text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Heftig og Begeistret (Intense and Enthusiastic) is a documentary-like story of a male choir up in Berlevåg in the very northern part of Norway, where the weather is cold and hostile, the days are dark during the winter and the towns are faced with young people moving to the more populated parts in the south of Norway, where the climate is warmer and there are more opportunities.<br /><br />The most beautiful part of this movie is the humans themselves. The people in the choir, who are aged from 30 to 95, all have unique, colorful lives and are very enjoyable beings. They are characterised by the harsh climate and the recession of the North and have adapted to the way of living required. Throughout the movie, we learn a bit about many people in the choir and we follow them through songs, some events in a church and on the harbour, and in the end, a trip to Murmansk.<br /><br />The outside environment filmed in the movie is very beautiful and characterised by the Norwegian nature. The scenography is also natural and taken directly from the choir and from the peoples lives that we meet. Thei r livingrooms, the bathroom, the kettle on the oven; there is nothing artificial about this movie, not the people, not the environment, not their music and not their feelings. Everything is as real as can be.<br /><br />It all loses out though when it comes to giving a story. It is very beautiful and real, but why do we see it? Is it because of the songs? Is it because of the nature? Or is it simply just to see a story about Berlevåg Mens-Choir, about their life and some of the trips they have. The message, if there is any, is that this small society copes with life through such social events like the choir. The choir have kept the people together for many many years.<br /><br />It is all nice, but being as popular as it has been, seen by almost 200.000 in Norway, there is something wrong. There is no beginning or end to it. Nobody gains or loses anything, nobody reveals any message or tries to convince the audience of that this is good or that life up there is great. Why was this movie made?<br /><br />I am sorry. It is a nice movie about good people, but compared to the average European, Scandinavian or Norwegian movie - this does not deserve a 9 out of 10. It is closer to 4 out of 10, and that is what I will give it.<br /><br />If you see this movie in a theater, you should expect the average age on the audience to be around 55-60. It has reported to be consistently high in all theaters. Maybe this is also the reason for it receiving such very high praise in the news and good grades also on the IMDB: It is a movie about elders, for elders. It is a movie of "I regret nothing in my life", and a story saying that living in a small town like Berlevåg, might be a nice life too. | 0 |
Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were. | 1 |
I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today | 0 |
I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.<br /><br />I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad/horrible movie.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about? | 0 |
Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in "Tarantula"). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts. | 0 |
After a humiliating experience on an airplane, Nashawn Wade (Kevin Hart) sues the airline and uses the money he wins to start up his own full-service airline. What makes his different is that it has sexy stewardesses, an on board dance club and no less than Captain Snoop Dogg in the cockpit.<br /><br />Soul Plane is a very racist comedy except it is only occasionally funny. Soul Plane has been described as an "urban" version of Airplane. The problem is that Soul Plane doesn't even come close to achieving the laughs of Airplane. The jokes in Soul Pane are too offensive and they are mostly unoriginal. I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh since there were some funny moments. However, I was expecting more and I left the theater disappointed.<br /><br />I would compare Soul Plane to Airplane 2. The latter was just a rehash of the first film while the former is just a rehash of outdated, crude jokes. There is really no creativity behind the movie and there are only a few fun spots. However, I don't think Soul Plane is "bottom 100" bad. Right now, the movie is ranked at number 82 and that's a little harsh. I'm not saying this is a good movie but it isn't a terrible on either. The running time is only 86 minutes long so it isn't too much of a pain to watch. For stupid comedies, you can do a lot worse.<br /><br />No one in the cast is very good but they all seem to be having fun and this helps. Kevin Hart was very annoying as Nashawn. He had a few funny lines but he is a very poor leading man. Snoop Dogg, who was mildly funny in Starsky and Hutch, completely flunks here. Tom Arnold was actually tolerable and that was the film's biggest surprise. The most annoying person in the movie was Ryan Pinkston. He was not funny at all and he will never be funny. The funniest cast members were Missi Pyle and Mo'Nique. They gave the best lines and they made me laugh the most. In the end, Soul Plane may fit the bill if you're looking for a stupid comedy but it would probably be better if you just skip the film. Rating 4/10 | 0 |
This owes a great deal to the plot of CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Although he is quite grown up, it is partly the story of a wealthy lad who is shanghaied as a crew member aboard a cargo vessel and becomes a man in the process. Moran of the title is a boyish young woman also brought up on a vessel owned by her father. When the cargo burns, she and crew members are evacuated to our lad's ship. However, the captain has smuggling on his mind and his intentions are not honorable where Moran is concerned. The inevitable ensues - our lad falls for the mannish Moran and she for him. In the end evil is subdued and the lovers are united. Some interesting dialogue points out that Moran belongs to no man -"and no woman." (A nod to Sappho here). Dorothy Dalton is appropriately sexless as Moran and not too attractive either. Valentino does well in a romantic, action role. His sexy build and physique are shown off to advantage and the role is quite a masculine one. He is very appealing. This is no great film but it passes the time. What it really showcases is Valentino's beauty and sexiness. | 0 |
This has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.<br /><br />One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it. <br /><br />This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1/2(out of five) | 0 |
Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: "children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive". The writer of "Science Fiction (2002)" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question "how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch "Klatretøsen (2002)" instead. | 0 |
I watched this on the movies with my girlfriend at the time and I can say that I didn't have the best time mainly because I didn't know about Ned Kelly or his story.<br /><br />But since this is a biopic, it's important to at least know what to expect from the character.<br /><br />I don't know if the manner the events are told are true, or if it everything is fictional. But the way Ned Kelly is portrayed as a hero and a fighter for justice really makes me want to believe everything is true. I don't think he's portrayed as a redneck criminal or thief, but that's just my opinion.<br /><br />This is a solid Western-type movie for everybody's tastes. Heath Ledger is great as always and the sexy Naomi Watts charms the screen.<br /><br />Give this movie a chance if it airs on cable. Otherwise, I don't think I could recommend it. | 1 |
When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.<br /><br />I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.<br /><br />I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as "wooden" is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.<br /><br />Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully. <br /><br />This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever. | 1 |
but it's worth watching for Boyer, Lorre and Paxinou. Greene's entertainments that were filmed during the war either required transplanting to American shores, as in This Gun for Hire, or the use of American actors in roles where they did not fit. Bacall fits that part here. I kept waiting for her to whistle and bring Bogie to life; her tone of voice is simply all wrong for an upper class Englishwoman. But listen to the dialogue! No, people don't talk that way except in books, but Greene was sending a message about an England that needed to wake up to the dangers of the world. One other positive note: Greene's range of characters were kept whole. While Mr. Mukerjee resembled more a Brahamin, at least his nationality was kept, and his final conversation with Paxinou is priceless. | 1 |
Containing Billy's famous humor, this more modest comedy with heavy bittersweet overtones is a big departure, pleasantly unexpectedly so for Billy Crystal. This movie has different tear-jerker, dramatic, serious underlying themes (particularly with a scene with Steven Seagal). This movie was both entertaining and serious, a movie about lost love, about relationships with father-son, husband-wife, about friendship and values with a good dose of humor thrown in, especially at the beginning. The balance between drama and comedy isn't always maintained as with the new classical genre of this type, but the real message and motivation for this movie remains solid. The discovery of Billy Crystal's talent scout/agent character in Romania of a giant human is revealing and the behind the scene's view of movie agent is fascinating. Yet the focus remains on sensitive ties of both love and learning about one's self. Eight out of Ten Stars. | 1 |
