text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
A very strong movie. Bruce is good and Brad also.<br /><br />As I think there are two cities missed in the receptionist list from the list Bruce remembered.<br /><br />That means the woman was a real insurance and she did her job.<br /><br />Well, Novikov property seems to me work in this movie. However, I do believe in Back to the future theory of worlds' multiplicity.<br /><br />So Bruce could save the world, but not his world.<br /><br />In the theory of parallel worlds the man can meet himself.<br /><br />And I do believe there is no problem in that. Here I disagree with Dr. Brown from Back...<br /><br />But the story pf 12 Monkeys has its own beauty. Inspite of all these theories of one world or many or continuum one can believe that he is really insane and the doctor - his girlfriend was just lost.<br /><br />A sequence of events which may lead her to believe that he is from the future. The bullet - well it might be some mistake, some falsification.<br /><br />Well I like this movie - has to buy a DVD.<br /><br />Best. | 1 |
Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.<br /><br />That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.<br /><br />Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.<br /><br />I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.<br /><br />Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value. | 0 |
The cast played Shakespeare.<br /><br />Shakespeare lost.<br /><br />I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.<br /><br />Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.<br /><br />In other words, you cannot improve perfection.<br /><br />I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it. | 0 |
I am an avid Julie Andrews fan and I just watched this for the first time on DVD -- the Director's Cut version. I was very surprised that it was rated G. How did they get bedroom scenes, a seduction story line, two strip tease acts, and war/shooting/blood into a G rating? Weird. I would rate it PG-13.<br /><br />Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was a beautiful showcase of Andrew's voice and talent. The acting was great. The storyline was a little weak, leaving gaps that could have been filled with some good dialogue. There were too many "no talking, just walking" scenes for me... I would have liked to see the the relationship between Julie and Rock blossom, so that the intense love would be more believable. | 1 |
Although time has revealed how some of the effects were done this story of love and adventure still is special.<br /><br />If you've never seen this film before you'll be shocked at how much has been stolen by later film makers. I was watching this with a friend who was amazed at how much Disney's Aladdin cribbed from the film. They loved the movie and enjoyed that it was such a touchstone for so many other films and film makers.<br /><br />I've given the film an 8 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of ten, which is where a good portion of this film dwells, because in the final 15 minutes the film falls apart in the pacing. Everything is rushed as if they has to suddenly get to the end. From the point from the departure of the djinn to the end it appears to be more sketch then finished painting. It doesn't kill the film, but it does weaken it.<br /><br />Still its required viewing for anyone who loves a good fairy tale, or even a great movie. | 1 |
Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.<br /><br />Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.<br /><br />Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.<br /><br />Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.<br /><br />Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.<br /><br />With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.<br /><br />Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.<br /><br />In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old. | 1 |
Back in 1995, Barry Sonnenfeld directed a movie that ended up on many critics best of lists by the time the year's recaps were being printed in entertainment publications. The movie was Get Shorty and it gave lead star John Travolta his second big hit in as many years after Pulp Fiction put him back in front of the paparazzi's lenses. Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, the film focused on wise guy Chili Palmer (Travolta) and his attempts to break into the movie business. I, for one, was completely captured by the diverse characters and crisp dialogue of the original. So much so, that when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I seemed to forgo my usual shivering that occurs when a studio tries to rehash what was a good idea over ten years later. The sequel, also based on a novel by Leonard, is this time directed by F. Gary Gray who's Italian Job in 2003 was one of the years highest grossing films. Couple that with the cast now expanding to include Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Cedric the Entertainer, The Rock, Vince Vaughn and James Woods and you have all the makings of a great continuance in the exploits of one of the more interesting characters of the 1990's. This time round we pick up as Chili (Travolta) is leaving the movie business after being disappointed in both himself and the industry for participating in the making of a sequel to his successful first film. Thanks in small part to his friend, Tommy Athens (Woods) and the misfortune of his death, Chili decides to look into the lucrative and dangerous music industry. This first leads to the famous Viper club where Chili meets singing sensation Linda Moon (Christina Milian) who as lead of an upstart trio, can belt out tunes like Whitney Houston (that is, the Whitney before Bobby Brown started bringing home the small packages of sugar). Linda is under contract with Raji (Vaughn) who, with his overly apparent gay bodyguard Elliot Wilhelm (The Rock), plan to ensure Linda fulfills the final five years of her contract even if that means putting Chili on ice. So with Linda's future in the balance, Chili weaves an interesting web which will include a record producer (Thurman), a gangsta sound mixer (Cedric), the Russian mob, the police, Aerosmith's lead singer Steven Tyler and a whole lot of angry gun pointing. Woo-Wheee! That sounds exciting. So why wasn't it? Be Cool tries too hard to, well, be cool. But the result is a film that unlike the original, has no heart and no soul. Be Cool feels instead like it was directed by a Saturday Night Live producer as there are individual scenes or skits that don't string together over a whole movie. Take for example the scene where Travolta and Thurman dance together for the first time since Pulp Fiction, as Black Eyed Peas performs live in the background. The scene is forced and should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Instead, it is coupled between two other needless chapters that do nothing to push the story forwards with any real thrust. The Aerosmith concert, and The Rock's trip to a boot shop are also prime examples of individual moments that don't amount to much of a movie when put together. But those aren't the only issues with the sequel - which could probably be renamed Product Placement with the amount of 2-Ways and Diet Pepsi's that seem to stare at you more intensely than Chili's serious look. The story contains just about every stereotype imaginable and each one has just enough screen time to become slightly offensive or embarrassing. Whether it is the gangsta entourage or the gay muscle guy that has a movie poster of Sylvester Stallone's Rhinestone on the wall, no characters is above offering us anything we haven't seen many times before and in much better films. With the magic all but gone from the first film, we end up with an inferior product that is the second film in the past six months (Ocean's 13 being the other) that cram a bunch of stars onto a marquee only to end up as a movie that no actor would bring to an open audition. Be Cool was a major disappointment. I so wanted it to be the Get Shorty of the new millennium and I ended up with a film where the outtakes must have been a gas, but experience left me with a stinker. | 0 |
i really loved this version of Emma the best. Kate beckinsale was awesome as Emma and mark strong was very good as knightly. the only complaint that i had was on Mr. woodhouse..i can't believe that a man could whine so much or be so selfish with his daughter's life..she was a smart girl in the end though. as always, i love the places in which these Jane Austin movies were shot. the settings are so spectular. it makes me want to visit england so much 9as well as Ireland and Scotland) i think the actors chosen for this movie were a good choice as well and all the other story lines interwhined with Emma's most excellently! i am glad that i got to see this one as well. | 1 |
What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!! | 0 |
Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation. | 0 |
Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS. | 1 |
The movie follows the events of the novel "Cel mai iubit dintre pamanteni"( could be translated as "The most beloved among humans" ), written by Marin Preda ( a very controversial book and movie), a novel which became something like The Bible or the story of Hamlet, very popular and hard to get, due to its satiric contents over the Communist regime. It represents the drama of the intellectual man, the humanist, in a "red" world. A movie filled with passion, fear, sexuality, all the great ingredients for a great movie recipe.One of the greatest Romanian movies,despite its psychological charge(after all, it is an European movie). | 1 |
The Gang of Roses. "Every rose has its thorns."<br /><br />A mix of old western and hip hop, blended perfectly together. The clothing styles, the scenery, and the plot are all suited to what the director wanted. <br /><br />Plot - in five years, they robbed twenty-seven banks and then vanished without a trace. Now, a small western town is under siege, and one of the first victims is Rachel's sister. The Rose Gang is ready to ride again. And this time it's personal.<br /><br />Rachel (Michael Calhoun), Chastity (Lil' Kim), Maria (Lisaraye), Zang Li (Marie Matiko) and Kim (Stacey Dash), five gunslinging women who split up after five years of riding together. When Rachel's sister is killed, she ends up rounding up her friends once again and riding on a trail of vengeance. <br /><br />A good, muck around version of western. (If you've seen Bad Girls, well this is a little bit better in the ways of the female characters).<br /><br />I gave it 10/10 because the characters, plot and scenery made it for me. | 1 |
I'm amazed that of all the reviews I've looked at nobody seems to have noticed one of the main points of this film, or at least how I saw it. It seems like one big homosexual fantasy, camp clothing, a glorified nude Ferdinand, a definite sexual tension between Ariel and Prospero, and as a final climax, a group of men in tight sailor suits dancing the hornpipe. This whole approach, once you get used to it, provides you with all sorts of fantastic scenes and images. The sight of an innocent Ariel being pulled towards a disgusting nude Sycorax in order to perform "her earthy and abhorr'd commands", is one of the darkest I've ever scene in a Shakespeare film. However by the end of the film I'd grown tired of the style and the final hornpipe dance was just too much to take. Still overall its an interesting interpretation of the play. | 1 |
