe who take the situation they find themselves in very seriously. These people will do what they can to figure out the game and then to win at it. Like other movies of his there is no shortage of imagination or parts where you sink to the seat but like an auto-accident you don't look away. If you liked any of the movies mentioned above then by all means go out and get this one. | 1 |
Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.<br /><br />That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.<br /><br />Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.<br /><br />The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.<br /><br />Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.<br /><br />Tom Willett | 0 |
This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.<br /><br />This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.<br /><br />I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on. | 0 |
I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows, maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history.<br /><br />Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack.<br /><br />However, I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead.<br /><br />The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright Night when low budget was done right.<br /><br />There are redeeming qualities though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good? Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot. But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything.<br /><br />JY<br /><br />Jimboduck-dot-com | 1 |
I tried watching this abomination of the cinema when I was five years old; I have never been the same since. Filled to the brim with drug-induced images that reek of the common ravings of your average asylum resident, this "movie", despite its colorful appearance, is not for humans, ESPECIALLY not children.<br /><br />It starts out innocently enough with a poor boy who ruins his classmate's drum by (wait for it) putting his head through it; yes, putting his HEAD through it. But fear not, my friends! He is quickly consoled by his chirping flute, which is weird enough, I'll grant you, but still acceptable.<br /><br />THEN: The movie morphs into a combination of Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are, but loses all the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of either of these two books.<br /><br />So, this seven-foot yellow relative of Barney, befriends this poor boy and plunges him even deeper into despair.<br /><br />And, to add the pleasant array of horrific themes, a carnivorous boat, formerly a friend of the motley crew of hobbling grandfather clocks and doped-up "dragons", is added to the mix of mayhem.<br /><br />The most comforting image in the midst of this chaos is the villain, aptly dubbed "Witchiepoo" (?). Of course, she has problems of her own: what with an obvious plastic mask constricting her facial expressions to having to deal with a broomstick whose gas level always seemed to be at its lowest at the most inopportune moments. As a result of this, one of her favorite pastimes was nose-diving into the body of water that separated the land of Pufnstuf from her degenerate, decaying abode (I don't know where I would have preferred to live).<br /><br />In summary, this movie is terrifying...<br /><br />If you want to watch the movie that has similar effects on its audience as The Exorcist, then this one is for you. Enjoy. | 0 |
Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.<br /><br />It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(<br /><br />There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting "It's a lie", as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.<br /><br />The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.<br /><br />Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone. <br /><br />Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness. | 0 |
As you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....<br /><br />I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.<br /><br />I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.<br /><br />This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...<br /><br />I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a "B-movie" this is the very bottom of the lot.<br /><br />I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget "B" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.<br /><br />The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!<br /><br />DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.<br /><br />Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity! | 0 |
The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.<br /><br />The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.<br /><br />It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s. | 1 |
i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow! | 1 |
Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, "Are you ready, Pardner?" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid. | 0 |
Otto Preminger's noir classic works almost as a flip-side of LAURA...while that film was glitzy and features the high fa-luting Clifton Webb, this film is a whole lot seamier. Dana Andrews is a less than good cop who accidentally kills a man only to have it potentially pinned on the father of the girl he loves. Preminger keeps things moving at a brisk clip so that lapses in logic are easily overlooked. Andrews is quite fine (a lot less wooden than he's been in the past) and the stunningly beautiful Gene Tierney is stunningly beautiful! Creepy Craig Stevens plays the unlucky victim. WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS is a must see and a terrific companion-piece to Preminger's equally lurid WHIRLPOOL (also starring Tierney). | 1 |
