text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and in the future.<br /><br />The character actors laid the foundation and entertained us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each person for us while trying to protect "Lishka" (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps us decide who we are going to root for in the end.<br /><br />If we could ever achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of events such as these.<br /><br />A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a doll in a toy store.<br /><br />Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been somewhere! | 1 |
A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love/hate type relationship between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a scam bigger than he's letting on. | 1 |
"Tragic Hero" is a film that is most definitely trying to emulate the classic Godfather films, focusing on family, crime, loyalty, and revenge. Also, this is part of a two part series as The Godfather also was (at the time). However, this film comes nowhere near the level of those classic films and actually fairs worse than other Triad thrillers being released in Hong Kong at the time.<br /><br />One reason is the acting. With the exception of Chow Yun Fat, the acting is generally over the top and unbelievable. The audience tends to find the proceedings humorous simply because the actors' inability to maintain any degree of seriousness. As a result, we find the film not truly emotionally involving or intense since we don't particularly care what occurs with these characters.<br /><br />Another reason is its lack of focus. The narrative tries to incorporate many different story elements into the film, but this results in portions of the movie becoming underdeveloped as well as lacking any real sense of coherency. The audience sometimes becomes lost at the proceedings we are viewing, not knowing what the character's motivations are.<br /><br />The film's climax does contain a decent gun fight, but again since we don't care about the characters, we don't care who lives or who dies; The scene loses it's intensity and suspense because of this. The other action set pieces are rather mundane in nature, with a feeling of it being too controlled rather than free flowing.<br /><br />In general, this is a strictly average film and isn't recommended to the general film viewer... Only hard core genre enthusiasts and fans of Chow Yun Fat should consider this film for viewing. | 0 |
Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.<br /><br />Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest<br /><br />0/10 | 0 |
I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.<br /><br />The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.<br /><br />For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.<br /><br />It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the "cult" inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.<br /><br />The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the "truth," as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.<br /><br />It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.<br /><br />Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.<br /><br />The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.<br /><br />It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of **** | 1 |
Hellboy revolves around classic comic book/action/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).<br /><br />The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem
.<br /><br />Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc
Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.<br /><br />Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life
.<br /><br />The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.<br /><br />What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out <br /><br />The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.<br /><br />The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it. | 0 |
I don't know if I'm just weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film. <br /><br />Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :) | 1 |
Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir. | 1 |
I liked it... just that... i liked it, not like the animated series... i love it!!!. The fact that this make less appealing is that we all try to compare and not to appreciate, but this cartoon was awesome, but it really didn't like it that much. There's too much people talking about Bruce being so cold, but if this is around 5 years later, anybody in a crime-fighting gang would get this angry and darker attitude, so to me it isn't a flaw. Batgirl was awesome she really fit there, as there isn't more Dick Grayson as a robin, batman needed a good teammate, not like the new robin, he is just a child and you cant rely that much on a child. But heres what didn't work: The new artwork... it isn't horrible but... to me it does'nt work in a series like batman. This is a dark character, with a maniac killer like the joker, so you cant put this kind of artwork in this cartoon, The joker isn't a bad design but i still like the past joker (but to me the BEST joker ever was the one who appeared in batman beyond:return of the joker) , so this joker isn't near as good. The good thing about the joker is that it still mark Hamil voice. My favorite character: Harley Quinn (im in love for her) They put an awesome episode for her: Mad love (to me the best episode of this series). Here we finally know how she turned Harley Quinn, and how the joker twisted her mind, and it feel that atmosphere that you feel in the animated series, darker, no happy ending, brutal fight with the joker (but too