After high-school graduation, best friends Alice and Darlene, decide to take a trip to Thailand. Whilst they are there, they meet a charming Australian guy named Nick. After spending some time with Nick, he asks them if they want to take a weekend trip to Hong Kong with him. They agree. At the airport though, they are get busted for smuggling drugs and then get convicted for 33 years in a Thai prison for something they say they haven't done. Not really knowing what to do they end contacting Yankee Hank, an American lawyer who lives in Thailand with his wife. Word has it that if you have the money he can help you. Things start of well, but they still can't get out.<br /><br />The movie is really good because it doesn't let on what's going to happen and it's interesting all the time. I couldn't believe the ending though. It was one of those endings where you don't know the 100% truth, but you still kind of know what really happened with Nick and the drug smuggling because of the 'owning up' etc. <br /><br />Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both give quite good performances here. Beckinsales performance was a little weak though. Both Danes and Beckinsales characters friendship is good but could of seemed stronger. Paul Walker even has a small uncredited role here. ;)<br /><br />Anyway, I thought Brokedown Palace was a good movie and I give it a 7/10. | 1 |
This is such a great film! Never mind the low rating here. I really have no idea where that came from, they must be discussing a different film then. Because I absolutely loved it and found it to be a little hidden treasure. <br /><br />It's story was so original and charming.. I really can't think of anything bad to say about it. Maybe it has to be ''your type of thing'', but, I saw this with my sister and my mother, and we all were taken by it. <br /><br />The acting was also very good, and that is hard to do in a film like this. But I found all the characters very intriguing and sympathetic. <br /><br />I've always been very fond of Dougray Scott and found his new ''dark'' role very interesting. It is really awful hard to get me to like a bad guy, but I absolutely had no problem with that this time. Even more so, I adored him. <br /><br />Everyone who loves a good thriller/drama that also has a good dose of love and tragedy should definitely go see this film, no question about that! Anyone wanting to see a film with 80% bloodshed, should go rent something else, though.. But I guess the title already kind of gives that away. This is a love story, not Saw 3.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of five stars!!! Good job!!!<br /><br />xxx Enjoy! | 1 |
I absolutely love this film and have seen it many times. I taped it in about 1987 when it was shown on Channel Four but my tape is severely worn now and I would love a new copy of it.I have e-mailed Film Four to ask them to show it again as it has never been available on video and as far as I know hasn't been repeated since the 80's. I have had no reply and it still hasn't been repeated. The performances are superb. The film has everything. Its funny,sad,disturbing,exciting and totally takes you back to school days. It is extremely well paced and grips you from start to end. The scene in the shower room is particularly horrific. I also cannot hear the song Badge by Cream and not think of this film. This film deserves to be seen by a much larger audience as it is superb. Channel Four please show again or release on Video or DVD. | 1 |
... It even beats the nasty "raw". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
I am from Texas, and live very close to Plano where the actual deaths occurred, so I might be a bit biased in saying that "Wasted" is a film that you just can't get out of your head.<br /><br />Stahl, Phoenix, and Paul all play their characters very realistically. You truly believe that they are everyday high school students who just happen to be heroin addicts. The drug content is handled very graphically as well - although everything that happens in the film serves a purpose, and each moment the characters spiral further downward is heartbreaking. I definitely recommend this film to anyone. Once you watch it, it sticks with you! | 1 |
Perhaps I'm just a simple person, but I prefer movies that somehow make me care about the people in them. I couldn't care less about anyone in this movie. This was supposed to be a comedy? Maybe the humor was too subtle for me (all the way down to the nano-level). The thing about it is, it missed on so many things. There were characters that could have been funny, but they weren't. There were characters that you could have liked, but you didn't. For instance, the guy who thought the Beatles ripped off his songs. There was so much potential there, but all he did was talk like a Beatle and complain about how they ripped him off. Haha. And the previous poster talked about the 'I am the Walrus' scene like it was special. What? He played 'I am the Walrus' on an old piano and sang out of tune. Is there an inside joke there? It sure stank at face value. This movie has the feel to me of a movie people say they like because it sounds 'intellectual' or 'hip' to say you like it, that you get the whole metaphysical art/garbage message the artist is expressing. If you want to be entertained, stay away. | 0 |
I got Monster Man in a box set of three films where I mainly wanted the other two but still had a very pleasant time with it. It blends horror and comedy to reasonable effect, helped out considerably by the decent performances of Eric Jungman as the geeky lead, Justin Urich as his a hole friend and Aimee Brooks as the love interest. The film is fairly predictable and mines ideas from a host of other films, but stays fun throughout, with some good gruesome gore thrown in. Sure it doesn't measure up to the classic gory comedies, but this still does fine. Director Michael Davis even manages one or two creepy scenes, such as in the bathroom, or the bar. The film is watchable throughout if a little messily plotted and written and for me it only lost it a bit towards the end when the Monster Man of the title starts to resemble a member of Slipknot and the film tries to go more horror style but isn't twisted or convincing enough. The final moments are a trifle weak as well. Still, despite lack of much suspense and overall silliness, this is a good example of unpretentious, often gnarly splatter comedy that should endear itself to fans of the same. | 1 |
I heard legends about this "film" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.<br /><br />This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better! | 0 |
In the first transformation scene, what is the music? I've heard it was "The Greeks Don't Get No Freeks". Is that right? I really liked that sound. I also liked the "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" in the final scenes. Truly a doper movie, but with many laughs and puns, sight gags, and slapstick. Madam Woo-Woo's place was reminiscent of some places I have visited myself. Ivy Venus has appeared in some other stuff that is truly amazing. She looks much different in the movie we're talking about, but her maturity didn't hurt her a bit. Mark Blankfield reminds one of Gene Wilder in some ways. Bess Armstrong was beautiful and maintained her beauty for a long time. | 1 |
Words cannot describe how asinine, juvenile,and repetitive this steaming pile of a series is. It relies on 3 things: 1. Constant 80s pop culture references 2. the tired "stretch out a joke to the point of awkwardness" bit, and 3. at least 3 or 4 pointless flashbacks per episode. The only reason I can see for this crap fest being as popular as it is for the constant pop culture references which I suppose elicit an "OMG LOL THAT'S FROM SUPERFRIENDS!! THAT IS SO TOTALLY IRONIC, AND I AM SO EDGY AND SMART FOR GETTING IT!!" response from the viewer. The writing is beyond lazy, and panders to its viewers, mostly in their 20s and 30s. Plus there's the character design, which seems to consist of the same three characters with the same bored expressions drawn over and over again, but with different skin colors and maybe a different hairline occasionally. Insulting crap. | 0 |
No real plot, no character development, no Scorcese-level direction, but seriously, were you really expecting any of this? The only thing that matters is that this flick is absolutely hilarious, nearly on the same level as Borat. Sure, the ending drags a bit, but if Borat's cameo didn't crack you up, you must be the worst batty boy in the history of batty boys. Sacha Baron Cohen is possibly the greatest comedian ALIVE, and here he gets more laughs than Jude Law on a nude beach. I dare you not to laugh.<br /><br />If you can pull the ten-foot pole out of your behind for an hour and a half and just enjoy some well timed and extremely stupid jokes in a stupid story about a stupid character, see this stupid movie. You'll be glad you did. Keep it real! | 1 |
Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10 | 0 |
Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie. | 1 |
Recap: Based on the true story of Charlie Wilson, an American Congressman, who (according to this movie) was instrumental in USA's covert war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.<br /><br />Comments: A rather funny movie about not so funny things, especially since they were real. But focusing on the movie, Hanks performs very well as a mischievous womanizing Congressman with a good heart that becomes the champion for the covert war in Afghanistan. Hanks, and the entire movie, Philip Seymor Hoffman especially, has a rather humorous tone. So much that adding comedy to the genre would be appropriate. But, the story that it tell, and maybe the ending the most, are serious indeed.<br /><br />A story of what happened with some questions about what might have been. So the movie works as a comedy if you want one, and a much more serious one if you want that. Something for everybody? 7/10 | 1 |
I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the "mole" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this "art" does not imitate life. | 0 |