Blade Runner (Deckard is a Replicant!), <br /><br />City of Lost Children (augmented senses or whatever used and abused and mostly, well, just giving us far less than what we might dream of), and<br /><br />Dark City: <br /><br />These really ought to be added.<br /><br />For a while now, I've been waiting for an animated film that might affect me as much as Miyazaki's stuff has. This one is the 1st.<br /><br />Hmm, scratch the "animated" part of that.<br /><br />I have an intense love-hate relationship with film noir and, hey, if you don't leave, it must be mostly love, right? But, there are so many sci-fi and noir themes totally submerged in this film that it's just a wonder to watch.<br /><br />These people did an incredible job! | 1 |
When I was in 10th grade me and my buddy were up late at his house and were flipping around cable and started watching this movie. We watched it because it looked kind of funny and because it had boobs. But then the ending came and we just sat there completely speechless. I think after a minute of watching the credits roll he just sort of whimpered "Oh dude....." It goes from dumb 80's teen sex comedy to nihilistic realism so quickly that it catches you off guard. I have been trying to rent this movie for years and have not been able to find it - and nobody has ever seen it except for me and my friend - so it seems. But now it is available! I highly suggest renting it and brace yourself. | 1 |
This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.<br /><br />Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was "a ass" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.<br /><br />But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it. | 1 |
I have to start saying it has been a long time since I have seen it, but have seen it 5 or more times; a wonderful little romp that was clearly inspired by the musical/comedy pairings of new or fading stars with musical groups of prominence. Kay Kyser's mysteries would be a good example.<br /><br />Having Spike Jones unleashed is the best part of the show, as he and his band play many tunes and are a part of the action, doing a fine job of support. Hugh O'Brien plays the face, Buddy Hackett the part rumor has it that was offered to Lou Costello and thus, Abbott and Costello replacing the leads. Don't know if that was true.<br /><br />all in all, a pleasant movie, but important to have that much Spike Jones and his band on film for history. Wish that it was released, as I haven't seen or heard of it now in two decades. Hope it is not lost | 1 |
When I saw 6.0 on IMDb, I was rather impressed and excited to watch this movie, as a 6 for a horror movie should be rather entertaining. At first I thought it was going to be some disturbing, unseen evil force (having not read the book) to terrify the audience -- but it turns out to be something rather mundane -- killer plants. Regardless, I am a rather open-minded individual when it comes to movies so I thought perhaps the movie would bring some kind of breakthrough spin on carnivorous vines.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it failed to meet my expectations due to the excessive amounts of cliché and lack of any originality. To top it off, the female lead character continues to annoy you off with her stupidity. Unless the movie is intentionally a bad B-rated movie that is entertaining in the hilarity of badness, no movie should ever ever ever have a main character irritate you if one expects the audience to care about the character. Such roles should be reserved for secondary characters. Characters were undeveloped, the monsters (plants in this case) left unexplained, and clichés were dripping all over.<br /><br />The only thing that is mildly effective are some of the bloody/gory scenes, although the gore pales in comparison with movies like High Tension or Ichi The Killer. Consistently failed logic (such as why would a character not watching the top of a rope during a second attempt at descending into the ruins when it just snapped and almost killed someone), even if minor, adds up and just continues to anger the audience. The movie could've saved itself by using characters or some kind of story device to reprimand or "redeem" idiot characters who just did something stupid (or at least let the character recognize or regret her own mistakes). But to continue to allow idiocy to preside will certainly cause the audience to abandon all care for the character, in turn taking away the terror of the movie.<br /><br />Overall this is a poorly done movie. An example of a well done movie involving pretty twenty-something's getting killed is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and the prequel too) that certainly instilled fear and had much less character logic flaws. In summary, if you have a lot of time to kill, go watch it if there's nothing else. Otherwise, don't waste your time with this sub-par flick and go see something actually scary and highly satisfying like The Hills Have Eyes remake. | 0 |
The critics were like "a movie that will break your heart" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.<br /><br />I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.<br /><br />Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time "hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real."<br /><br />Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002) | 0 |
The Evil is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity. | 0 |