short), this is how it was to be ALL the series. BUT in general i didn't like how she made Harley in this series... in almost every episode they put funny but in a ridiculous way, she get punched, she say nonsenses, she make flaws... c'mon she is funny in a way you can laugh with her, not from her... and here they put ridiculous (like i said the only episode where i don't think that its in mad love and beware of the creeper) So in general its a good series, it has it upsides and downs, the drawn could be better ( MY GOOD!!! KILL THAT CATWOMAN!!!!) nice sound effects, nice music, nice voices and nice episodes: my favorites, Mad love, Jokers millions, Old Wounds, Sins of the father, and Cold comfort. If you enjoyed Batman:TAS you can watch this but don't spec too much, in the other hand if you didn't watched TAS, watch this first and then watch TAS in that way you're really gonna love TAS :D | 1 |
When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.<br /><br />When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.<br /><br />All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.<br /><br />It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.<br /><br />Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it. | 0 |
I am decidedly not in the target audience for this film. I am a man nearly 50 who has only recently stumbled across the world of independent film. This happened quite by accident, with the discovery of a movie called Clerks late one night on television. The first two things I noticed about that film were that it was 1) technically amateurish and 2) brilliantly written. When I read an interview with the director in the local paper and he said that one of his influences was Clerks, I started to get interesting. When he said his main influence was The Station Agent, a movie I'd seen on DVD a week prior, I decided I had to go and check it out. The result could be described along the same lines as Clerks, although the two films are nothing alike content wise. Both films suffer from technical gaffes that are overcome through amazing writing. Whereas Clerks is a day in the life of a man who has nothing in his life at all and is afraid to ask tough questions about himself and his situation, Less Like Me is about a man who seemingly forces himself to be constantly busy, he's always running one way or another, filling his life with little things so that he will never have to deal with the big ones. The themes and ideas of this film are strong and poignant. I can tell from watching it that not much has changed since I was growing up, young men still have the same problems they always have. The writer dresses up these problems and themes in the modern vernacular, crafts wonderfully honest characters, and has them do completely believable things. As far as indie cinema goes, this may not be perfect from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one, it is very close. | 1 |
At one time `Buddy Cop' movies ruled the box office. It seemed that every summer flocks of Beverly Hills Cop wannabes descended on our nation's theaters. Not any more. Lately the gusher has dried to barely a trickle. The drought has eased a bit recently with the release of Showtime, a movie that is a genuinely funny and consistently entertaining example of the genre.<br /><br />Mitch Preston is a dedicated cop. He's not a Dirty Harry type by any means. He's just incredibly focused professional who's completely intolerant of anything that gets in the way of the performance of his duties
like, say, a T.V. cameraman. Mitch deals with the cameraman in a socially irresponsible way and so falls into the clutches of Chase Renzi, a producer looking for a killer hook for her `reality T.V.' cop show. She thinks that Mitch will give her the `edgy' boost it needs to be a hit but feels he may be too unlikable to carry the whole show by himself. Enter Trey Sellars, a patrolman-cum-actor who's watched way too many Police Story re-runs. Of course Mitch and Trey mix like oil and water and much merry mayhem ensues.<br /><br />We know that Mitch and Trey are bound to become best buddies by the end of the movie. That's the way buddy-cop movies are suppose to work. In fact, it has to be said that Showtime rarely deviates from the time-honored clichés as writ by Lethal Weapon and Tango & Cash. There's a high tech McGuffin to get the ball rolling (in this case an automatic rifle that fires rounds big enough to stop tanks.) There's a slick foreign baddy with an accent of undetermined origin. There are chases, shootouts and explosions. We all know this going in and we have a pretty fair idea how it's all going to turn out. You know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, we know the well-worn bases are going to be touched but the fun here is the trip, not the destination. Showtime doesn't strain to be original. Instead its energies are funneled into its characters and humorous situations. As a result, Showtime does a competent job with the action sequences but really shines in its comedy.<br /><br />Robert De Niro is dryly funny as Mitch. In the past I've thought De Niro to be a cold and unexpressive actor given horribly to mugging when called upon to do comedy. Lately, though, he's grown on me. He seems to be injecting more humanity into his roles. Eddie Murphy is hilarious as Trey. The best way to describe his performance is that Trey is what Murphy would be if Murphy weren't so talented and hadn't hit the big time. Rene Russo has a droll time playing motor-mouthed show biz shark Chase Renzi. She stalks through the movie chasing high Nielson ratings with awe-inspiring determination. In her zeal she re-vamps Mitch's life to make it more camera friendly. She even calls upon T. J. Hooker himself, William Shatner, to show Mitch how be a more `authentic' cop. Shatner is funny, playing himself precisely as we expect him to be, loud, oblivious and slightly obnoxious.<br /><br />I have to admit I was really looking forward to Showtime and I wasn't disappointed. Ten years ago this movie would have been a guaranteed hit. Today it's doing moderate business at best. That's a pity because Showtime is a whole lot of fun. | 1 |