In this grim melodrama, Barbara Stanwyck plays the eldest of three wealthy sisters who become orphans when their father dies in France. Threatened with the danger of losing the opulent family home, Big Sister makes a grand sacrifice and secretly marries a real estate developer so she can inherit her... aunt's fortune. A few years later, she learns that he is after the family estate and wants to tear it down so she leaves him and tries to stop him. More time passes and the husband ends up taking her to court when he learns that she has borne him a son without telling him. The part of "Gig Young" was played by actor Byron Barr who later assumed the name before he became famous.<br /><br />Anyone interested in purchasing a copy let me know by writing to me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com | 1 |
Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you. | 0 |
About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true. | 0 |
Another chapter in the ongoing question, whatever happened to Mel Brooks's sense of humor? It starts out nicely enough, with Mel as Trump-like mogul Goddard Bolt ("You can call me God"), who accepts a bet that he can't live on the streets for 30 days. But the moment the movie hits the streets, it turns into a pathos-laden mess, with occasional "funny" bits interjected (Mel sees a black kid break-dancing for money and tries to do a vaudeville buck-and-wing, yuk, yuk). Leslie Ann Warren is nothing short of wasted. The worst part is this movie's musical number, in which Brooks and Warren do a silent dance to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love." Brooks's musical parodies are usually the highlights of his movies; here he plays the whole thing straight, like a dancing excerpt from an aging guest star on "The Carol Burnett Show" (on which Rudy DeLuca, this film's co-writer, began his career). Go rent Charlie Chaplin's THE KID, which covered the same ground 70 years before and did a lot | 0 |
The chupacabra, according to this mockumentary, is a mysterious<br /><br />creature that has been killing and eating Hispanic goats in Latin<br /><br />America and Mexico for years. One has crossed the border into<br /><br />southern Texas, and a cute, intrepid cryptozoologist (no, I did not<br /><br />make up that word) go to an isolated ranch to find one. Her uncle<br /><br />was killed by the creature, and some grainy video footage of the<br /><br />monster exists. She takes a badass black guy with a gun and two<br /><br />cameramen (for easy-to-edit coverage), and they go ahuntin' for<br /><br />chupacabras. Ten minutes into the film, they find it.<br /><br />The rest of the film has the team of documentarians getting<br /><br />attacked by the bloodthirsty monster, and stilted dialogue. At one<br /><br />point, the team runs into a couple of hottie witches who lead them<br /><br />to the chupacabra's nest...for $100. If only the FBI knew about how<br /><br />cheaply Tex-Mex witches could be bought as informants. Whole<br /><br />decades of mythical beast reports could be cleared up with a<br /><br />blank check.<br /><br />In the end, after the bloody deaths of characters you don't give a<br /><br />goat's patoot about, a chupacabra is captured, killed, and<br /><br />autopsied. The only point of the autopsy scene is to highlight the<br /><br />makeup department's efforts in such a cheap film.<br /><br />The film is shot on video, just like "BWP," yet the cameraman<br /><br />characters never reload their tapes or recharge their camera<br /><br />batteries. The lead actress here is awful. The beauty of the<br /><br />average "BWP" was its use of improvisation during the production.<br /><br />Here, all the lines are written, and are delivered like a poorly<br /><br />rehearsed Christmas pageant.<br /><br />The film is tinged with racism, as well. The only African-American<br /><br />here is a loudmouthed gun nut. At one point, as the crew breaks<br /><br />into an abandoned house, they find a trio of illegal immigrants who<br /><br />comically ask them if they are from the INS. Chortle, chortle.<br /><br />The monster itself is a guy in a rubber suit, and nothing more. For<br /><br />such a lumbering and awkward beast, he is able to sneak up on<br /><br />the cast pretty quietly, whether they have idiotically locked<br /><br />themselves in a giant cage as bait, or cannot seem to get their<br /><br />only vehicle started.<br /><br />The gore is gruesome, but when surrounded by this kind of<br /><br />stupidity, it loses all of its effectiveness. I do not know if this was<br /><br />shot before or after "BWP," but I can honestly say this is the worst<br /><br />film ever made in southern Texas about a mythical beast. Pray<br /><br />there are not any sequels, I will start a letter writing campaign to<br /><br />Troma.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, strong<br /><br />gore, and profanity.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.<br /><br />The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, "Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.<br /><br />The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.<br /><br />Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.<br /><br />Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.<br /><br />That's being pretty generous, I'd say. | 0 |
It's up there with Where's Poppa, The Groove Tube, Putney Swope. It memorializes the NY city mind set of the period, a wonderfully strange man with a bizarre plan, hoist by by own petard, and at last retreating into the bed of his adoptive parents. Totally absurd, its the life one sees through the magic glasses, seeing things as they "really are"... I don't think it is ever shown anymore. If so, surely someone would Tivo the thing and put it out there. A kidnap goes awry: mixed up in a rain storm, dashing in and out or storefronts, our hero tosses a raincoat over his prey and tossing her into his bicycle powered ice cream wagon spirits her off to his basement apartment in the village. He is amazed, surprised, and incredibly disappointed when the wraps come off: instead of a luscious lady, he has captures a middle ages suburban housewife who talks and talks and talks. The film is full of vignettes of the commuters life, the suburban life, the city officials, and all the attitudes so dearly held. It pushes the limits of comedy, such as magical reality might push a drama, much as Daffy Duck is able to draw on imaginative scenes to demonstrate his plight or desires, all at the very edge of plausibility. All of it is humorous, nobody is mean. | 1 |
There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.<br /><br />This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.<br /><br />The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.<br /><br />And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.<br /><br />This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned. | 0 |
Some have praised _Atlantis:_The_Lost_Empire_ as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.<br /><br />This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think _The Dirty Dozen_) but _Atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.<br /><br />Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.<br /><br />And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about _Atlantis_ was the voice talent. Perhaps Milo's depth is no thicker than Fox's charm. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway. <br /><br />Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation has not been this bad for Disney since the minimalism that drove Don Bluth out the door. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.<br /><br />The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And _Atlantis_ obviously lacks that.<br /><br />I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.<br /><br />** SPOILERS **<br /><br />1. Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland. <br /><br />By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.<br /><br />2. The Shepard's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian? <br /><br />Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since noone left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.<br /><br />3. The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)<br /><br />4. Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery. <br /><br />5. The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.<br /><br />5. Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them. <br /><br />A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis! <br /><br />6. Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.<br /><br />7. If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain what how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.<br /><br />8. The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.<br /><br />9. Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.<br /><br />10. The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive. <br /><br />** END SPOILERS **<br /><br />Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.<br /><br />4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower. | 0 |