This is one of my favourite books and I remember watching this series and loving it immensely. Sadly I have never seen it repeated or been able to get on DVD, but it made such an impact I have never forgotten it.<br /><br />The lead characters were perfect for the roles, especially the lovely Bryan Brown and although the scenes in Australia were not entirely in keeping with the book at least they were there, unlike the film version with Virginia McKenna which missed that part out altogether.<br /><br />I agree that Gordon Jackson's character of Strachan is entirely different from the book but he is still excellent. For your information "MOLEY75" "Strawn" is the gaelic pronunciation of "Strachan". | 1 |
I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved. | 0 |
I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.<br /><br />The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).<br /><br />To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on. | 0 |
A good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star. | 0 |
Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen AND Robson Green!! Wow, what a trio...OK, so this is no Anna Karenina, but it is a good love story, very well-written and well-acted by all. Even a few 'laugh-out-loud' moments mixed in with some pretty serious observations on fidelity, age bias, and parental aging/Alzheimer's issues.<br /><br />Quirky guitar music added to the story as well.<br /><br />While I have been a fan of Ms. Annis' since 'Lillie' (in the '70s) and Mr. Kitchen's since 'The Buccaneers' and 'Enchanted April', I have only recently discovered Mr. Green ('Me and Mrs. Jones', 'Touching Evil', etc.), making me ask the question - why had I not seen 'Reckless' until recently??!! Admittedly more of a 'chick flick' than something a man will sit through, it is perfect for a rainy afternoon's lazy viewing. | 1 |
This is a great movie to watch with a good friend, boy/girl friend or family. Basically one of those feel good movies you want to share with your loved ones....without all the girlie crap you find in a lot of American feel good movies. This movie is light hearted but makes you think, and will make you laugh. <br /><br />Just a really simple but universal plot. Would think most people could relate in some way to this movie. The characters in the movie are amazing and the actors do a great job in sucking you into the movie. And the movie is topped off all along the way with hilarious true to life Jewish humor. I watched the movie for the first time last night, and now I want to own it. :) | 1 |
How can you make a joke about Mafia? It is not the kind of subject to laugh at! A near movie cannot make me laugh, because I am comparing it to Jane Austen's Mafia!. Mafia! wasn't a good movie but Hoods is really worse! In Mafia!, there were some good jokes but in this one there are maybe two or three...that make you smile. Not too bad actors but very bad scenario!! We sure prefer something serious like The Godfather. I give it * out of *****. | 0 |
This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.<br /><br />Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series. | 0 |
This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen - psychological terror more powerful than anything any "horror" movie has ever achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do. | 1 |
Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.<br /><br />I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability / financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film / Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the "wood" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a "keeper" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care. | 0 |
Oz is without a doubt my favorite show of all time! the best word to describe it is "genius"! the writing, the acting, the story lines .. everything about this show is absolutely amazing! <br /><br />I just discovered the show and I became addicted to it right away and I was really surprised that it hasn't gotten the recognition it truly deserves. It is violent, and most of the characters aren't meant for you to like them, but the show is written in such a brilliant way that allows you to look past the violence and the criminals and see them as real people. They are the lowest forms of scum, but it still finds a way to allow you to understand a lot of the characters and even care about their stories.<br /><br />The violence in the show is necessary for it to be as realistic as possible, but the show isn't about the violence like some people might believe. It really is a work of art and I'm sure who ever gives it a chance will love it just as much as I do. | 1 |
"Fungicide" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful "film" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.<br /><br />Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the "film"-makers will say that, yes, the "film" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.<br /><br />Starting the "movie" it wasn't as though I was expecting "Citizen Kane" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.<br /><br />The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a "fuse" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).<br /><br />That summary is as good as the "film" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said "NO." <br /><br />And those "special" effects. Well, they're "special" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).<br /><br />One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.<br /><br />I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The "film"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.<br /><br />I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the "movie." "Fungicide" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical. | 0 |
Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say "Ro-DAY-oh"), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great "Duck Soup" [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.<br /><br />The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.<br /><br />My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion. <br /><br />Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts. | 0 |
The events of the 11th of September 2001 cast its shadow on this Oscar award ceremony with a one minute silence before the in memoriam montage and there was little in the way of the all singing all dancing comedy extravaganza that we`d come to expect of this award show but this was by no means a bad thing . Entertainment was more or less curtailed to a LOTR send up with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson and that was it . The rest of the show was taken up with clips from the nominations and I have to admit this was actually more enjoyable than the overblown song and dance numbers we`ve seen over the years and Whoopi Goldberg was by no means a bad presenter unlike the very esoteric David Letterman from a few years ago and the one minute silence for the victims of 9/11 was haunting and dignified <br /><br />As for the awards New Zealand was absolutely robbed . FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING went home with four minor awards while A BEAUTIFUL MIND undeservingly picked up most of the major prizes except for best actor which should have gone to a tough guy New Zealander but went to an An all American nice guy instead . The only Oscar awards I agreed with apart from the ones presented to FELLOWSHIP were the awards for best supporting actress and best supporting actor , both correct calls . | 1 |
Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category. | 0 |
The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.<br /><br />If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's "Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key." | 0 |
Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for. | 0 |
I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER. | 0 |
This movie is really not all that bad. But then again, this movie genre is right down my alley. Sure, the sets are cheap, but they really did decent with what they had. <br /><br />If you like cheap, futuristic, post-apocalyptic B movies, then you'll love this one!! I sure did!<br /><br /> | 1 |
The way i found out about this movie was when i watched American pie 2, at the start it had a trailer for Ali G indahouse, i watched the trailer and it just forced me to buy the DVD, it looked incredibly funny! so the next day, i went to my local store and picked it up for £3.99 (Bargain!). The film is about Ali G, who is a "gangster" of the west staines massive crew, who's rivals are the east staines massive crew. Ali has a "Cub Scout" pack of children where he teaches them how to survive in the "ghetto" by teaching them how to swear and steal cars, after Ali finds out the government are stopping the money coming to the leisure centre where Ali teaches the kids, he runs for MP for staines and overthrows another MP in his attempts to get rid of the leisure centre to make room for an airport in staines. Throughout the film there are laughs aplenty as Ali gets up to some crazy stuff! Borat makes an appearance for a few seconds in the film too, this is a definite must watch film for all you Sacha Baron Cohen fans out there! | 1 |
This was one of the all time best episodes. Officer Sean Cooper was murdered in his patrol car back in '68. A dying convict in the state penitentiary reveals that he stole a block of heroin from the car after the shooting. His case is reopened with the presumption that he was corrupted as a policeman.<br /><br />Further investigation into him as a police officer and a human being reveals a war veteran involved in a forbidden love. This type of love was considered shameful and something to at least keep hidden at that time.<br /><br />While this isn't the type of love I personally support, he was still a policeman and a human being and shouldn't have been killed for it. The sound track was excellent (keeps me watching the DVR), and the selective use of black and white mixed with color to emphasize one object or give a particular feeling to a scene was especially appealing. I shall be watching this one in repeat! | 1 |
I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.<br /><br />The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.<br /><br />I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.<br /><br />In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch. | 0 |
This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good. | 0 |
In my case I liked this movie because when I saw it I found more than I expected. I mean, this is one of the few animated movies that made me think about its themes even long after I finished. It talks about death, vengeance and hell in such a way that it gets to you like a punch in your face, even reaching to suffer with the dream sequence in the mid-point of the film. That's what makes this movie so good: the ability, unique in Don Bluth (director), to play with the people's feelings and make them love or hate a character in no time. That, and the fact that it has so many good characters like Charlie and Ann-Marie, that in the sad but happy ending you have to say "I have something in my eye" to hide the others that you cried. All I've said are just only some of the good points of this movie. As for the rest, you have to see them for yourself in a film extremely honest. Don Bluth, thank you. | 1 |
Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, László Kovács) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fiancée), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in "Repulsion". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel "Go To Thy Deathbed", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
Based on the book "Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.<br /><br /> The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.<br /><br /> Not to be over-looked. | 1 |
There has never been anything like it, that's for sure. This episodic, seemingly redundant trilogy only really makes sense taken as a whole, and as such it is not a movie about Groovin' Gary, Utah cross-dressing sensation. It is very self-consciously a film about how the filmmaker REACTS to Groovin' Gary. For Harris the entire project is clearly an extended and spectacular contortion of guilt and repentance. He's trying to atone for his sins - yes, Gary did attempt suicide after the initial doc was aired - through correction, commentary, and convention, reclaiming such Hollywood-narrative standbys as the best friend and the defiant happy ending (two different ones, with a telling adjustment in the Glover version) and turning them to his own very personal uses. So while thematically it remains a movie about gender and difference, the structure ensures that it is also a movie about MOVIES - but on an almost unprecedented level of complexity. There is just so much going on; in telling and re-telling this story Harris is in the right place at the right time three times in a row, and he doesn't miss the opportunity to make something of it. Immensely moving, and as profound as camp ever gets. | 1 |
I bought this movie just to see Bam because i was really loving him, but after seeing this i don't like him much. I mean, his acting was good and everything i guess, but whenever it showed the totally unnecessary skate scenes i was just saying to myself, "Alright, we know you're a professional skateboarder, now can we get back to Ryan Dunn?" Dunn, Rake, and Brandon really made the movie in my perspective.<br /><br />I noticed that Jenn Rivell, (obviously), and Missy Rothstein were both in Haggard, but who Bam was dating at the time? Anyways, i actually enjoyed Haggard and i think it's really like no other movie i've ever seen. It's sort of in it's own category. | 1 |
This movie is not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job. | 0 |
I am really sad that that this film has got so much negative criticism. I think it is a nice little comedy and really funny. The humour in this film is kind of warm and innocent and I like it. I also like Madonna's character and I do not agree that she played herself. She has created a character and a sympathetic one. <br /><br />My favourite scenes were the fighting scene on top of the sinking car and where Madonna climbs over the fence in a fancy dress to claim her love. The humour in the film has a slightly syrrealistic touch and perhaps it is not everybody's cup of tea. But it's their problem, not of the film. <br /><br />I found this film wholesome and sunny. In fact, the day I first saw it I was incredibly sad for some reason and this film lit up my day. And Madonna can act. Just take off your glasses of negative thinking. | 1 |
The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called "Taboo", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Taboo Jogando Com o Assassino" ("Taboo Playing With the Killer") | 0 |
This was such a funny movie, which was soon forgotten about, probably because there are so many teen and young adult comedies, such as this. The movie is not quit as predictable as one would think. Crawl is an unattractive, but fun and caring and most importantly a very devoted friend. Still, an unlikely match for Rebecca, who has an attractive and seemingly kind boyfriend back home. When he helps feel more at ease at school, by showing her around the neighborhood and encouraging her to socialize more, they become buddies, but it is completely platonic. When she realizes her boyfriend might propose, she does not feel ready, he seems to like her boyfriend, but she seems to be enjoying her free laid back party life at college is not yet ready to live a life of marriage and responsibility. You kind of learn what a good friend Crawl is when he tells her he will help get her out of getting married. When her boyfriend proposes to her, in front of the whole family, she kicks Crawl and puts him on the spot. He tells the whole family that he proposes to her, and gives her his diamond ring, which it tunrs out was his the whole time (he must have come from money or something. Well they never really show a close up of the ring). The message of the movie seemed to be not to judge people by their looks and not to judge people before you get to know him. Rebecca's boyfriend, who her parents love, turned mean when we find out he druged his new girlfriend after Rebecca,(Amber Thesan) and Crawl, so that Rebecca would have broken up with Crawl, thinking they were a couple. Although they were not, Rebecca was mad at him, which when you think about it, was kind of unfair, since they were not a couple, but I think they were starting to like one another. And I think she thought there was more. The movie never showed them actually become a couple, they left it open for the viewers to decide. They never even actually kissed at any point, although there was one part where they almost