This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting. <br /><br />Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.<br /><br />I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.<br /><br />You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.<br /><br />My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"<br /><br />I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks. <br /><br />Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.<br /><br />I should be ashamed for watching it.<br /><br />I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower. | 0 |
This movie (with the alternate title "Martial Law 3" for some reason) introduced me to Jeff Wincott for the first time. And it was a great introduction. Although I had never heard of him before, he seemed to be an excellent fighter. The action scenes in this movie are GREAT! There are lots of them too, by the way. The recruit fight at the Peacekeepers HQ is especially good. There's just something about one single guy beating the crap out of a bunch of people that's really fun. And for the rest of the cast: Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for the villain. Roles like this fits her (but others don't). Matthias Hues also did a good job, as always. He's a great fighter and macho-like character, and was a good rival for Wincott in this movie. | 1 |
With the release of Peter Jackson's famed "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, it is even easier to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film as inferior. I agree with the majority that Jackson's trilogy is the essential film adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Bakshi's ambitious pioneering effort. Jackson has admitted that he received at least some inspiration from seeing Bakshi's film and there are some clear similarities between their adaptations.<br /><br />The film's colorful picturesque backdrops are excellent and the score is memorable. I was for the most part satisfied by the drawings of the characters. The pairs of Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Galadriel are mostly indistinguishable from each other visually, the Balrog and Treebeard were unimpressive, but these points didn't bother me very much. However, the Nazgul are aptly drawn and made sufficiently eerie. The only character representation I was bothered by was Sam's; he was made to look unbecomingly silly.<br /><br />This film is novel for its animation techniques. In addition to hand-drawn characters, live actors are incorporated into the animation through rotoscoping. It is quite apparent which characters are hand-drawn and which are rotoscoped, but none the less I found that the film's style was a novelty. The use of rotoscoped live actors for the battle scenes was a good decision and helped these scenes turn out well.<br /><br />The voice acting was generally of high quality. Particularly good was John Hurt, who provided an authoritative voice for Aragorn. Aragorn isn't a favorite character of mine from the stories, but backed by John Hurt's voice he was my favorite character in this adaptation. My other favorite was William Squire, whose voice is appropriately strong for Gandalf. The only actor who seemed inappropriate was Michael Scholes as Sam, whose voice acting was irritating and added to Sam's unfortunately silly image. The only other bothersome part of the voice acting is the mispronunciation of character and place names. Particularly strange was the decision to frequently have Saruman referred to as "Aruman".<br /><br />In producing this film, Ralph Bakshi expected to have the ability to produce two films. Hence, this film contains about half the story, from the start of "The Fellowship of the Ring" to the end of the battle at Helm's Deep in "The Two Towers". The obvious implication of this is that the film's story is a highly condensed version of the story from the books. I enjoy the original stories and more thorough adaptations, but the liberties taken to compress the story didn't bother me, even the choice to leave Arwen out of the story. Enough of the key elements of the story were in this film to keep me engaged for the duration and there was even a novelty in being able to breeze through half the Lord of the Rings story in 132 minutes. The battle scenes were impressive and in particular the orc march to and battle at Helm's Deep were tremendous.<br /><br />Ralph Bakshi's version of "The Lord of the Rings" isn't perfect and no doubt a number of Lord of the Rings readers lament the cuts to the story. However, for me the drawbacks of this film were minor compared to the thrill of seeing an effective adaptation of half of a great trilogy. My only strong lament is that I am unable to see the second part of this "first great tale" of The Lord of the Rings since Bakshi was not given the budget to create a sequel. | 1 |
Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.<br /><br />JLH | 1 |
If you think piano teacher Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) in Michael Haneke's film "LA PIANISTE" is the ultimate degree in the personification of derangement, perversion and darkness, I've got news for you: the piano teacher in Elfriede Jellinek's novel "LA PIANISTE" (on which the film was based) is twice as "repulsive", "disgusting", "deranged" and even more fascinating -- though there can't be words enough to translate the level of artistic proficiency that Isabelle Huppert has reached here, above all other mortal actresses in activity today. And who else could have played this character with such emotional power, complete with the best piano playing/dubbing an actor could deliver?<br /><br />In the novel as in the film, there are two big antagonists to the "heroine" Kohut: her own mother (wonderful, wreck-voiced Annie Girardot, in a part originally intended for Jeanne Moreau) and Austria itself. The mother personifies Jellinek's perception of her native Austria as a country that deceptively and perversely encourages racist/fascist (or at least authoritarian) behavior, sexual and emotional repression, and, let's say, übermensch ideals which are impossible to keep today without the danger of a mental breakdown.<br /><br />"La Pianiste" also deals with a very powerful and delicate issue: how dangerous it is to reveal your innermost fantasies to the one (you think) you love. We tend to think our own sexual fantasies must be as exciting to others as they are to ourselves, which may turn out to be a huge, embarrassing and sometimes tragic mistake. Here, Kohut learns (?) the lesson in the most painful and humiliating of ways.<br /><br />It must be mentioned that Elfriede Jellinek is one of the best-known and praised authors in Austria and Europe (well, now she's got a Nobel Prize!) and that autobiographical passages can be inferred in her novel, as she herself was a pianist and had a reportedly difficult relationship with her mother. The novel also includes long passages about Kohut's childhood and adolescence so you kind of understand how she turned into who she is now. Haneke chose to hide this information in the film, forcing us to wonder how she got to be that way (don't we all know a Erika Kohut out there?). But he very much preserves the fabric of the book in his film: unbearable honesty, to the point where most secretive, "horrendous" feelings painfully emerge -- envy, cruelty, violence, jealousy, hate, misery, sadism, masochism, selfishness, perversion etc. All of them unmistakably human.<br /><br />I thought "La Pianiste" was a deeply moving film, very disturbing and thought-provoking, with a handful of unforgettable scenes, and that's just all I ask of movies. It also made me buy and be thrilled by the book, discover a fantastic author I hadn't read before, and listen again and again to Schubert - so, my thanks to Haneke, Jellinek and Isabelle!!! On the other hand, if you're looking for light entertainment, please stay away. My vote: 9 out of 10 | 1 |
I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat! | 0 |
------ Spoilers----- Spoilers----- Spoilers--------just a few small ones <br /><br />Saw this on Satilite channel, missed the first 30 min of movie, will keep this comment short and informative.<br /><br />The movie is basically about 5 characters,The acting is very bad for afew characters. 1 girl with the help of another girl kidnaps 3 different people but it backfires and the 3 kidnap the 2. This is one of those types of movies where the script writers try to be thought provoking or philosophical, mysterious and ... you get the point; but do to their own, personal, lack in thinking they fall terribly short. Like one of the captives who is supposed to be some type of psychology nerd - looks the part but his tongue can't speak it. THe writers think that if the nerd uses a lot of 8 letter words amateurishly - unknowingly i believe - that the viewers will be ignorant enough to believe it. I wish i could give an example but i cant recall any - exactly as it was said. The ending was bad as well. But the one female captive acted her role as an old and relatively wise lady, although she, as well as the rest, had a lot of cliché s.<br /><br />So Why would i give this movie a 7 stars if I thought all the above? Simple, I give the entire seven stars to LISA KELLER - one sexy a$$ momma. SHE is FINE lol. I am an appreciator of beauty, and she is exactly that. But don't get me confused because I'm not a pervert and this movie is NOT a porno in any way. their is somethin about her I cant explain, but i like it. I remember the scene where a captive has broke free and as he looks for a way out, bumps into Keller. She tries to get way but she doesn't have a chance. He throws her down, kneeling on the stairs and he pulls her pants down, no panties ;). Now, although she has an AMAZING ass - and the this shot leaves little to the imagination for a long 30 seconds i think - it was her facial expression that got me. she wanted it, and that look had me thinking i was behind that. I would have torn that booty up! After that expression, i jus couldn't look at her objectively anymore, I WAS IN LOVE. lol. I am glad to have seen this movie but if Lisa Keller wasn't playing the lead role, I would have changed the channel.. well... after i had seen the scene i mentioned above. I am a LISA KELLER fan know, but is seems that she isn't a consistent actor, seeing this 2003 movie is her latest. But i am lookin forward to another movie with her in it. | 1 |
...this film noire set piece suffers from murky sound (at least, as shown on the inadequate equipment of both the Seattle and Maine film festivals) and murkier plotting, while Rickman suffers from an American accent, old tennis shoes and baggy sweats. Nonetheless, he has moments of stellar scenery chewing, and the film offers sinister ambiguity from Norman Reedus, the pretty Polly Walker, and a surprise ending (telescoped to frequent filmgoers), while affording a beautiful look at the physiography of both Maine and Rickman. Due out in video release (after a cable airing) in March. Not to be missed by any Rickman fan. Ignore the amanita hooey. | 1 |
You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this "freedom fighter" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.<br /><br />2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.<br /><br />3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.<br /><br />4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.<br /><br />Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.<br /><br />If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.<br /><br />And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT. | 0 |