A Classic Hollywood Biopic is the best sense of the genre. Gooding and DeNiro both give spectacularly heartfelt performances in the two leads roles, and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent, with standout performances by Carl Lumbly and Michael Rapoport. <br /><br />The only "nit" I might pick is that Theron's role was unnecessary & distracting (not her performance which was fine, it's just that the film seemed to add two unnecessary scenes to accommodate her role.)<br /><br />Aside from that, the characterizations, dynamics, and action of the real-life story are riveting and unforgettable. The evolutions of the main characters and how what they experience evolves their beings are uniquely characterized by the performing artists. Despite the movie's extreme length, the pacing stays intact throughout. The score is also terrific.<br /><br />Us this a predictable Hollywood film? You bet. So, Mike Leigh addicts should subtract a star, but everyone else should enjoy mightily. | 1 |
Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare. | 1 |
Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.<br /><br />I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.<br /><br />Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about "new moon, more victims", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it. | 0 |
This is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clichéd. Clichéd dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a "Honeymooners" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.<br /><br />Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.<br /><br />This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent. | 0 |
Steven Vasquez directed and co-wrote with James Townsend, the star, this strange little drama cum horror flick with evidently very good ideas and intentions: make a gay film that takes a different storyline than the usual fare and make a drama that wants to be judged on its merits as a thriller. So why doesn't it work? For starters the film loses direction from the opening frame and wanders rather aimlessly throughout the film, dead set on making a suspense thriller but getting sidetracked into satisfying an audience who wants to see nude encounters. Not that that is a bad thing: it can certainly enhance some films that have been Hollywood successes. The film also tries to talk about coming out experiences in young men and women, relationships, disturbed parenting, the club scene with all the wild antics that accompany such events - and murder. It is all a bit much to cram into a 96-minute film.<br /><br />Devon (James Townsend) by all appearances is a successful kid with a kind girlfriend Jenna (Sarah Kelly) but he has an eye for boys and visits a bar where he meets Brian (Alex Wilson) who has been down the same path and can offer Devon assistance on every level. They bond, Devon comes out, and the mysteries begin: boys are missing in the neighborhood, Devon's stepfather psychologist Dr. Kirk Tyler (Dan Swett) is not at all what he appears to be and despite Devon's consoling mother Donna (Sonja Fisher) Devon is cast into the streets because of his new relationship. It seems Dr Tyler is in a dark business with hunky Detective Cunningham (Earl McDougle) who apparently is investigating the missing boys... Devon gathers his resources from his understanding girlfriend Jenna and her cronies and together the group unveils the dark doings of Dr. Tyler and his detective sidekick. And through it all Donna radiates warmth and understanding as the perfect mother of a gay boy, etc.<br /><br />Some of the actors are pleasing to the eye (and there is very little the eye doesn't examine frequently!) but the degree of acting is at an all time low. The only thing that makes us forgive that (and in some cases it is just too poor to forgive) is the feeling of commitment on the part of everyone involved. Yes, this is a low budget movie and yes, the director needs time to learn his trade. But in the end there is something to be said for the involved people to try to take a gay film to a different level. Maybe their next one will be more polished. Grady Harp | 0 |
Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It was enjoyable from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is about mentally challenged man who helps out with a football team.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.<br /><br />The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing "I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number "Lookin' for Trouble" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything | 0 |
I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.<br /><br />If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an "old-fashioned" type, then don't bother. | 0 |