The original Road House was a classic cheesy 80s movie, which although it didn't have anywhere near award worthy writing or acting, was a very enjoyable and popular film, largely due to the presence of star Patrick Swayze and the great supporting cast, along with some excellent fight scenes and eye candy.<br /><br />16 years later, and MGM / Sony attempts to re-create the magic which left us all quoting one liners and reciting the three rules of bouncing... with a movie which quotes all the original's best one liners and recites the three rules.<br /><br />Were this an amateur fan made film, it would be seen as a loving homage to one of the most popular of Swayze's movies. As a professionally made film, it falls flat on it's face right into the DVD Bargin Bin, with its continual reuse of lines and plot from the original movie becoming more of an annoying sign of lack of originality rather than cool references to the original.<br /><br />Having said that, with new lines such as "I'm gonna kill you just like I killed your father" no wonder the screenwriters decided to rehash much of the original script.<br /><br />I knew this was never going to be anything special, being a Straight to DVD Sequel, but I had at least hoped that there might be a couple of new ideas and fresh things included to live up to the Road House name, but what you get is simply just a 2006 remake of the same film, with a little narcotics added in.<br /><br />Were I the director, I'd have removed all references to the first film so as not to tarnish the original and it's characters. As it is, we got Patrick Swayze's character now supposed to be dead (killed off screen in a lame way by Jake Busey) and his brother and son now the main characters, who strangely enough have completely different surnames.<br /><br />My favourite part was that Dalton's 'son' drove the same car his father did, a genuinely cool homage, although it was later ruined by having the car meet its end EXACTLY the same way as its predecessor did. That's a good example of how this film goes too far in including sequences and ideas from the '89 movie.<br /><br />Also of course who can forget the legendary moment where Wild Bill promises to kill Shane "just like I killed your father" and then proceeds to attempt to dispatch him in a completely different manner. Amazing writing there. I see Schaech is listed as co-screenwriter. Stick to acting, or preferably, nothing.<br /><br />Overall though, this is an OK film if there's nothing else to watch and you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half, or if you haven't seen the first Road House, but hardcore fans of Swayze's classic will be totally disappointed almost to the point of feeling insulting at how much of a rip off this movie is of the first. As someone once suggested as an alternative subtitle for this film, "Even Jeff Healy is glad he won't be seeing this one!" Stick to the original Road House and relive the good old Swayze days! | 0 |
I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.<br /><br />Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.<br /><br />More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.<br /><br />A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.<br /><br />By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it? | 1 |
The China Syndrome is a perfectly paced thriller and not slow or boring at all, as some people tend to say. The transitions from one scene to another are great and the tension build up in the film will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire two hours. Jack Lemmon is great, as always, as the somewhat nervous plant operator and Jane Fonda succeeds again in bringing some real emotions into the story. You can see this film as a political statement of the time, or just as an intelligently made thriller. Either way it is definitely worth watching. | 1 |
Let me start by saying that "War, Inc" is not everyone's cup of tea. It is, however, very enjoyable (and gets you thinking - "Oh, crap"). The comedy involved the film isn't obvious at all - it's quite subtle (Tamerlane tanks, dry-cleaning service etc), and it changes with the twists & turns in the plot.<br /><br />I may be the only one, but I won't compare this with "Grosse Point Blank", because, it's different. John Cusack - I wouldn't say he was "amazing" or "brilliant" - but he was good. On the other hand, his sister (Joan Cusack) was incredible in her delivery of lines & comedic timing - even though she was hardly in the film (I'd say the same about Ben Kingsley).<br /><br />Marisa Tomei plays a convincing reporter, and manages to pull it off. Hilary Duff is very commendable for her role as central Asian pop star Yonica Babyyeah. Duff's development as an actress is very noticeable in the film, and she does a very good job (even though her accent is a tad unreal).<br /><br />Overall, the film is what I would call "entertaining". It doesn't have a particular storyline, and it's quite silly at times, but it does have a subtle message. I'd say it's worth a watch. | 1 |
Hey, this Ralf Westhoff seems to knows a lot about people! We have nine women and nine men taking part in a speed dating event, each person has five minutes to talk to each opposite. A good idea to make a movie out of these conversations. And even better: it works very, very well! The dialog is witty, original and authentic, each person is subtly characterized, without falling into the cliché trap, something that is unusual for German movies, remember: All these years, we Germans were tormented with silly zeitgeist comedies such as "Workaholic" or "Stadtgespräch".<br /><br />But now the time has come for young German directors to do their own thing and take the risk of producing movies which are entertaining and funny AND intelligent and sensitive at the same time. The timing of "Shoppen" is good, too: Although it presents mainly dialog, it keeps the tension and interest. After a while, you actually become curious to see how this man and that woman would do. Some of the participants meet later on for a two-some, it's fun to see them interacting together in "real life". Of course, the film has a few drawbacks: it's not very cinematic (but can such a movie be?), the musical soundtrack could have been better, but all this is only marginal.<br /><br />The most important thing about this movie: We have some damn good actors here. Imagine this: All of them are still pretty unknown even here in Germany (most were derived from the Munich or Bavarian theater scene). But I predict that out of the 18 main actors, at least 11 will quickly become very well-known in the movie and TV scene over here. It's great to see so many fresh and at the same time talented faces. Well-done!<br /><br />For those who want to read more, here's a rundown of all 18 actors:(spoilers!)<br /><br />Sebastian Weber: Silent waters are deep! Memorize his "Flower garden" monologue, you can win any woman's heart with this one.<br /><br />Anna Böger: A hell of a woman! Every time she opens her mouth, you can't help but laugh and feel good. Listen how she pronounces "asshole" and calls the pink shirt guy a "Bürscherl"!<br /><br />Felix Hellmann: The "Bürscherl" from above is fun to watch. The inconvenient truth is that there are too many of those guys around. His looks somewhat reminded me of Flo Weber of "Sportfreunde Stiller".<br /><br />Katharina Schubert: This woman has everything: love, hope, despair, beauty. Her "do you want children" scene is a classic. A great actress of whom we will hear again, no doubt.<br /><br />David Baalcke: Now is this guy a loser or not? Almost as authentic as Paul Giamatti in "Sideways". I hope this is NOT method acting.<br /><br />Julia Koschitz: The "good looking" woman in the circle. Julia used to play theater in my hometown, kudos! I think she will appear in many TV series to come.<br /><br />Martin Butzke: The revolutionary guy catches the cutest and most conventional woman in the end. Would you like to share a taxi with this guy?<br /><br />Kathrin von Steinburg: She gave a stunning performance in "Tatort" last year. Her trance-like performance in this movie is no less. SEE her beautiful face and HEAR her dirty laugh. The best scene in the movie belongs to her. <br /><br />Matthias Bundschuh: I know these "write down everything"-guys back from school. I'm not sure whether the hot blond got her allergic reaction because of him or his cat. Matthias' portrayal of such a chicken is outstanding. <br /><br />Mediha Cetin: The sister-in-law of my ex-girl-friend was the same talker like her. The day I met her was the only day in my life I needed tranquilizers, so bad remembrances here.<br /><br />Thomas Limpinsel: The "nice and desperate guy" in the circle. Limpinsel has a comical talent that is way better than most so-called "comedians" on TV.<br /><br />Lisa Wagner: The victim of Sebastian's "flower garden" metaphor. Lisa's face is funny and full of melancholy, her story made me feel good and sad at the same time, wow!<br /><br />Oliver Bürgin: The "good looking" man in the circle. No wonder he catches Julia in the end. These two really fit together. I think he will appear in many TV series to come.<br /><br />Julia Heinze: The "cute, conventional" woman. I hope she won't be underrated: Julia's face changes from naive to hurt to furious are great! <br /><br />Stephan Zinner: The "nature boy" from Partenkirchen likes cooking, eating and good sex. Watch the body language between him and the hot blond! Zinner usually plays CSU politician Söder on stage!<br /><br />Anja Klawun: The "bargain girl" has some good moments, but, beg your pardon, fails (like most actors) in playing a drunk on screen.<br /><br />Christian Pfeil: Plays the arrogant and narcissistic guy. Couldn't believe that this very actor owns two art-house cinemas in Munich. <br /><br />Tanja Schleiff: Plays the girl who sleeps with every man around. I'm sure many male visitors will go for her. I have heard she can do dramatic roles as well, so I'm curious. | 1 |
Enjoyed the movie very much. Certainly will leave the audience wanting to know more, and there is truly a lot more historically to find out!<br /><br />Did the production team fall to the temptation of over dramatization, particularly of the shooting event? There is a ton of interesting accurate material hinted at? Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.<br /><br />The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York? i.e. Did Princess Victoria really stuff an entire truffle/rissole(?) into her mouth while speaking to the Prime Minister in the company of His Majesty with her mouth full? <br /><br />'Could never really felt that sympathetic to Victoriain this movie, or indeed in her shoes at all. Yet loved the casting of the principals, whose acting was convincing, so did the script really allow us to really get to know them well? I always felt like a totally detached, uninformed outside observer, much more so than with "Mrs. Brown" or even "The Queen". Yet to be honest I still could not take my eyes off the screen, except that is for some of the more avant-garde camera techniques which were distracting from time to time. | 1 |