Those of the "Instant Gratification" era of horror films will no doubt complain about this film's pace and lack of gratuitous effects and body count. The fact is, "The Empty Acre" is a good a example of how independent horror films should be done.<br /><br />If you avoid the indie racks because you are tired of annoying teens or twenty somethings getting killed by some baddie whose back-story could have come off the back of a Count Chocula box, "The Empty Acre" is the movie for you.<br /><br />Set in the decaying remnants of the rural American dream, "The Empty Acre" is the tale of a young couple struggling with the disappearance of their six-month-old baby. As the couple's weak relationship falls apart, a larger story plays out in the background. At night, a shapeless dark mass seethes from a sun baked barren acre on their farm and seemingly devours anything in its path, leaving no sign that it was ever there.<br /><br />The film is loaded with enigmatic characters and visual clues as to what is happening, and ends with a well executed ending that resonates with just enough left over questions to validate the writer/director's faith in an intellectual audience.<br /><br />There seems to be a sub-text concerning the death of the American dream, but I would hardly call the film an allegory. Riveting, well acted, and technically astute, "The Empty Acre" is a fantastic little indie that thinking horror fans should love. | 1 |
Surprisingly good. The acting was fun, the screenplay was fun, the music was cheesie fun, the plot was stupendously fun. This was a fun movie to watch and to give your brain some rest. Parts of the plot and quotes I found to be very creative. 7 out of 10. Actually for what it was, it would deserve a 10 out of 10. You are not supposed to compare this to an arthouse film or to a bloody slasher film. | 1 |
"Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine companion to the original, "Madonna: Truth or Dare". Julie Brown's brilliant creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail, right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody. | 1 |
We've seen a story like this before: a wife in marital troubles (played by Nastassja Kinski) engages in sex with a stranger (William Baldwin) and then wants to go back to her life with husband and girl. When she returns home she finds out that her husband has finally found a job. Everything seems bright. However, Kinski finds out that her husband's new boss is actually the stranger who still shows interest over her and seems to do anything to get what he wants. What to do? Say nothing?<br /><br />I didn't really like the movie. While it wasn't just bad, it clearly lacked "that something". Maybe it should've focused more on what's going inside Kinski's head. Nothing to say about the actors themselves (I guess Baldwin was a good choice for the role of the obsessed boss) but the characters seemed somewhat stereotypical, acting the way you would see characters acting in your everyday TV films. Finally, the ending totally ruined what could have been an interesting plot.<br /><br />In my opinion the movie tried to look cool, it had a bit of shaky camerawork here and there, some stills, fast cuts and glamour, but in the end I think it fits Spelling productions much better. Same goes for the music. Otherwise it didn't look that bad.<br /><br />Some might like this but it definitely wasn't my cup of tea. To be fair, I don't usually watch much this type of thrillers. This one felt too long even if it was just an hour and a half long, I think it could've worked better as an hour long episode in some TV series. There was absolutely no need for some of the scenes, especially the shower scene.<br /><br />My advice: Try before you buy! | 0 |
This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality. | 0 |
Hey what a great idea to open a film - show someone`s home movie . Drama schools must be full of idiots ! , there they are taking drama lessons hoping to become the next big thing in Hollywood when all you have to do is send a home movie to a studio . Hey I think I`ll send in the video of my wedding and call it THE GREATEST ROMANCE EVER SEEN or send in a tape of my honeymoon and call it THE GREATEST SEX EVER SEEN . Oh hold on I`m not married and I`ve never been on honeymoon ! Not to worry I`ll send in a video of someone elses wedding/honeymoon <br /><br />!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!<br /><br />You`d think with an opening like that SHARK HUNTER could only improve wouldn`t you ? As shocking as it may seem the home movie is the best directed , best written and best acted part of the film , alas it`s all downhill from here as the family go to sea ( In reality a fog shrouded swimming pool ) in a three foot yacht where mom and dad get eaten by a CGI fin and their son Spencer swears revenge against the fin . Cut forward to the present day and the French are using an underwater research base for oil exploration . Only thing is - And it`s so obvious you can`t fail to notice this - it`s not filmed underwater !!! , the director hasn`t made any attempt whatsoever to even use the unconvincing technique of shooting the scene through a fish tank . The underwater research base is blown up by the shark ( Maybe it`s hired by Greenpeace ? ) killing everyone inside and Spencer now a grown man is hired to hunt down the shark that killed his parents and a bunch of Frenchmen . What else happens ? No idea because I decided to watch something else <br /><br />No hard feelings if any of the cast and crew are reading this and I do hope Matt Codd becomes a big fish in Hollywood . You think you know about sharks Matt ? You ain`t seen nothing yet | 0 |
Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes team up as hustlers on the basketball court. Okay, that sounds all right there. It leaves lots of room for good comedy and a good story. But no such event took place in the many following boring minutes of this pathetic attempt of a film. This movie became redundant, retarded, and ridiculous after the first twenty seconds had gone by. Woody Harrelson played one of my favorite t.v. characters, Woody from Cheers, and I was looking forward to seeing him in this movie. But after seeing his " acting performance " I have come to the conclusion that he should stay playing dumb country hicks who bartend. His acting was as dull and poor as the movie. Another actor in this unreal film was Rosie Perez. I have liked movies with Perez before, but I have decided that the reason I have enjoyed other works in her career was that she was not a main character and didn't have that many speaking lines ( Do the Right Thing ). But now in White Men Can't Jump she was made a central character with many lines, thus meaning that the audience has to put up with her incredibly annoying and whining voice. So after seeing this film ( term used loosely ) and hearing Rosie Perez for much more than appreciated I can now say that I'm a white man and I'm getting ready to jump . . . off a twenty story apartment building. | 0 |
i loved this movie it was one of the years best pornos i remember watching it on starz or some god damn thing but it was great. i only saw like half of it and i taped it and all i can say is i loved every minute of what i saw. i didnt sleep for weeks after i saw this movie (although i was very tired.) | 1 |
Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) | 0 |
The actors did a really good job playing their roles--particularly the mom. However, as the movie progressed I found I was watching it more for their acting and not because I cared in the least for the people. And, at times, I felt irritated by the irresponsible and hands-off approach to parenting displayed again and again. The daughter is a 17 year-old shallow skank whose main ambition in life is bedding famous men and becoming a dancing nyphette (complete with lots of "booty shaking"). The son is a guy with low self-esteem that seems very desperate for a relationship and friends--so much that he throws a drug party late in the film. The husband and wife are both bored, but rather than put energy into their stale relationship would rather seek out new partners (though the wife picks poorly, as the man she "throws herself at" happens to be gay---OOPS!). I just felt that ALL the characters needed to grow up and had a hard time caring for such shallow jerks. I think the author's attempt was to demonstrate the utter banality and hollowness of the capitalist system. However, given that these characters are NOT typical of the average western family, it seems disingenuous. | 0 |
Deeply emotional. It can't leave you neutral.<br /><br />Yes it's a love story between 2 18 years old boys. But it's only the body of this movie. And it's been removed. You only feel what happened with these boys. You feel the soul of the movie. With of course some action, some sex, but this is no pornography, too many feelings.<br /><br />It was only a summer "story", and it became, from love to hate, almost to death, the most important time of their lives. I loved it, you will too, whatever your feelings are. | 1 |
Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a well known good writer & director, mostly westerns.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum was a star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years.<br /><br />He filled this role easily like a well used glove.<br /><br />The title character is played by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age 32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones).<br /><br />Robert was of slight build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's near last film.<br /><br />ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good).<br /><br />He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm. He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well.<br /><br />Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team.<br /><br />In westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely. also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly.<br /><br />It was film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is gorgeous.<br /><br />Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out.<br /><br />It is a fast enjoyable 89 minutes.<br /><br />Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10) | 1 |
I found this DVD in the library and based on the jacket notes, it looked like it might possibly be interesting: a black comedy set in 1940 France, just as the Germans are marching in. ("Boy, that should have them rolling in the aisles