Why you ask does this man claim to have the truth behind the existence of the almighty? Well its deductive logic my friends, you see I know God exists because Satan does, how else would my poor eyes have been soiled on such a horrendous film? Yes there is no doubt about it, on a cold Friday in the year 2006 Satan possessed me and forced me to watch this film. He what? You wonder; the devil makes little girls spit up vomit and climb ceilings, why would he waste his time in making you watch this film? My only conclusion to that query is that Satan believes watching Camp Fear is the worst form of mortal punishment, not gouging out your eyes or making you speak in tongues, instead making you sit mindlessly through one and half hours of the most awful film making ever. Can this film be as terrible as he says? Yes my friend watching this film is the equivalent of getting kicked in the sack about fifty million times, maybe more. But maybe I am being too harsh, this film does have a few moments in it, the beginning for example, starts in a sorority house with a lot of topless girls; now never being in a sorority I am unsure if girls really do this, but hey one can always pray. Now after the five minutes of boobs and butt cheeks has ended we are presented with a scene on campus at an all girls college; the girls themselves (about eight in all) are in an archaeological class, where they discuss virgin sacrifices and ancient mounds. Flash forward the professor of the class (who happens to be the only male at this girls college apparently) takes a handful of his nubile students, plus girlfriend, to a remote lake in the mountains, their quests, to find ancient Indian artifacts; yeah right professor, we know what angle your pitching. Now this is where the movie gets going, the group of five, four girls, one guy stops at a gas station to get some directions, but lo and behold a biker gang pulls up and harasses the girls, only to eventually leave them alone and go their separate ways. Moving on they get to a "campsite" consisting of four logs and some trees and then things start to go horribly wrong. First the prof. and his girlfriend go wandering away to have some alone time when one of the girls takes it upon herself to find them, only to be captured by some unknown force. Continuing on the other two girls begin searching for the missing girl when the bikers, plus one drunk guy, come looking for them, their plan, to rape the girls and do horrible things to them. The movie goes on with something about a druid needing four virgins for a sacrifice to save the world from some kind of water monster before the year two thousand; but their is a hitch to this plan Mr. Druid, one of the girls is devirginized right before us, so away goes that plan. Now since I said there would be spoilers I'll go ahead and ruin the end of the movie for you, the four girls get taken, drugged with some green goo and then are ready to be sacrificed, after one of them is killed the two remaining bikers and the prof. come to save them; they stand upon a ledge where the not lead biker says, "I think I can make it down there!" only to leap down and break his leg. The prof. runs at the guy and gets subdued only leaving the once rape-minded-now-heroic biker left to fend off the 6'3" giant druid. First he makes a pathetic attempt with a stick then pulls a knife, the knife reflects some lazer beam within a gold snakes mouth and lights the druid on fire instantaneously. Afterwords they carry the wounded away via emergency stick stretchers and ponder if everything is really over, only to have the lake bubble showing the monster within it still lives. In a nutshell that is the film and this is my review, which unfortunately will go unread by most eyes since this is only the fifth posted review for a film that has been out for fifteen years. Thankfully Satan can only get to some of us and not all. The Judge would like to make one heartfelt apology to the poor girl at Circuit City I am going to let borrow this movie; "I'm sorry Sheila, please don't hate me for letting you watch this." | 0 |
This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods. | 1 |
I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the "über-vamp" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed more like a caricature or cliché than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all, just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover! Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms.<br /><br />The film in a word is "charming". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the performance of Murvyn Vye as "Zoltan". He was very magnetic in the short time he was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice.<br /><br />Finally, a sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film is a tad far-fetched. | 1 |
I saw this film in Winnipeg recently - appropriate, given the location used. I first read Lawrence's book back in the 70's and for me, it's always been a very powerful picture of the trials of aging in our society. It resonated when I was young, and it resonates even more now. When the film came out, I was keen to see if the story could survive. and was thoroughly impressed, especially with Ellen Burstyn's performance. She manages to give us a complete human being, even though the character is generally cranky and judgmental - someone that you wouldn't want to live with. It's great to be able to see favourite characters come to life so authentically. | 1 |
The main point of the movie, IMO, is the fact the Joanna's whole life has been nothing but a series of facades. The movie opens up with her secretly dying her gray roots, and hiding the used kit in an empty tissue box. What is strange is that she is hiding this from her HUSBAND. If she has to hide mundane things from her loved one, one can bet that she is hiding even bigger things from others involved in her life.<br /><br />When Joanna accidentally hits Cory, she leaves the scene to call the police. By the time she returns, the police and ambulance are there, as well as people from her community, remarking "What kind of person hits a child then just leaves her there?" Well-respected in her community, she makes the decision to keep quiet about what she had done. But, she never realized how difficult it would be the keep up her facades...<br /><br />Great movie-I have seen it many times! | 1 |