<br /><br />First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.<br /><br />I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.<br /><br />So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all?<br /><br /> | 1 |
I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .<br /><br />BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! ! <br /><br />No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.<br /><br />The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.<br /><br />Stale approach to a tired plot. | 0 |
I was fascinated as to how truly bad this movie was. Was the viewer supposed to learn something, or reflect on anything here? What was up with the pumpkins? Was I supposed to be impressed with the motel shots? Does it matter that there are some garbage bags on a rooftop across the street of a hotel? Why does the narrator unsuccessfully mock the people he interviews (it is so obvious that he edited out the really informative parts of his interviews to achieve mockery). The best part of the movie was the interview with the film professor who tells us how bad this movie will be even before it is finished.<br /><br />I am truly amazed. I believe that the creator is struggling to become an intellectual or is trying to impress the intellectual community. | 0 |
Thats not saying much. This Killjoy film has better cinematography and is more professional looking than the last. That doesn't mean it's more professional sounding. That horrible last film was about gangsters killing a kid and then being haunted by a voodoo clown. I thought the guy that played Killjoy in the last one was a bad actor, but wow!!! This Killjoy is honestly the downright worst actor I've seen in any movie, and I've seen a lot of movies. Thed last movie the clown came in about 15 minutes in, this one's shorter and the clown doesn't even come in until 40 minutes in, and it's only 65 minutes long!!! I give it a 2 because the acting from some characters is OK. | 0 |
I bought this movie because of Raquel Welch. She was gorgeous in this film as she played the role of Harry (Mike Wagner) girl friend. Harry a robber down on his luck trying to make one more heist. Harry goes to a funeral where he meets Vittorio De Sica and takes him for a ride. When things don't work out on the ride they put there mines together to figure out the fastest way to get money. Harry and his gang decide with the help of Vittorio De Sica to from there on mob. Rest a sure that no matter what the gang goes after that the outcome is never the same and will keep you on the edge of your sit. The rest of the out come you need to watch for yourself. As far as Raquel goes if you're a fan of here then you need to watch this movie because she never looked better standing on the beach with a ****** on. I give this movie 10 weasel stars on Raquel Welch body alone. It's no wonder why she was the hottest actress back in the sixties. She was the sex symbol everyone one wanted and no one could get. Not only does she look good, she can act even better. If you like, Raquel Welch then you'll like this movie | 1 |
Released just before the Production Code crackdown in July, 1934, Mitch Leisen's all-star Paramount musical is leeringly suggestive -some even claim misogynistic- and highly entertaining. Two murders occur on the opening night of "Earl Carroll's Vanities" (one on-stage!), but that doesn't stop the manager (Jack Oakie) from putting on a show as a lascivious police detective (Victor McLaglen) investigates. Everyone is hiding something and Gypsy Rose Lee must have seen this backstage murder mystery before she penned "The G-String Murders" as the denouement is similar (although more satisfying here). Gertrude Michael, as a vicious diva, stops the show (in more ways than one) with her exotic "Sweet Marijuana" number and Duke Ellington finishes with the truncated "Rape Of The Rhapsody". The hit song, "Cocktails For Two", came from this film. A bizarre and bawdy camp classic highly recommended! Here's Louella O. Parsons in the "Los Angeles Examiner" on May 17, 1934<br /><br />Earl Carroll's hand-picked beauties' pirouette about on the Grauman United Artists screen in a fig leaf and not much else. But September Morn herself never had a better figure than these charmers, who are made up to please the eye, especially the eye of the tired businessman. But don't for a moment think Mr. Carroll's girls, au naturelle, are the only attraction. Believe it or not, MURDER AT THE VANITIES is a musical comedy thriller, if you know what I mean -a murder mystery incorporated in a musical show. It all happens on the opening night at the time the play is in progress and a search is on for a murderer. Just by way of suspense, a cop threatens to stop the show every few minutes. Victor McLaglen is something new in cops. All the time he is trying to track down the murderer, he keeps his eye fastened on the chorus beauties. The murder mystery is good with the exception of the denouement, which is pretty flat. Probably faulty direction. Dorothy Stickney, who plays the maid, is about as melodramatic as the heroine in a ten, twenty, and thirty show. For no good reason, she rates a never-ending closeup in the big dramatic scene. The girl ensembles are good, and it's a positive relief to get away from the inevitable overhead shots. The costumes are beautiful; in fact, this is a musical that Paramount can feel is really to their credit. As for Carl Brisson -well, he would be an addition to any show. Good-looking with a delightful singing voice and an easy, assured manner, he is all his press agents claim for him. I also like Kitty Carlisle, who plays the leading lady in the show. Gertrude Michael, as the deep-eyed villianess, gives an interesting if rather fictional portrayal. Jack Oakie, as the stage manager, is the same old wisecracking Jack, but we wouldn't change him. Jessie Ralph is excellent as the seamstress. Others in the cast are Charles Middleton, Gail Patrick, Donald Meek, Barbara Fritchie, Toby Wing and Lona Andre. The screen play is by Carey Wilson and Rufus King, and the direction by Mitchell Leisen. The music is by Arthur Johnstone and the lyrics by Sam Coslow. In addition to MURDER AT THE VANITIES, there is a Mickey Mouse cartoon, a Paramount Newsreel, and a two-reeler, THE WRONG DIRECTION.<br /><br />I disagree with Lolly on the denouement, it's satisfying if over-the-top. Why would she blame the director? Was she displeased with the story's ending -or the way it was staged? And what's a "ten, twenty, or thirty show"? Note the swipe taken at Busby Berkeley and his "overhead shots". As hard as it may be to believe today, the public was tiring of Buzz' schtick by May, 1934. Mitch Leisen said, "if you are showing a stage show that's supposed to be in a theater, you should stay within the bounds of the proscenium arch, and not do a Buzz Berkeley routine with a stage set that's acres big." <br /><br />Q: Don't you think Berkeley's spectacular effects justified taking this liberty? ML: Apparently they did because they're reviving all of his pictures and none of mine, but personally I don't like it. | 1 |
This was a good movie. It wasn't your typical war flick but something a bit different. This movie showed us recruits in training before the war and not actually fighting a war. This film is one of the more realist views on war and the army than most other films like this made. Colin Farrel did a great job at portraying an army recruit and Clifton Collins Jr and also Matthew Davis contributed reasonably well. Seeing Colin Farrel move from b grade to a grade in a few short years, You would never thought it would happen. I will also add that the makers of tigerland did a great job at filming a movie in the year 2000 and making it look like 1970 was a good touch. Its good to see talent used wisely and i hope to see this same talent again in the near future. | 1 |
The above seemed a much more appropriate title when me and my suicidal underlings decided to watch this masterpiece of modern bullshit <br /><br />Erotic,Scary, Suspenseful, Well thought out, these are all the things this film fails to be.<br /><br />It is however incredibly funny, the slow sound effects and bad dubbing add to this to make one of the greatest comedies I have seen in recent years. And yet this film doesn't even try to be funny and that is one of the movies grand achievements, it becomes a comedy without even attempting to amuse.<br /><br />Throughout the film an old guy who looks amazingly like Santa Claus goes around ploughing over zombies and smashing vampires into the ground. This made me fail to believe the films title, if this was vampires vs zombies why were the vampires and zombies not fighting? Oh well whatever, besides there were more flaws to this rental than the title. Such as this one; there has been a virus sweeping through America creating zombie like beings who go around acting a lot like your average tourist. And yet there's only four zombies in the entire film. Another problem is besides one shop everywhere is deserted. Surely you'd see zombies roaming about in the woods or in the background a bit. In fact I believe they just drove around in a circle of forest over and over again since they didn't have a high enough budget to film in a wider location, that or the director didn't want to waste his precious time filming in different areas of wood he was to busy sitting in a trailer jerking off to be bothered with such trivial matters.<br /><br />In fact the director had so much fun doing this that he didn't have enough time to hire a big enough cast or even an editor. And so he told the eight members of the cast to dress up as different people and try not to act inconspicuous, whilst I assume he changed his name and began randomly snipping at the film reels "editing isn't a hard job anyway right?" The only reason this "movie" found it's way into our bag was because somehow we got it confused with Freddy vs Jason, strange how these things happen isn't it. And the only way we made it though the night was by strapping gas masks on and bolting them to our skulls to avoid the stink of this nauseating mess.<br /><br />Oh yes we did laugh at the end, but I'm sure one does that a lot when he has lost his sanity................... | 0 |