") But it does! This is a clever, original, suspenseful and funny film. I don't recall seeing anything like it before foreign or U.S. That the writer/director can find humor when we know part of the outcome (the Germans will occupy France for four years) is remarkable. That he does it with such charm is part of the delight. What starts off as black comedy and fluff even ends up having a couple of serious moments including a race to spirit out a cache of "heavy water" (which was part of the preliminary research for the A-bomb) and a quick History 101 intro to the beginnings of the collaborationist Vichy Government that would govern Southern France for much of the German occupation.* But don't let any of that that scare you off: the movie itself is funny, charming and romantic and races ahead at steady clip.<br /><br />One of the best things about it is the combination of actors we've seen many times (Adjani and Depardieu) and others we've never heard of before. Along the way, there are two star-making turns: Virginie Leydoyen and Grégori Derangère. Both are impressive, but Mr. Derangère is especially so. According to IMDb, he was in ten films before this one but he also won the Cesar as "Most Promising Actor" for this role, so apparently he was not all that well known even in France. He is a combination of romantic lead and comic actor and he makes it all seem so effortless. You may be reminded of Cary Grant in "Bringing Up Baby" and "Arsenic and Old Lace" it's hard to do comedy on film because the risks are enormous that the actor can come off looking inept. But Grant pulled it off charmingly, and this guy does also. I should think we're going to hear more about him in the future.<br /><br />To be sure, this film won't please everyone there's a little bit of violence, although nothing you don't see on TV every day. But if you're up for something original, you may feel after you've seen this that you've unearthed a cinematic gem.<br /><br />* The so-called "spoiler" in this comment. | 1 |
A movie like this doesn't come along too often. I'm surprised it took 9 years to finally see it. Politicians and civilian hawks should view this before making decisions on how the destroy peoples lives, I watched this the day after viewing the TV version of "Uprising" about the Warsaw ghetto. Even with this fresh in mind I felt sympathy for the German Soldier. I felt sympathy for all parties that this tragedy could happen. It will take awhile to thaw out from this one. I'm surprised they have not made a movie based on "The Forgotten Soldier" by Buy Sajer. This movie shares the cold with the book. Both will haunt me for the rest of my life. | 1 |
This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy. | 0 |
I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.<br /><br />First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.<br /><br />The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.<br /><br />The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.<br /><br />Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.<br /><br />The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.<br /><br />Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.<br /><br />Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong. | 0 |
He's not your conventional cab driver.<br /><br />This guys got issues. With his wife, with his son, a priest, all his fares, his ex-partner and most of all himself. And the greatest thing is they just throw us all into it. So we have to keep watching to find out more about his past.<br /><br />The idea may not be original but David Morse makes it so. I think this is a great show, and I hope people catch-on before the season's over. <br /><br />WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO." But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through. | 0 |
Like the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull. | 0 |
Carmen is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's hard to say whose performance is best: Antonio Gades, Cristina Hoyos and Laura del Sol are superb.They dance their souls out. It's a beautiful tale of inseparability of life and myth; myth penetrates everyday life. Dance becomes life and entire life is danced out. Real people at one and the same time live their own lives and become somebody else, act out the parts of lovers of old. The magic is continuing. | 1 |
Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.<br /><br />Potential minor spoilers ahead.<br /><br />I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.<br /><br />The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.<br /><br />What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.<br /><br />The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.<br /><br />Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park". | 0 |
I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion. | 0 |
As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clichéd movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.<br /><br />This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.<br /><br />If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are "Interstate 60" and "Art of Travel" which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.<br /><br />This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.<br /><br />Dean | 1 |
I went out of my way to get this film, and was fortunate to get it on VHS. Being a big Gloria Grahame fan, it was an excellent addition to my collection. Other than that, I really cannot say a lot to recommend this picture. The plot is predictable (and weak) and the only interesting aspect of the film is watching Sterling Hayden get into deeper trouble with his own department. Ms. Grahame is always fun to watch (if you like her, as I do), but the dubbing of her singing hurts this picture a lot. She works in a dive, so let her use her own voice. It can only lend to the atmosphere. I must agree with an earlier reviewer; the ending borrows heavily from THE BIG HEAT. To the point of detracting from the ending. I have seen worse films with Ms. Grahame (MACAO), but I will never pass the opportunity to see her on screen. If you are having a movie night and looking for a second feature film, this is your movie. Enjoy the picture. | 0 |
Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.<br /><br />This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.<br /><br />The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.<br /><br />If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did. | 0 |
I watched Cold Mountain and the English Patient again this weekend. The former is a Civil War melodrama about Inman (Jude Law), a Confederate soldier who deserts the army to return to Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) a girl he barely knows. Both films were lovingly directed by Anthony Minghella who does an exceptional job. Although, Cold Mountain is very good it could have been a great movie with the right casting and less folksy, backwoods dialog.<br /><br />Romantic epics need a convincing heroine. The English Patient, had Kristin Scott Thomas who was perfectly cast as the smart, alluring and beautiful Katherine Clifton. The main problem with Cold Mountain is Ada who seems silly and dim-witted and lacks that quality would make you believe that Inman could become obsessed after one kiss. As an actress Kidman has a limited range, she usually plays stern-faced women who face adversity with stoicism. Kidman was also too old to play the ingénue and Law's love interest. The film needed a young actress who could play charming, warm and vulnerable. For someone who was supposedly enduring hardship and near starvation she seemed ridiculously well-fed and over-dressed. Kidman was so impeccably groomed that it looked like she had spent three hours getting made-up for each scene. Michele Pfieffer in her younger days could have played the part perfectly. Even Natalie Portman would have been an improvement.<br /><br />Renee Zelleweger was more appropriately attired but her animated performance chewed the scenery but maybe she was trying to compensate for Kidman. Jude Law was in his own silent movie in the Odysseus role, but played his part well. Ray Winstone was excellent as the London/Southern villain.<br /><br />During the Civil War, people were probably not very well educated by today's standards and maybe they did speak in monosyllables. However if you watch BBC adaptations of Dickens, Austen or Mrs. Gaskill everyone is articulate. Maybe this is unrealistic but it would improved my entertainment. | 1 |
Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which "The Lonely Lady" was promoted "back in the day," could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss. | 0 |
Ouch!! What a mess we have here. Not so much of a mess as a painfully dull, half-assed excuse for exploitation. Brought to you by the one and only, J. G. "Pat" Patterson, yeah, the same one from Moonshine Mountain. Doctor Gore, formerly known as The Body Shop, is, I guess, somewhat inspired by Frankenstein, and God knows what else. The Late Mr. Patterson also stars in this joke, as a heartbroken scientist/plastic surgeon, who has recently lost his wife in a car accident, and is driven insane from grief, to the point that it becomes clear that the next step is to slaughter countless females, then maybe rob a few graves for body parts, in order to "put together" the perfect mate. It won't be easy, but thank goodness his pal Gregg the hunchback is available to lend a hand, and to offer moral support.<br /><br />If proof was ever needed that some peoples goals are not meant to be accomplished, here it is, gang. This Patterson hayseed obviously never had any business directing anything, much less, following in the footsteps of good ol' H. G. as a master of gore. I've never seen a gore movie that just flat-out refuses to give the viewer a single reason to keep watching. Even the gore is boring. Almost remotely humorous at times, but impossible to tell whether it's intentional or not. I pick "not".<br /><br />Shot in Charolotte, North Carolina (home of the California Axe Massacre), on, most likely, a 3-digit budget, by a guy, as untalented as he may have been, who probably had an appreciation for drive-in trash, so, maybe we should give good ol' J. G. a break, I mean, he tried (I assume) which is more that can be said for most, and this movie is better than any of the big-budget super-hero garbage the theaters put out these days, although, I realize that isn't saying much. Besides, Doctor Gore is quite the improvement over Patterson's previous failure, The Electic Chair, so it's slightly possible he would have improved his craft in time, had he not died, so maybe it's not all that terrible, especially compared to the other movie on the DVD, How To Make A Doll, so what the hell, check it out. 4/10 | 0 |
I loved this movie! Yes, it is rather cheap and I'm sure plenty of reviews will be snooty about that. But my goodness what a lot they pack in for the cash involved. I was reminded of the early work of Sam Raimi. Yes it is rough, but has good energy and plenty of fun. The acting ranges from the very good in Scott Ironside and Shawn Paul Hasser, to the not so good in some of the lesser parts. Is it a cult movie? Well it grew on me. First time I liked it but by the 3rd viewing I was loving it. The movie is probably a 7 out of 10 but I'm giving it 8 for sheer cheek. Anyone who can pull this off for 8 grand is worth watching. Almost makes me want to visit Scotland! | 1 |
A lot of good things could have been done with this movie using essentially the same sets, plot devices and storyline. For example, why not plant a seed of Erica's capability before the murder of her lover? Why not develop Erica and the cop's relationship slowly and convincingly? Maybe contrast Eric's metamorphis by including some other post-event facet, relationship, etc., in her life that she now rejects? Why not have her injure an innocent bystander to underscore the wrongness in Erica's actions.<br /><br />Instead TBO exploits the revenge fantasy to its maximum level, giving insincere lip service to the "don't do this at home" messages thrown in only to allow the film to qualify as legitimate.<br /><br />I'm not a Jodie Foster fan. After displaying some range in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, NELL and one where she plays the ordinary mother of a child prodigy, Foster has slipped into a succession of roles where she plays the same hard-bitten, badgered heroine single-handedly overcoming evil. Such is fine once or twice, but I'm getting too used to her "fight versus flight" close-up. TBO could have used a younger actress or one that more convincingly embraced being a woman in her forties (instead of 40-something Foster playing a younger woman).<br /><br />TBO is a movie with substantial actors, financing and resources that manages to descend to junk. | 0 |