did. That was one thing most viewers seemed to misunderstand. Many people saw it and said, that he would be a nightmare for fathers to see their daughters bring home or a shock, but they were just friends the whole time, even towards the end. And she did not introduce him as her boyfriend; still they never told her parents they were not engaged. Rebecca almost did. Even if he would never become her boyfriend, they could have still been friends. In the 90s for some reason femanin men were in, and there was this big stereo type that woman liked femanin men (not that there is anything wrong with that), think it came from the fact that women like the kind sensitive type, which Crawl proved to be, through his friendship with Rebecca. but when I saw the movie, I must admit, if I went for looks, I thought I would have gone for the first boyfriend. Still it was a creative movie, that tried to teach a lesson on friendship and judging others. | 1 |
On seeing this movie, I didn't expect much. I was delightfully surprised. Although the writing was unpolished, as some of the dialog seemed drawn-out and contrived, the script did have shining moments. (My favorite line, "Life is like a rich meringue, an-and I'm diabetic, so I can't enjoy it...".) The plot was new and refreshing as opposed to some of the newer more "main-stream" horror that most of us are (sadly) growing used to. I do believe some of the scenes could (should) have been longer (and maybe some shorter). The superfluous use of blood was campy but seemed to make sense in the end....Ah, the end. The end would have been a little better if they had explained why what happened, happened. (I don't wanna spoil it.) It might have also added to the movie time, which is in the area of "it's only an hour long, how good could it be?" Answer- Quite good. | 1 |
Superficically, "Brigadoon" is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind "An American in Paris", are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior "It's Always Fair Weather" this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as "My Fair Lady" and Minnelli's musical masterpiece "Gigi"; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent "American in Paris."<br /><br />What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.<br /><br />While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like "Cabin in the Sky" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of "Yolanda and the Thief" or "The Pirate" because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally "good" pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.<br /><br />At one point we're assured that "everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon." Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in "Yolanda and the Thief." Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in "AIP"), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance. | 0 |
Like the gentle giants that make up the latter half of this film's title, Michael Oblowitz's latest production has grace, but it's also slow and ponderous. The producer's last outing, "Mosquitoman-3D" had the same problem. It's hard to imagine a boring shark movie, but they somehow managed it. The only draw for Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy was it's passable animatronix, which is always fun when dealing with wondrous worlds beneath the ocean's surface. But even that was only passable. Poor focus in some scenes made the production seems amateurish. With Dolphins and Whales, the technology is all but wasted. Cloudy scenes and too many close-ups of the film's giant subjects do nothing to take advantage of IMAX's stunning 3D capabilities. There are far too few scenes of any depth or variety. Close-ups of these awesome creatures just look flat and there is often only one creature in the cameras field, so there is no contrast of depth. Michael Oblowitz is trying to follow in his father's footsteps, but when you've got Shark-Week on cable, his introspective and dull treatment of his subjects is a constant disappointment. | 1 |
This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable. <br /><br />The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?<br /><br />A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.<br /><br />And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.<br /><br />The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.<br /><br />Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)<br /><br />The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.<br /><br />Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night. <br /><br />And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to "strangers on a train." | 1 |
This one tends to get slighted by a lot of critics and Kurosawa fans, but I thought it was wonderful. It's an episodic multi-character study of Tokyo's poorest, who live in a city literally made from garbage. Though it looks like an A-Bomb just hit, the film has a sort of serene beauty thanks to the glorious use of Technicolor. The title comes from the sound made by the insane young man who drives an imaginary trolley through the slum. All the characters were wonderful and all the stories engrossing, but perhaps the most tragic concerns the man and his young son who live in an abandoned car. When not searching for food, they spend their spare time using their imagination to build their dream house. An emotionally moving and beautiful film. | 1 |
A wonderful story...so beautiful told..so intense so whit no keyboard to describe I think...,go see it feel it...,it tell's a story about love ,romance ,war,and be trail so wonderful so full of romance if you love romance see it ,if you don't love romance ,drama well skip it that's all I can I vote 10 out of 10 stars wonderful... | 1 |