I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.<br /><br />In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.<br /><br />In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar." <br /><br />There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."<br /><br />About the only things true to the book were:<br /><br />1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.<br /><br />People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.<br /><br />If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.<br /><br />Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once. | 0 |
When anti-bush jokes get really easy to do, a show like this had better make sure it has something extra. When that something extra is kid versions of political figures making jokes about the future they don't have yet, it's just plain nonsense. Dick Cheney and George Bush are done well but Dick Cheney mutters mostly. There's also Condoleeza Rice who has a crush on Bush for some reason and Donald Rumsfeld who isn't really that similar to Donald Rumsfeld at all. The democratic characters rarely give their names so it's a mystery as to who could be who aside from Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.<br /><br />The episodes have coherent stories but that's not nearly enough to keep this from sinking. | 0 |
I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named. | 0 |
This movie is funny and sad enough I think that it is kinda true. If you love Office Space then you will love this movie because it is another Mike Judge hit, but it is nothing like Office Space. I told every one to see this movie. I only wish that it would have been in more theaters so it would have gotten the recognition it deserved. I love this movie and would love to see more from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson is also what makes this movie what it is. I am so glad that I will not be alive in the year 2505, because if this movie turns out to be true we are all in for a lot of trouble. I just hope more people see this movie because I know that they will fall in love with it too. | 1 |
Another pretentious film from Vicente Aranda. If "Juana la loca" shinned of the same, at least its quality was superior (mainly thanks to the great performance of Pilar López de Ayala), but "Carmen" is boring and full of topics (ardent brunette with a dagger in the stocking, poor man dragged to madness due to passion, Sierra Nevada gangs, "toreros",...)<br /><br />Obviously Paz Vega is a pretty woman, but about its talent there're more doubts, and Sbaraglia role is so stupid that results almost incredible. The script is weak and and Aranda's presumptuous character influences the entire film. With these ingredients the result could not be good.<br /><br />Not the worst film I've seen, but a complete failure, in my opinion. | 0 |
This film, I thought, was the great journey that Forrest Gump should have been. It's a rare treat to watch a cable movie in the middle of the day and come across a foreign film that is done so well. This film is very well acted, and I strongly suggest it to anyone who can take sub-titles. | 1 |
Terrible action movie in which lead Franco Nero exchanges his cowboy hat, gun belt and the coffin he dragged around in DJANGO (1966) for an all-white Ninja outfit with all the snazzy paraphernalia that goes with it! Despite virtually non-stop action, the film is utterly clichéd and unintentionally funny - with a campy villain, to boot, in Christopher George. Susan George (no relation) is the attractive woman with a washed-up husband, Nero's wartime companion, whom the villains are trying to push off her oil-rich land - but the latter haven't counted upon Nero's martial-arts (and stunt-heavy) gymnastics. The solution to their problems is to hire a similarly-skilled Ninja for themselves who, as it happens, turns out to be Nero's deadly enemy (played by Sho Kosugi, who appeared in two more sequels and is currently engaged in another!). The climax takes place inside an arena where one-man army Nero 'eliminates' George and what has remained of his gang from previous confrontations; the subtle way in which he despatches his nemesis, however, is effectively done. | 0 |
Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score. | 1 |
This is no doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. This makes your run of the mill TV movie look like Reservoir Dogs. Based on a book by the one and only Britney Spears and her mother this is trash with nothing bar a reasonable performance from Virginia Madsen (I hope you got paid well) to save it. The story of a red neck country gill who wins a scholarship in a prestigious music school is little but a vehicle to pedal Ms Spears pants music to the consumer and to generally agree that low brow must be the way. There is nothing good going on here with all the beats as predictable as night following day. Never ever again. | 0 |
I'll preface my review by stating that I am not a fan of the independent 'straight to video' genre that owes a great debt to the grindhouse films of the 60's. I don't own any, I've never rented any, so I might lack the appreciation for these tongue-in-cheek, low-budget stinkers that many other people have.<br /><br />I caught this movie on Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. Please don't ask me why I was watching Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. We were bored with World Championship Poker. Some atrociously bad acting courtesy of Misty Mundae (and I wish she wouldn't own up to being from Illinois, as we actually turn out some very bright thespians here) caught our attention. Now normally, the aim of some good soft-core porn would be to get you and your partner in the mood. Some good sex, tongue in cheek humor, and who know what could happen? After about 15 minutes, and a scene where the title character seduces a mugging victim, my lady friend said 'if you want to watch the rest of this fine, I am going to bed so I don't have to. Please turn the volume off.' Here is what I gather from the plot: Misty's character is a sexless nerd who gets bitten by a spider and turns into a super-sex kitten with super web slinging powers that don't come from her wrists. There is some sort of evil villainess involved, who didn't look particularly evil or sexy. Spiderbabe saves the day, has sex, M.J. (who is male in this film) constantly gets propositioned by stereotypically bad gay bikers, and somehow the evil villainess gets pushed off a building to her death.<br /><br />What was good about this film? It ended.<br /><br />What was bad about it? Acting to make a third grade pageant look like Oscar winners, a script turned out by people who I picture to be drunken, college-aged sex perverts who wouldn't know what sex is if they took a class taught by Dr. Ruth, special effects that were about as special as someone jumping off a trampoline, humor about as funny as
well, I have yet to encounter anything that is lamer. The sex scenes? If we were watching a video, the only thing those scenes would have turned on is the fast forward button. And the action scenes? Some of my old Atari VCS games had better choreography.<br /><br />Now I know this type of film is supposed to be enjoyed for it's inherent badness. Companies like EI don't set out to make good movies: they have a niche and they target it. My experience as a marketer tells me they are right on the money in servicing their audience. But after my brief exposure to 'Spiderbabe', I for one can say I am not delving into that world again any time soon. Maybe the problem with the filmmakers in this type of genre is this: they spend so much attention to making the films bad, that if they made an effort to try and focus on those things they do very well, they would turn out some very enjoyable 'le bad' Cinema, a la Troma films in the 80's. Sorry folks; the spirit is there, but the effort isn't.<br /><br />Though I have to admit that "Alice in Acidland" intrigues me
| 0 |
Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher. | 0 |
This Film was done in really poor taste. The script was really bad. I feel really sad for the late Gregory Peck who took on the title role of this B-movie adaptation of one of history's greatest generals. The movie was politically incorrect and downright insensitive to the others who fought the Japanese in World War 2. There was a scene where I almost vomited, it showed Macarthur in a bunker in Corregidor island talking to the troops like a seasoned politician when he comes across a wounded, one legged Filipino soldier. The soldier bleeding and dying manages to sit up straight upon seeing the general and says : `no papa, no mama, no uncle sam' and Macarthur gives his little pep talk that Americans `would never abandon' the Philippines. The scene ends with the soldier being invigorated by Macarthur's words and gives him a smart salute. I mean if there was a more condescending scene portraying the U.S. as the great white savior of the world please tell me because this one takes the cake. It showed that Filipinos are damsels in distress incapable of honor and have to rely on the great Americans solely for redemption. It blatantly and purposely overshadowed the contributions of the members of the USAFFE (United States Armed Forces of The Far East), these are Filipino volunteers that were integrated in the US military during world war 2, who died side by side with the Americans fighting the Japanese, who walked side by side with Americans in the death march of Bataan and defended Corregidor island by launching a guerilla offensive after Macarthur left for Australia with his famous `I shall return' speech. My late grandfather, a Filipino world war 2 veteran and USAFFE soldier was one of the many who fought the Japanese with honor and love for the home country. I think this movie does not give honor to them and to the thousands of others that Macarthur relied on for intelligence preparations for his famous return in the Leyte gulf landing. | 0 |