OK, imagine that every state in the US, nay, every country has exactly the same trees growing and ground foliage. Imagine, also, that a monkey-trapper's camp so far off the beaten track you had to do the first half of the approach by river has a beautifully tarmac'd, perfectly straight road leading up to it. Imagine a world where you have to wear a full biohazard suit to collect a floppy disk, then you just drop it in a ziploc bag and transfer it to your pocket with no precautions as soon as you get back to the office. A world where two nine-year old girls are happy to give lots of blood without complaining. This is the world this movie is set in.<br /><br />On top of that, it's one of the most cliché-ridden pieces of excrement it's been my misfortune to witness in many a year.<br /><br />I liked it. :) | 0 |
A study of one of those universally familiar, physical and/or emotional states: isolation. I think the film also comments on cultural displacement too.<br /><br />The film presents the experiences of two Turkish men (cousins). One has money (and the comforts that come of having 'made-it' with a steady income); the other has none and goes in search of work. Neither are happy. Expect no celebration of life here - this is loneliness, warts and all.<br /><br />The film succeeds in offering a powerfully bleak traverse across the 'low lands' of the human condition. Brave film-making. Well-acted and well-shot in my view (outdoor shots by the harbour being my own favourites). A film that should inspire gratitude in anyone who is not a stranger to happiness and fulfilment in life (not to mention employment); everyone else will find a companion in this film. A film with all the warmth and pace of an ice-floe. Expect a bitter pill, not a 'happy pill.' | 1 |
The main premise for this movie is every woman's fantasy: a vagina that kills and eats men. Well at least it is a fantasy for every woman who has ever had a fight against a man. What's that, 99.9999% of women? But don't worry it's not a gory kind of eating of men. It's more like a comical slurping them in, like a drain plug. There's no blood or parts left behind. So for blood, guts & gore fans, forget about this film, not much gore here.<br /><br />The two main characters of the film are somewhat unrealistic. Helen is a good girl who becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Dennis is a nice guy who stalks Helen.<br /><br />The story is already a little silly at this point, but then they throw in two more equally silly sub-stories that just send this movie into the bad B-movie territory. The first new sub-story is about Dennis finding new love with a pair of conjoined twins; and then eventually murdering one of them, and becoming a fugitive bank-robber. The second new sub-story is about Helen finding new love with a nice policeman who rescued her from a prostitution-related bad date, and decided he wanted to marry her. Dennis and Helen eventually meet up again at the end of movie in totally unbelievable circumstances, and magically Helen's murderous vagina is cured! | 0 |
I rented this movie, but I wasn't too sure what to expect of it. I was very glad to find that it's about the best Brazilian movie I've ever seen. The story is rather odd and simple, and above all, extremely original. We have Antonio, who is a young man living in Nordestina, a town in the middle of nowhere in the north east of Brazil, and who is deeply in love with Karina. The main conflict between the two is that, while Antonio loves his little town and has no wish to leave it, Karina wants to see the world and resents the place. As a prove of his love for her, he decides to go out himself and bring the world to her. He'll put Nordestina in the map, as he says. And the way he does it is unbelievable. This is a good movie; might be a bit stagy for some people due to its different editing job, but I think that it's also that that improves the story. It's just fun, and it makes you feel good. | 1 |
Don't even waste your time, let alone pay rental for this piece of dreck! How it got made is beyond me. (I don't know why there's a minimum of 10 lines... I've already summarized this trashy movie, but, oh well...) The acting was awful, like they all needed lessons. The plot was weak, the ending... Feh! I think the cinematography was the only thing that didn't totally suck... well, maybe the sound was minimalistically OK. The one good thing is, if they could make this movie, even make some money with it, there may be hope for any screenwriter with a REAL idea. So, you-all take heart! I guess the same holds true of actors... if these people actually got paid, then you can, too! | 0 |
"Ally McBeal" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.<br /><br />I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome. | 0 |
Week after week these women just sweep all the men of their feet. Get real. None of these women are "Knockouts". Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) looks like the type of woman men would pick up at !:45am before the bar closed after their vision and standards were equally impaired by ten or eleven martinis. Yet she's the queen bee, a super-sexy man-killer. The other three don't fare much better. And their constant foul mouthed comments.....not to mention that they jump in and out of bed with strange men and never catch a disease. This show is pathetic .and creepy.I don't think any man would be terribly attracted to any of these women, even if he popped Viagra like Tic Tacs while on shore leave. | 0 |
I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood "classics" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.<br /><br />I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.<br /><br />Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.<br /><br />Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep! | 0 |
Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.<br /><br />Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the "skills" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.<br /><br />Writer/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on "The Tracy Ullman Show" and "The Simpsons", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: "I like comedies, gangster movies and romances," explained Wolodarsky, "so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film." But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, "Coldblooded" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.<br /><br />Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This is an excellent B-film horror movie that borders between horror and comedy. It is about a genetically mutilated scorpion in outer space. Can it get more unreal? It is a hybrid between "Alien" and "Chain Saw Massacre." The movie was shot in Stockholm with a mixed cast of Americans and Swedes that interact beautifully. Director Martin Munthe does a great job finding the comical highlights in this script and gets a few good laughs out of the audience. The movie was shot with little or no money and it is inspiring to see what can be done with limited resources. Stinger has all qualities of a B-film horror movie. It is comical and scary at the same time and the cast and crew are dedicated to their cause. It is great to see that movies like this can still be made! I would recommend seeing it if you like this type of films. | 1 |
I created my own reality by walking out of the theater I was roped in by my girlfriend into going to this dreck with her mom. We (my g-friend and I) walked out about an hour into it. What a load of pseudo scientific new age jargon.<br /><br />Sub atomic particles are thoughts? By taping labels to bottles of water and blessing it by a Buddhist monk it grew little pretty crystals? A drop of 25% in the murder rate in DC happened when a bunch of folks meditated. Wow, what a rigorous scientific study. I'm sure that someone ate cheerios for four days straight during the same time. Should we conclude that eating cheerios caused a drop in the murder rate? <br /><br />Hogwash, hooey, bull pucky! <br /><br />BTW- It was funded by the Ramtha cult, the leader of which was one of the "experts" which were interview by the filmmakers. No ulterior motives here, right? | 0 |
This is a great installment in the Child's Play series. It brought back some bang to the series. Great comedy, boy this movie is funny. Also there are awesome homages to other horror celebs. Beautiful cinematography. Great ending! Bring on Seed Of Chucky! | 1 |
one of the most awaited movie!i thought himesh will do a bit of acting but Alas all my hope went wrong..given that the heroine is 15 yrs old!!!!omg!!what did they thought before considering the actress..may be its because no boby wants to work with HR(as he is called in the film,(human resource as many people wrote in mazagines!)nevertheless it was a disappointment.i hope the producer doesn't make himself bankrupt by making a part 2 of this as this news is roaming around...the story was predictable one with himesh showing his generosity character throughout the movie which i doubt very well.<br /><br />anyways..the movie is good from those people's angle who thinks himesh cant do anything wrong. >>4 out of 10<< | 0 |
This movie just pulls you so deeply into the two main characters. I popped it into my laptop without even reading the cover (let alone reviews) and was intrigued for two solid hours. Two lost ships from two different worlds collide. The sexual tension that brews between a secretary and a criminal is almost palpable even without hardly any physical contact. Toward the end I couldn't decide which I wanted more: Our hero and heroine to pull off their caper or simply consummate their passion. RML could've done without a curious subplot and a traditional 100 minutes would have been plenty. I'm nitpicking though. After a series of Netflix, Blockbuster and local library duds this movie restored my faith in great film making. | 1 |