The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her "doe-eyed" expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make! | 0 |
Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.<br /><br />The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.<br /><br />I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.<br /><br />Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.<br /><br />My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.<br /><br />All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.<br /><br />The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.<br /><br />If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan. | 1 |
Just got through watching this version of "Samhain", and even though I still like it, it's nothing like the "rough cut" version I have. If you check the message board, you'll see an apology from the director for this cut down version, 79 minutes., and he says he had nothing to do with this R-rated trimmed down edit with a completely new screwed up ending. Christian really doesn't need to distant himself that much, because the basic gore elements still stand up, even though highly trimmed down. This is a damn shame, because this had the potential of being one of the goriest and best gore films in years. It still has the porn stars, and the inbreds, and some of the extreme gore can at least be partially seen. I'm just glad I have that "rough cut", because to me, it's a jewel for any gorehounds library. Christian Viel definitely has the skill and vision to deliver the goods, and hopefully his next project will be better produced. The idiots had a near classic in their hands, and screwed it up for everybody. "Samhain" may be one of the most controversial and mishandled horror movies ever, and too bad gorehounds didn't get to see what the director intended.<br /><br />********************************************* Just so you know what you missed, this is my review based upon the "work print" of SAMHAIN.<br /><br />The movie runs a little over 90 minutes and has no chapter stops. There is absolutely NO music soundtrack, and some of the scenes have no audio on the dialog, because I think they are meant to be looped in later. However, most of the movie does have audio with sound affects, and when an effect or scene is missing, a message appears as a cue for insertion when the movie is completed. It's exactly as it says, a "Rough Cut", BUT the only uncut version of "Samhain" you are ever likely to see. Reason, because the gore is extremely graphic, much more than even an NC-17 would allow. Yes there are a few porn stars, but they are just there for the killing, and to add a little sugar and spice. The story is pretty standard, American tourists on a vacation in Ireland and end up staying in a home in the middle of the woods. An area that is heavy on folklore, involving the ancient Druids and the celebration of Samhain, or as we call it Halloween. (spooky)<br /><br />The movie starts off with a HUGE dose of gore, as a camping couple is attacked by one of the local inbred mutants. This is a great gore scene, as the guy find his girl hanging from a cliff, with her crying for help. All he sees is her head, arms, and shoulders hanging in front of him and when he pulls her up, she has been completely sliced in two. This is what I would call EXTREME GORE, with entrails, blood, and severed limbs all over the place. We are in Herschell Gordon Lewis territory here folks, except the effects look much more realistic. I'm going to just skip the story, because it's your standard stalk and kill plot.<br /><br />The next gore scene is something to behold, as the boyfriend from the first killing is taken to a cave like location (TCM-2 stuff), and bound to a table. This geek then cuts all of his limbs off (off camera, with a cue to insert a scene), and then we see his torso on a barbecue pit, turning slowly over a fire, and the torso has a hard-on (if you can believe that). Yes, very bad taste, gross, gruesome, you find the right word, and it will probably fit too.<br /><br />Then later Jenna Jameson, her beautiful body and all, is cut from neck to crotch, and all her entrails are pulled out in graphic glee, and her blood drains into a pot. Yummy, a real turn on huh?<br /><br />But the best gore scene happens inside the house, and I have to admit, this is one of the best gore scenes I have seen. This guy (doesn't matter who) is caught from behind from a geek, and cut open at the ass hole. The geek then puts his hands in and rips out all the guys entrails, intestines, and what the hell ever else there is, right from his asshole. This goes on FOREVER, as the guy is screaming and more and more innards are pulled out laying all over the bathroom floor. This is so extreme, so over the top, that I found myself laughing all to hell. Obviously, you will NEVER EVER see this scene on a proper DVD, IMO, along with most of the other really extreme gore scenes.<br /><br />So, what to think of all of this. Well, first of all, even though I doubt this movie would ever be released in this totally uncut presentation, it makes this "Rough Cut" a rare jewel for gorehounds. Yes, it's a little difficult at first, with no soundtrack, a few scenes to still be inserted, and credits that have missing names all over the place. But that's what makes this so unique, and I wouldn't trade it for anything right now. Extreme gore, yes yes, extreme extreme gore. This makes "Haute Tension" look like a Disney movie. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.