This movie is bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want). | 0 |
Not even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really "get" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an "in your face anger." I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood? | 0 |
I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.<br /><br />And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far. | 0 |
It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal. <br /><br />But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.<br /><br />The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?<br /><br />Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it. | 0 |
This is one of my favorite family movies. Loved it when I was little and it still holds up with me now that I'm older. I still laugh at all the same old jokes and might even shed a tear a times. I never have much cared for animals talking, or at least UN-animated ones but this one I'll stand up for. It's a pretty old movie but it will always hold a place in my heart.<br /><br />There aren't any other live animal movies that I can think of at the moment that I even could compare with, let alone like as much as this one. I might be giving too much praise to this movie but I don't think show. I really holds that great message that" Home is where the heart is." Or at least that's the message I gained from it. Definitely recommended for a good old family movie night. | 1 |
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit. | 0 |
Ok with this film there are a number of ingredients at work:<br /><br />First put in loads of hillbilly truckers--good ole boys who have secret desire to take law into own hands. Second put in evil hillbilly cops controlled by a Texas bred outlaw. Third put in karate fighting trucker played by Chuck Norris. Fourth put in a chump teenager as Norris's nephew captured by evil hillbilly cops. Fifth show Chuck Norris fighting in slow motion.<br /><br />Now mix all together and what have you got?<br /><br />You guessed it...one very mediocre movie! | 0 |
A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad. | 0 |
Being an unrelenting non-stop over-the-top explosive melodrama, this movie is one of the worst action flicks ever produced, and utterly unbelievable in every way. The pace is constantly fever-pitched, and all the action and the actors are gripped by total hysteria. It is nigh unwatchable, and a stain - nay, a blotch - on the careers of everyone involved.<br /><br />The wildly exaggerated attempt at excitement undermines itself, resulting in a movie where you just go "Come on!" all the time. The setting and the events are impossible to take even remotely seriously. I can only rate this abomination a 1 out of 10.<br /><br />If you want to see a good asteroid movie, see Deep Impact, which is intense, sensitive and thoroughly engrossing. Everything Armageddon is not. | 0 |
Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence. <br /><br />The movie opens with a child, François, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. François takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. François murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, François grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with François. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.<br /><br />The daughter, Béatrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, Béatrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens Béatrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how François torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, Béatrice.<br /><br />Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's "The War Zone (1999)" which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.<br /><br />Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.<br /><br />I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see François and Béatrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:<br /><br />* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on "City of God (2002)". Here, François, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from Béatrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.<br /><br />* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.<br /><br />The film won the César (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Château de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more César awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film "Au revoir, les enfants" ("Goodbye, Children", 1998).<br /><br />--- Released as "Beatrice" in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work. | 0 |
Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story. | 0 |
Most definitely the saddest movie I have ever seen. A must see, just so you can walk away and realise just how precious your life and loves are. The acting is superb, the story line potentially 'real'.<br /><br />Remains a firm favourite of mine even after all this time. | 1 |
It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.<br /><br />Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.<br /><br />However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7/10 | 1 |
I accidentally bumped into this film on Cinemax while channel surfing. I must admit that what attracted me was Christopher Walken. And the setting was the kind I would like, so I started to watch it. At first I expected a serious drama film, and it seemed like so for a while... until I started to giggle here and there, and before I know it I was laughing so hard all through the film. I really like how subtle and light-hearted it is, but still has a huge impact on the audience. The plot is very simple, and it's far from trying too hard to be funny like many Hollywood "comedies" are, yet it almost had me rolling on the floor. A must see for a nice evening rest, or any time in that case. | 1 |
Return to Me is a charming gem of a movie. With an absolutely star studded cast, who can go wrong with this modern day fairy tale? It also includes many, many jokes written by the funny girl herself Bonnie Hunt, who wrote and directed this film. David Duchovny is also very good, showing a different approach then from his everday alter-ego mulder on my favourite show the x-files. a great date movie! | 1 |
Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens.... | 1 |
That was definitely the case with Angels in the Outfield. It was on TV last night and I believe I hadn't seen the film since my sophomore year in high school and I'm now in my 4th year of college. Although the film has many flaws, it is just so touching that you can't help but sit down, watch it, and enjoy yourself. It is also hilarious. Danny Glover's ranting is just so over the top that you can't help but laugh out loud at him at most time. It adds to the film and I'm sure it's exactly what the director wanted. You actually feel for the characters in the film even though the development isn't the best. A must see. I highly recommend.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
If a copy of this movie fell into the wrong hands, the world would be in grave danger. I am a huge fan of "B" movies, and I have seen my share of bad ones, but there is not a letter in the alphabet that could adequately describe this rancid piece of solidified puke. This movie even surpasses the "so bad it's good" phase and goes straight on to the "so bad your world will seem a little less meaningful for having watched it" phase.<br /><br />It is hard to say what is more disturbing: .1. The fact that the people who wrote this thought their political satire (I use the term very, very, very loosely) was witty enough to film .2. They were able to find so many other people who agreed with them enough to work on this garbage for obviously little or no money .3. That someone actually thought it would be a good idea to pick this crap up for distribution on a horror anthology DVD.<br /><br />Were I a weaker man, I most likely would have jammed grapefruit spoons into my eyes and then blindly flung myself to my death in oncoming traffic after watching this. As it stands though, I live ,but I am forever scarred by the experience. | 0 |
Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible for a number of reasons:<br /><br />No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension<br /><br />In a word - no.<br /><br />Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.<br /><br />Once again: Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible.<br /><br />No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension<br /><br />In a word - no.<br /><br />Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long. | 0 |
There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.<br /><br />This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.<br /><br />As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.<br /><br />I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.<br /><br />At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.<br /><br />If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?<br /><br />I don't think so. | 0 |
This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called "Cool Ethan" or "Cheaters Never Win" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting. | 0 |
This film is hilarious. Brilliant comedy, but only because of one actor. Chris Farley. The best 'comedy-actor' I have ever seen. It's something special about him. He is just so funny.<br /><br />What a shame he is not with us anymore. He will sorely be missed. | 1 |
This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.<br /><br />One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.<br /><br />A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.<br /><br />Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts. | 0 |