Take a look at those faces alongside the entrance to the jail. They're not the faces of Hollywood extras. Somebody in production was really smart to take filming to Oxford, Mississippi, because you can't get that kind of authenticity from a studio backlot. Scope out the narrow dusty roads, the frozen earth beneath, and the skeletal trees just barely hanging on. No wonder those faces look hard and unforgiving; they're just reflecting the soil from which they spring. Old man Lucas (Hernandez) better fear for his life, but then he springs from that same hard earth.<br /><br />The movie works because it tells a good story that neither preaches nor sentimentalizes and even has some suspense. Old man Lucas is not very likable. He's a victim and we sympathize, but he's also haughty and unfriendly. Wisely, the script refuses to sweeten him up. That way we're forced to recognize the effects of racism and injustice on even the less sympathetic. The script also wisely avoids dealing directly with racism since that tends to become preachy and less effective. Instead, we're shown how easily prejudice can convict an innocent man and condemn him to a horrible death. So, it's through our common instinct to see justice done that the effects of racism are exposed, a much more effective pathway. It also makes the actions of the sheriff and the lawyer more understandable since they are otherwise part of the Jim Crow system.<br /><br />Note how the movie doesn't attack segregation. It's doubtful that old man Lucas would want to mix with whites anyway and there's no hint that even lawyer Stevens (Brian) wants to cross the color line except to see justice done. No, the possibility of reconciliation lies in the future as symbolized by the kid (Jarman) whose head is not yet filled with "notions". He's not exactly friends with Lucas, but he has glimpsed the common humanity of being befriended after falling into the frozen creek. The last line of dialogue also shows him siding with his uncle, the lawyer, instead of his more hidebound parents (the dinner table scene is important and easily overlooked). The lawyer might not join a future civil rights march, but the kid might. That's the movie's realistically hopeful side.<br /><br />There was a bunch of racially themed movies during this brief 3 year period, 1949-51, (The Well, No Way Out, Home of the Brave, Lost Boundaries). Even famously detached MGM got into the mix with this little gem. Unfortunately, the McCarthy purges in Hollywood put an end to "problem" films that might not serve Cold War ends. Even so, each of these is worth catching up with, not only because they're good movies, but because even with the passage of 60 years and Jim Crow, they're still relevant. | 1 |
The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the "key to the universe" that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about. Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long, but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well as look forward eagerly to his future ones.<br /><br />My Grade: A | 1 |
Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.<br /><br />I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...<br /><br />Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."<br /><br />The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"<br /><br />Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."<br /><br />The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"<br /><br />Please. | 0 |
Well, on the endless quest for horror, we will come across this film, apparently re-released on DVD recently for some ungodly reason. The transfer is awful and the quality just sucks. I don't think this is due to a bad remaster or anything, I just think the film is poorly done.<br /><br />Obviously filmed at an abandoned school with a budget that was no doubt wasted on cheap beer and no talent hacks, "Slaughter High" starts out slow and doesn't pick up pace until about an hour in. First, we get to see a 'nerd' as he is picked on by a group of...I actually don't even know what they were supposed to be...jocks? The ringleader, with his ultra hooknose is so ugly he should have definitely been cast as the nerd. Then, there is a 'big guy' and a couple of dumb losers and chicks who are supposed to be 'hot' but aren't. It's a mystery why this group of rejects is picking on one of their own, but I guess the viewer is to assume these are 'cool kids' picking on a dweeb. The casting choices are horrendous as most of the high schoolers are played by thirty-somethings. As other reviewers on here have pointed out, the actors (if you can call them that,) are a bunch of Brits whose accents slip out numerous times throughout this piece of crap. We are left to assume that this group of 'children' were the only students at this school, as their 'reunion' is only them at the school, which is now shown to be abandoned, is just them.<br /><br />The kills are lame, the gore is not great and the script is like Scooby Doo with real people; lines like: 'This place gives me the creeps...' and 'Someone gimme a beer' are highlights...It's just not good. Skip this one unless you are getting wasted with some friends and wanna laugh at a real lame attempt at a slasher. If you wanna see good, get Bava's "Bay Of Blood," done 14 years earlier and a heck of a lot better. If you wanna see a good BAD slasher, see "Just Before Dawn" or "The Burning." 2 out of 10, kids. | 0 |
Macbeth is one of the most frequently told stories in cinema and has been translated many times in numerous theater and celluloid settings. Originally written by William Shakespeare in the early 1600's, Macbeth tells the story of betrayal among royalty and one man's quest for power. Director Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper) tries his hand at updating Macbeth by setting it in the contemporary Melbourne underworld. A film where the characters substitute swords for guns (ala Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet) and royal vassals for gangsters, Macbeth is a gritty, violent, but critically flawed film.<br /><br />Macbeth (Sam Worthington)works for King Duncan (Gary Sweet). After being elevated to the Thane of Glamis by The King (as was prophesied to Macbeth by three witches), Macbeth starts setting his eyes on the throne. One night the King comes to stay at Macbeth's house and Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hill) talks him into killing The King to assume power. Macbeth kills his master and then assumes his crown. But success has it's downside, as Macbeth soon finds out, when he has to go to hideous lengths to protect his murderous secret. <br /><br />OK, first things first. The film's major fault is Sam Worthington. His portrayal of Macbeth is in a word... boring. I honestly didn't care about Macbeth while watching the film. I had more sympathy for Victoria Hill's Lady Macbeth because she bothered to act at least. Worthington sits sullen and wood faced throughout the entire film. I felt like he was doing his best impression of Johnny Deep's George Jung character from Blow... but without the charisma. I have never seen Worthington in a film before so I'm not sure if it was his or the Director's fault, but either way the glue that should have tied everything together into one cohesive unit is weak.<br /><br />The dialog is good, but when matched up to the Geoffrey Wright's Australian Gangster Motif seems a bit out of place. Frentically paced action sequences mixed with long Shaksperian musings creates pacing conflict within the film. I understand that this is Macbeth and that the director wanted to use the original dialog intact. But hard, fast action scenes following a three minute soliloquy tends to get annoying if not a bit pretentious. <br /><br />The camera-work is highly stylized, and for the most part, it works well. One thing that I found annoying was how the camera would slowly jostle back and forth, almost constantly. I don't mind shots like that it's just overdone. It's passes beyond the realm of being cool and stylish and instead becomes irritating. Other than that, the art direction and cinematography is fairly well-done. <br /><br />For all of the good qualities Macbeth possesses; stylish direction, Shakespearian dialog, a strong soundtrack, supernatural nude witches(the weird sisters), and good helpings of brutal, bloody violence. All of these strengths are forgotten when one considers Sam Worthington's uninspired portrayal of Macbeth. The role of Macbeth was essential for tying everything together and in this respect Geoffrey Wright and Sam Worthington failed miserably, making Macbeth a forgettable foray into Shakespeare. | 0 |
"R Xmas" peers into the lives of a middle class married-with-kid family of narco-distributors during the Christmas holiday season. There's no story here - just a disjointed collection of events. Ferrara seems to get off on the juxtaposition of the holidays and home life with narcotics peddling in NYC, jumping back and forth between each. The players appear to be improv'ing and adlibing now and then making for an unconvincing watch. Overall a poor effort not worth the time. (D) | 0 |
This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between "Kung-Fu" and "H R Pufnstuff" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, "cliffhanger scenes", and not too much romance or other "icky" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.) <br /><br />I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.<br /><br />Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.<br /><br />Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! "Dialogue" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that "dialog" is the proper spelling. While "dialog" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form. | 0 |
I've got to say that I'm not a massive fan of Troma films. Granted, I've only seen three of them (or four including this one), but two (Blood Sucking Freaks and Mothers' Day) are widely reputed to be the best, which leads me to believe that all the others aren't worth seeing. That would certainly seem to be the case with Graduation Day, which is a Troma take on the over-popular eighties slasher. While the film is never particularly bad (given the type of film), it's never particularly good either; and by the end, all I could think about was 'why did I bother watching this?'. Anyway, the plot sees some girl die on a race track, and shortly thereafter; more people start dying. Naturally, there are a few possible suspects; but it's hard to really care about anything that happens. Of course, in slasher terms; it's the gore that is most important, and given Troma's track record where the red stuff is concerned, I was expecting buckets of it. There are some decent kill scenes, and some of them are gory; but it's never very shocking, which really just makes this another dreary slasher based on a celebratory event on the American calendar. It's worth noting that there's a small role in this film for sleaze queen Linnea Quigley, but the rest of the cast aren't worth mentioning. The direction, plot and its execution are all very mundane; and I will say that unless you're a big Troma fan or someone that wants to track down every slasher ever made; don't bother with this film. | 0 |
But quite dated today. Otto Preminger made this movie without the certificate of approval that was needed then. It was enormously courageous and risky as he could have lost his investment and future.<br /><br />The film is not true to the wonderful book and is unfortunately hollywoodized.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra (and I've never been a fan) playing Frankie Machine, is astonishing in his performance. One forgets it is Frank up there, the level of realism he brings to the role of a jonesing drug addict has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />Kim Novak, eternally gorgeous and talented, does not disappoint in the role of the devoted outsider, always there for Frankie.<br /><br />Supporting roles, particularly a young, handsome and talented Darrin Mc Gavin, are faultless.<br /><br />Eleanor Parker, playing Frankie's wife, is hopelessly inept. She swings from irritating to melodramatic and is far too over the top. A forgettable performance.<br /><br />The stagey, cheap settings are appalling, as if a firm gust of wind would blow the whole tacky painted cardboards over the horizon. Almost laughable at times in their tawdry cheapness.<br /><br />The music was irritating, poundingly so at times. As if each nuance of the script (example: when Louie is getting Frankie his fix out of a drawer) had to be underscored at a high decibel level.<br /><br />7 out of 10. Sinatra truly deserved his Oscar nomination. Worth seeing. | 1 |