8/2008. When I originally wrote my comments, shortly after first seeing this film, I took a critical view, feeling that Lemmon and Matthau had basically "phoned-in" their performances, which paired them in a manner they'd done several times previously.<br /><br />But upon seeing it again, it seemed different, especially in view that neither of the two main mega-stars lived a great deal longer after its release.<br /><br />With the exception of Spiner, all of the eight principals are performers with considerable experience, and likewise unavoidably a lot "longer in tooth" than we've seen in many of their other film and t.v. work. But isn't almost everyone?<br /><br />Seeing it again, while it certainly won't be regarded as a "classis" in any of their careers, it is a fun film, with a lot of interesting scenery as well.<br /><br />From my viewpoint, it reminds me that many films, plays, etc., can often be looked at either from a very critical viewpoint, or looking instead to the lighter side, without expecting a film to be another "Citizen Kane," "Casablance," or (in terms of the two leads), another original "Odd Couple." It also will provide a continuing piece of nostalgia for Lemmon and Matthau, as well as the others in the cast. | 1 |
Now, I'm no film critic, but I truly hated "September 11". This film was, on a general basis, bad. With the exception of Alejandro González Iñárritu's segment, which was the most effective and direct about the subject matter, the short films were at best boring, and at worst offensive. The worst in my mind was Youssef Chahine's pretentious segment in which he compared Palestinian suicide bombers to American soldiers, even going so far as to suggest the suicide bombers were fighting for a greater cause. The segment was completely off topic and, considering Chahine's seeming lack of any decency whatsoever, a waste of my time and patience. The idea of getting eleven different directors from different countries to make a movie featuring their views on a tragedy was good on paper, but in practice, it was tasteless. | 0 |
This movie was much better than I expected. ++++ Jean Peters actually does a passable job as a pirate and does decent work in her sword fights. (To the extent she may have a double doing the action, it's hard to tell...but Peters herself obviously is doing a good deal of it, and doing it well.) ++++ With a good and serious script, this could have been an excellent film. But it's basically cheesy. Still entertaining however. ++++ Not up to a regular Jacques Tournier film, but definitely above a regular Jean Peters film. Color is typical of this '50s time period, ie. too garish and not realistic. The actors for Blackbeard and her first mate and the drunken doctor were good. Louis Jordan was a bit weak. I don't think Debra Paget was right either. But certainly Jean Peters and Debra Paget were probably the two best looking female stars in the '50s. | 1 |
I remember Casper comic books, but don't remember any cartoons. Maybe they weren't memorable; I don't know but at my advanced age, here I am watching this very early Casper animated short yesterday. Afterward, I was shocked to read the user-comments here. Did people miss the ending?<br /><br />I have to learn all over again that Casper isn't like the other ghosts, who like to go out each night and scare the c--p out of everyone. "He sees no future in that," according to the narrator here. Instead, one night he goes out to the rural section of town, inadvertently scares some animals and can't find any friends. It brings him to tears, until a little fox hears him bawling and befriends him. The two become buddies but soon, the fox is running for his life with a fox hunt in progress.<br /><br />Other reviews have all mentioned what happens, so I'll touch on that, too. The fox is killed by hunting dogs (not shown) and Casper is in tears for losing "the only friend I ever had." But, nobody mentions the happy ending to this story. "Ferdie" the fox becomes a spirit-figure like Casper, jumps on his lap, licks his face and the narrator comments "they lived happily ever after." Both characters look overjoyed.<br /><br />What is so sad about that? This is a nice story with a nice, happy ending. | 1 |
I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky. | 1 |
I watched Cheats a few years ago with my friend. He hyped it up as a great funny film that is one of the best comedies ever. I think he was on crack or something. I just recently learned that this film was not released into theatres, I can understand why perfectly.<br /><br />THe basic plot involves a group of guys who cheat on pretty much all of their assignments in school to get good grades. That is the main problem of this film is that the morals are all bad. There are other teen comedy films where students do bad things but it is most often stuff that does not take place at school. So I think that the concept of having a whole movie that basically has kids cheating on everything is pretty bad.<br /><br />I did not like the characters in this film either. The main character guy is a completely smug arrogant idiot who is not a good protagonist. Actually I am not sure if you could say that there is a protagonist due to the fact that they all are cheating at school which is wrong. THe other supporting characters were not funny at all and basically the cast blows in this film.<br /><br />This film has a bad message and even worse acting and characters. There are other teen films that are way better than this film. So you do not have to see this one and that is a good thing because I do not recommend this film at all. | 0 |
Footprints is a very interesting movie that is somewhat difficult to categorize. "Psychological thriller" is the most appropriate description I can think of. The female protagonist, Alice Cespi, discovers that she doesn't remember anything of the last three days. The only clue she has is a torn photo of a hotel. She is also haunted by a recurring, very vivid, dream about a science fiction movie that she believes she saw many years ago. In her pursuit of the truth behind her amnesia she doesn't trust anyone, but little by little it becomes obvious that she has visited the town where the hotel is located before. This is an exciting flick whose main virtue is that it is virtually impossible to predict how the events will unfold, and particularly, how it will end. The unusual loneliness of the main character and the unreliability of everyone else ensure that the good old paranoid feeling is present throughout the film, whereas beautiful colors and some spectacularly filmed sequences make this a visually attractive movie as well. The important part of the one and only Nicoletta Elmi, everyone's all time favorite redheaded obnoxious child star of Italian horror, is an extra bonus. | 1 |
It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for "District Hill Street" and "NYPD Blue". These are brilliant shows, and "Rejseholdet" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from. | 0 |
This is an almost action-less film following Jack, an insomniac, as he goes through hallucinations, is visited by dead friends, throws himself off a building, and, for a lot of the time, can't tell reality from hallucination.<br /><br />Dominic Monaghan, as Jack, is truly believable. Confused, and scared but lethargic and, at times blankly accepting of what he sees, we follow him trying to sort out what he's seeing and find a way to sleep.<br /><br />Introduce a talking dog (another hallucination) and children that suddenly appear in Jack's bathroom and bedroom without any explanation as to how they got there (more hallucination) and you have an interesting, mind boggling, 43 minutes And the shower scene is enough to get any Dom fan coming back for more. | 1 |
'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie. | 0 |
If you enjoy the subtle (yes, I said subtle) actions and reactions of John Candy, you can't help but like this film (pronounced "fillum" by Salvatore DiPasquale). The unobservant (and uninformed) watcher always saw Candy as a broad actor - a big buffoon. And sometimes he was (see "Stripes" and "Splash"). But, when given the opportunity, he could really be razor-sharp and quite subtle. It's too bad he was cast in so many roles that only showed his broad side, because we'll never get to see more of the other. Oh, yeah, the movie. One can watch "Going Berserk" over and over (I know I have) with the frequency of "Caddyshack." It's just that good. The plot, although a little convoluted, is actually fairly deep for a farce of this kind. It allows Candy and the always under-rated Joe Flaherty and Eugene Levy to bounce off of Candy...and they bounce HARD. Definitely worth a glance for anyone who enjoyed SCTV or Candy's other work. | 1 |
I don't see that much wrong with this movie. Granted, the principal singers might not be Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas, but they can certainly carry a tune. Burt Bacharach and Hal David are talented songwriters and I happen to love their songs, especially "The World Is A Circle", "The Things That I Will Not Miss", and "Question Me An Answer". Some people claim that Hermes Pan's choreography is ghastly and that the snowy mountain sets look as if they were made of plastic; I disagree on both counts. I've seen powdered snow before and the snow in those mountain scenes looked realistic to me. And most of all, in this film's defense, it is appropriate for a family audience (at least I remember it being that way when I saw it on Christmas Day a few years ago.) With all the outcry over sex and violence in the cinema these days, I find it refreshing to note that this film deserves its G-rating. And they don't say that naughty "F" word every ten minutes like some films I've seen. Thank God. So although this film may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does have some redeeming value and I give it ten points out of a possible ten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. | 1 |
First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.