taking into consideration the Chan films that would follow, this isn't bad. Plenty of stereotypes beginning with the Black man in the beginning and when the police captain orders that "every Hindu in town" by rounded-up. A parade of stereotypical characters enter the scene including Shemp of the Three Stooges. Charlie seems to move quickly around the city going from Sutton Pl. to the W. Village in a flash.The ending is silly. An obvious toy airplane is used as it climbs through the sky and then nose dives. Ed Wood couldn't have done it better. The final scene is absurd as the murderer will obviously incriminate himself in his attempt to quiet the one person who knows his identity. Overall, it is worth watching. | 1 |
After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.<br /><br />Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.<br /><br />There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings. | 0 |
I'm dumbfounded. Yes that's right. I'm really caught here. No way did I find it awful, but on the other hand it was a frustrating experience in macabre hysterical and murky incoherency. The idea behind such a trim, minimal low-budget Indie production isn't bad, but it's a confused muddle and in the end didn't do anything for me. It's amateurish and simple; it wants to exploit beyond reasoning and do so in that of-late fashionably rapid filming style. We have the documentary laced (hand-held) camera moving everywhere (despite never leaving the van), and sometimes feeling unfocused and blurry making certain details hard to figure out. Lately you kind of get use to it, but there are times when it does become too distracting and even nauseating. Keeping it still will help. The context has little groundwork (which has five teenage girls on their way home from a football game late at night and becoming lost on the back roads. At a road-side store they become involved in a minor accident which smashes an unoccupied SUV headlight. Scared, they flee and not too long that one-light SUV appears behind them. Soon to make their night an unforgettable ordeal in terror) spending most of the time playing out a drawn out, noisy and relentless cat and mouse game. <br /><br />As for being disturbing
I guess that depends. Some moments can make you squirm with its attention to pain, desperation and demented brutality (with good use of piercing sound FX that seem to be more favoured over the imagery and not forgetting the alienating background sound effects), but also I found myself snickering too. In passages it can be repellent and intense with a real gradual rush, but hardly believable. The injuries of random characters never seem as serious like you were to believe, despite obviously they should be. Watch how blood runs freely, but it's not entirely convincing and can get dull. The constant nocturnal car chase could only do so much before getting repetitive. We get screaming, spewing, bleeding, running, cursing, body fluids and so on. Quite unpleasant details followed too. With little really to do, it needed a much stronger script than the measly forced one that was penned up. Too many cringe-moments arose from it, and there was not much in the way of depth for the characters and situation they were in. It was about set-pieces, waiting for next torturous encounter and it drew it out long enough. Helping out is it had an unpredictable pattern. <br /><br />The performances; Jennifer Barnett, Angela Brunda, Danielle Lilley, Sandra Paduch and Mia Yi are workman-like with their distraught characters and draw an authentic chemistry to make up for the script's weaknesses in its character-foundation . Veronica Garcia's flipped-out, bug-eyed intensity as the loony driver of the SUV was something
yeah something. Her character's real motivation for terrorising the girls and her unstable state of mind is virtually non-existent. I guess being psychotic was good enough. Now probably the most unnerving thing I came across in the feature was that hideous soundtrack. Terrible techno music, to cheesy hard-rock and an overwrought closing score. It never felt overdone or got in the way, but it did stick out like a sore thumb. Co-directors Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen try to get the most out of their slight resources, but even with it edgy spirit it ends up being something quite ramshackle. Maybe it was enjoyable to make, but watching it just wasn't the case. | 0 |
I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of "High Octane" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker? | 0 |
Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.<br /><br />The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.<br /><br />British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp | 0 |
This movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:<br /><br />********************************************************************<br /><br />SPOILER DETAILS<br /><br />********************************************************************<br /><br />Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.<br /><br />Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.<br /><br />Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.<br /><br />Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the "male" lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.<br /><br />In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on. | 0 |
I don't see the sense in going through so much trouble to make a movie like this, and then throw the history book out the window. There wasn't a single accurate detail in that movie other than the fact than Richtofen died, which I was grateful for at the end so I didn't have to watch any more. Movies like this are an insult to anyone who knows anything about WWI aerial history.<br /><br />I'll skip the obvious, that they were flying Fokker DVII's in 1916, because the Blue Max did that too, or that 209 squadron was flying SE-5's, and will attack other parts. For one thing, they call the Pfalz D-III an 'old Albatross' at the beginning. For another, they have Voss, Goring, and Wolff all in Jasta Boelcke. The only one who was in that Jasta was Voss, and he joined after Boelcke died. Richtofen wasn't held to blame for Boelcke's death...Erwin Boehme, who collided with Boelcke, had swerved to avoid a British plane that Richtofen was chasing. When Richtofen received his head wound, it was while attacking a FE-2d two-seater, and he did not crash into the trenches and have soldiers fight over him, and NO..Werner Voss did not die that day. He died September 28th in one of the most epic battles in WWI.<br /><br />Manfred was short, not like the actor who towered over everyone else. His brother Lothar was never in Jasta Boelcke either, he joined the squadron when Manfred was in charge of Jasta 11.<br /><br />There's so many other glaring errors in historical fact that I'll let them go except perhaps the worst one, the death scene. In the movie Manfred is out-maneuvered by Brown and then shot down, making a perfect landing. Brown got off one burst at Richtofen while Richtofen was chasing May, and the facts amassed over the years overwhelmingly show that Richtofen was killed by ground fire, not by Brown.<br /><br />The only value in this movie was the chance to see the flying scenes themselves, which were as good as 'The Blue Max', other than that I won't watch it again and I paid $30 for the tape! | 0 |
The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. ..The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. | 1 |
This movie made me so angry!! Here I am thinking that here's a new horror movie, one w/a sense of intelligence & then the movie starts. The scenery, the delivery of lines, the costumes, the fake gore, must I go on? There are porno movies out with better dialog than this. I understand the concept behind indie movies, but my goodness, this wasn't just indie this was a high school book report shot w/a camcorder & the cast are all friends & relatives. This is 1 movie that was doomed from its beginning. Maybe if it was 1982 instead of the new millennium this movie could fly. But it seems to me that someone hung a rock around this albatross's neck & it was sinking at a constant rate of speed. | 0 |
I saw this movie at midnight on On Demand the other night, not knowing what to expect. I had heard of this movie, but never really any opinions on it.<br /><br />I have to say, I was impressed with what I saw. I was genuinely freaked out in some parts and I definitely recall jumping up in my seat a few times.<br /><br />The Blob was scary looking. Now, I look in a jar of jelly and wonder if it'll latch itself onto my hand.<br /><br />Steve McQueen was really good as Steve Andrews, the protagonist of the film. I also liked the old man in the beginning.<br /><br />For a 50's horror movie, this was very well done even by today's standards.<br /><br />8/10. | 1 |
I love this movie and never get tired of watching. The music in it is great. Any true hard rock fan should see this movie and buy the soundtrack. With rockers like Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne you can't go wrong. | 1 |
The film tells upon the title role,Danton(Gerard Depardieu),confronting against Robespierre(Wojciech Pszoniak) during the French revolution.The film is based on real deeds,they are the following: Danton(1759-1794) as lawyer participated in the overthrowing of the king Louis XVI and the proclamation of the Republic,being Minister of Justice in the Convention(1792)and founder of Cordeliers club.He proposed creation revolutionaries committees as the committee of public salvation which he presided but was substituted by Robespierre,starting a period of revolutionary dictatorship known ¨the Terror¨(1793). Besides in the film appear other historic personages as Camille Desmoulins(Patrice Chereau,now a famed filmmaker)Louis David,Saint Just(Jacobino),Tallien..<br /><br />The picture especially narrates the happenings surrounding the facing off of the principal figures,one-time partner revolution ,and posterior execution,although gives results a contemporary parable about the modern Poland,thus Danton is Lech Walesa and Robespierre is Wojciech Jaruzelski who was the Prime Minister imposed the martial law in Poland and with similar name than actor played Robespierre . Gerard Depardieu is excellent in the title character and magnificently portrayed, also in secondaries roles are awesome actors as the recently deceased Jacques Villeret(Dinner game,Crimen in paradise)and Angela Winkler(The tin drum). The motion picture is well directed by Andrzej Wajda ,considered the best Polish director.The flick will like to historical cinema buffs. | 1 |
This film was made and cast from my home town. I remember the fuss about it and the whole hullabaloo about the fact Molly Ringwald was in town...<br /><br />Storyline...<br /><br />Essentially 20 years after a film was "laid to rest" without being finished, a group of film students set out to complete it - with dire consequences. It would seem someone does not want the film completed.<br /><br />The storyline is flimsy. One has to remember that this is a comedy and therefore has to be taken a little tounge in cheek, but it had no real oomph. The characters are mostly transperant and the little info that you recieve about them you just don't care about, it seems irrelevant. It is weird hearing Kylie's accent as Australian again and nice to see a kid I went to school with in a starring role. But that doesn't redeem the film at all. Goodness knows why the makers thought they would get in Molly Ringwald. Perhaps due to the nature of the film (it sort of pays homage to 80s films / bad horror films)but really an Aussie actor would have done just fine.<br /><br />As far as casting is concerned a lot of the acting seemed constipated. Some of these kids (especially the two main chics - they played "director" and "producer") looked like they were trying to act. That is never a good look. Also, the shots had a rough feel about them. Over lit perhaps? Just not as smooth as one is used to.<br /><br />The killer. Lord. Could it be less frightening? There are some shock factors though, and a couple of gross scenes. I did like the film, but it was not great. It went for 90 minutes but could have gone for less. Perhaps if they had tightened the script it would have been better. They had a lot of characters get killed - but no real build up to them getting slayed. Maybe if they had killed less people and actually concentrated on a scary atmosphere it would have been better.<br /><br />Now I know it is a comedy and elements were funny. Or so unbelieveable they were funny. But I am not convinced.<br /><br />LM. | 0 |
I saw this mini-movie when it first aired, and loved it!It kinda funny to see how far people will go for money.It's also funny to see how much a boyfriend can be "Whipped". "Whipped" enough to kill. I think the cast was great, especially the character Kristin.Without Her smooth talking,and deceptive looks the movie would have not been the same.<br /><br />I never use to watch USA but now it is one of my stations.<br /><br /> | 1 |
The film is set in Newcastle on Tyne in north east England, the town where I was born and grew up. The film is also fundamentally dishonest - the way it presents the town, the kids, but above all the men of the town. In this film they are all stupid, violent, thieving, thugs.<br /><br />I suppose I could comment on the plot (predictable), the performances (competently unattractive), the direction (lazy and unimaginative), but to me that is all irrelevant compared to the director's insult to the town and its people.<br /><br />Thus the invitation in my summary to the director and writer, Mark Herman, to leave the north east. | 0 |
This film is about two female killers going on a tour to kill random men they meet.<br /><br />Wow, "Baise-moi" just became the worst film of all time in my list. The plot is crazy, pointless and unnecessary. The whole film is full of violence and sex, and I am sure no sane parents would want to show this film to their children. I don't understand what people get out of by making this film, or watching this film. Maybe someone somewhere has their perverted desires fulfilled. There is simply no excuse or reasons for the existence of this perverted and depraved piece of work.<br /><br />The only consolation I offer myself is that I watched it on fast forward, so that I have not wasted as much time. | 0 |
I was drawn to this movie, curious to see how they have adapted Hubert Shelby's brutal novel. I thought that a literary piece of such depth, with a rich tapestry of characters, horrid situations, and social critique could not translate into a bad movie. I was wrong.<br /><br />This flick is a terrible movie experience, not for its content, but for its form. Director Ulrich Edel executes, in my sincere opinion, a terrible directorial job that does no justice to the original book. No wonder Edel is a TV director; this movie looks and feels like a bad "made for TV" flick. Some of my views on this bomb (**spoilers ahead**):<br /><br />- Lack of directorial creativity. The scenes are slow, feel slow, look poorly shot, and barely ever move from an anchored position. The only liberty they take is in the cinematography area, with a nice dark tone. Other than that, the movie has the same technical creativity as a TV soap-opera.<br /><br />- All the actors do a terrific job at portraying these miserable characters. The problem is that the adaptation does not tackle a basic element in the development of the plot: MOTIVATION. All these characters move around like robots, without a clear motivation for their action. They seem to do things out of the blue, like robots, for no reason at all. Edel misses every opportunity to enrich character development by not exploring the character's motivations, and by avoiding developing each character's personality to its full extent.<br /><br />This lack of character development is blatant on Tralala. Jennifer Jason Leight does a great job playing this trashy prostitute, but her alcohol-induced decision to let the sailors violate her is not explained. It looks extremely stupid, as we see this character doing this out of the blue. This is a clear example of poor character development.<br /><br />The movie also has many secondary, token characters that do nothing, feel nothing, and add nothing to the plot. I would have liked to learn more about Harry's wife, for instance, and the interaction between the two. That's another missed opportunity.<br /><br />Edel only approaches character development with Harry and his fixation with his gay lover, only to screw it up at the end, not clearly explaining -again- his motivations. The thugs are also a joke in their lack of development.<br /><br />- The soundtrack is one of the worst I've ever experienced. Terrible job by Mark Knopfler. I seriously expected more from the former leader of Dire Straits, but his job in this movie is seriously lacking. At times, like in the battle between the union workers and the police, the music seems totally disconnected from the movie. It also feels completely poor and anachronic; I could swear the whole soundtrack was made with a Casio toy keyboard. It distracts from the actual action.<br /><br />- The book adaptation by Desmond Nakano is so literal that eliminates the point of the story. It feels as if they tried so hard to keep the action-by-action storyline in the book, that they forgot to actually develop the characters and, once again, explain their actions and motivations.<br /><br />I seriously can not recommend this movie, not even to a Shelby fan, because it can ruin the original book. It's a very uninspired effort in adapting the novel, and shows very little creative input. | 0 |
Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with! | 1 |
The Movie Freddy's dead the final nightmare is just as horrific and disturbing as every other Nightmare on Elm Street , yes it has Comedy essence about it , so has all the other films, but how can anyone possibly say that you wouldn't find Freddy Krueger scary , if you were to come across this man in your dreams you wouldn't find him even more scary with a comic essence about him because his comedy shows that he doesn't care at all about killing you that he finds it extremely funny, and Freddy also plays comic mind games with them, which in its own way is very disturbing , by using his comic ways i think that makes the horror movies Nightmare on elm street what they are today, The writers are extremely clever making Krueger comic and scary as oppose to Jason Vorhees , who doesn't say anything and hasn't got the wit to truly frighten his victims, This Movie is about as good as Freddy's wit gets and i would recommend it to anyone with a sense of humour and by the way " Don't Fall Asleep!". | 1 |
Although it isn't half as hilarious as "Chicken Run," the new Wallace and Gromit comedy "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" (*** out of ****) yields more laughs than most live action comedies. British director Nick Park, who created the Wallace and Gromit characters, and co-director Steve Box rely on the old-fashioned, stop-motion method of animation--known best as claymation--to create several visually adorable characters in more than enough side-splitting scenes about a monstrously mutant hare out to devour every vegetable in sight. Amusing as its whimsical storyline is, the heart of the hilarity lies in the imaginative way with which Park and company have painstakingly constructed characters and gags out of a brand of modeling clay called Plasticine. Basically, every shot that you see in "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" required patient souls that made minor alterations in the clay characters for a series of individual shots that merge into a veritable montage of merriment. Hollywood pioneered claymation as a form of animation as far back as the silent movies of the 1920s, before the industry turned its back on the complicated process. Aardman Studio animators managed to crank out a mere three seconds of usable footage per day. For the record, "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" took five years to make. The lumpy looking characters, with thumb-prints clearly visible in their respective clay complexions, look incredibly funny with their ping-pong ball eyes and over-biting mouths. Interestingly, Gromit emerges as the funniest character, a lovable mutt with no mouth but an expressively inexpressive face who says more than most of the talking characters.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit are respectively master and pooch. As the human half of the duo, Wallace is a homily looking moron without a clue who somehow manages to construct machines that do some rather incredible things. One of the funnier scenes shows master and pooch awakened by a system of chutes, hatches, and spring-operated contraptions that dress and feed them. Meanwhile, Gromit is the animal half. The running joke is that Gromit shows more common sense than his genius of a master. As good as his ideas and inventions are, Wallace could not succeed without the loyal Gromit giving him a hand. Our heroes run a pest protection business called 'Anti-Pesto.' Essentially, they must protect every vegetable patch for miles around using an ungainly looking device called a Bun-Van 6000 that literally sucks rabbits out of their ground and into a huge glass container. No, Wallace and Gromit don't kill the critters. Instead, they keep them as pets, and Wallace experiments with an inventionMind-O-Matic--designed to convert hares into carrot-haters. This "Frankenstein" meets "The Fly" approach plunges poor Wallace into deep trouble when he swaps bits of his brain with that of a rabbit. Not long thereafter, a mysterious towering terror stalks the vegetable patches on full moon nights and creates chaos for everyone as the village's 517th annual Vegetable Contest approaches.<br /><br />Initially, Wallace and Gromit appeared in Park's Oscar-nominated, film school project "A Grand Day Out" (1989). Since then Aardman has released ten other animated shorts, among them "Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave" (1993) and the Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers" (1995). "Curse of the Were-Rabbit" differs not only because it represents the duo's big-screen debut, but also it runs a whopping 85 minutes. The first two-thirds of "Were-Rabbit" contain better gags than the last third, but Park and company never miss a chance to slip in an adult joke that kids won't get but attentive grown-ups will appreciate. "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is hare-raising fun. | 1 |
Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this. | 0 |
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing? | 0 |
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka | 0 |
If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.