I like the film, it´s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I compare it with "Johnny Guitar" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one.<br /><br />The character of the female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man´s world. She´s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she´s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful at this at the start of the movie), she´s primitive (she can´t even read), she is desperated and she get´s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of her obstinacy and she´s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate "hero" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case "she", but there has been a female "Anne" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality.<br /><br />The film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe, Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person, being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy (as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour. | 1 |
I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous. | 0 |
I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest! | 0 |
Being a big fan of Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange there was of course "no question about it" that I had to see this one. However I put it off far too long because some of my friends discarded it with comments like "extremely boring" or "nothing happened" "a complete waste of time". But when I saw images on the internet of the mysterious black monolith I was allowed to see a glimpse of the exquisite experience that is 2001: A Space Odyssey. There was no doubt in my mind that I was going to rent that movie the same evening. <br /><br />It turned out to be the greatest visual experience of my life. Of course, watching a very good painting or picture can be wonderful, but watching a movie constructed with the same kind of virtuosity in every frame adds a whole new dimension to it. My god... I like my friends a lot but it's a pity that I can't share with them the very thing that makes my heart jump up with excitement and makes my spirit fly like a bird in the sky. That thing, my friends, is beauty. As this film goes to show, beauty is terribly underrated in our technologically advanced, intellectually shallow, consumer driven fast-food western societies. That doesn't mean however that I reject these fast-paced societies or that I look down on them (and neither does Kubrick) but only that they can be so much more if only people would stop for a moment and take a little time to absorb the sheer beauty of the world we live in. And what better opportunity is there to do this then by slowing down to the elegant pace of this film and to let yourself be taken to that place between waking and dreaming. <br /><br />When we go to this place it is possible to get a so called "natural high". It is something that our spirit can do whenever we meet pure and boundless beauty. And never in my life has this "natural high" or "spiritual orgasm" as it is called by some or "samaddhi" by others been more intense. Yes it's more intense than a regular orgasm... several times more intense actually. Many religions have claimed that this particular feeling proves that they are right. Are they right? For me a straight answer to such a question would only detract from the impenetrable mesmerizing mystery of the universe. In my opinion the film tries to convey the same mystery through the depiction of the black monolith and by stating the following about it: "Except for a single very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter the four-million year old black monolith has remained completely inert. Its origin and purpose are still a total mystery." The trance that Bowman experiences is the same thing I experience when watching those gorgeous visuals. <br /><br />I can imagine that mystery can be frustrating for those who need straight fast-food answers to big ontological questions. But instead of giving us comfort we are constantly irritated by the awareness of the simplifications that are contained in these answers. The doubt and discomfort that is subsequently caused will make us point to our deeper intellectual activity as the source of all this trouble, while in fact we only have our easy answers to blame. But this film shows us that when fast ontological statements give rise to nothing but doubt, we can always rely on phenomena to make some sense out of the world. From the moment you realize that beauty is something that can only really be presented to us as a phenomenon and never as a "thing in itself" the mysterious black monolith is no longer disturbing, frightening or irritating but instead becomes fascinating, enchanting and maybe even comforting. We don't need an answer to what's really out there to be in touch with one of the greatest forces in our lives. When we are able to let mystery be what it is, to embrace it even... we can finally bring our souls to rest. I am pretty sure though that a film that contains so much beauty and so much philosophical and artistic depth can never really be surpassed. Especially now that the greatest director who ever lived is no longer with us. | 1 |
The trailer is so deceiving... I thought this will be a good film... What was the point in bringing the women in Hong Kong for being killed? They could have done it in Paris. And the fist half hour:<br /><br />-You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't! -You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't! -You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't!Repeat for 100 times... then... Well I don't love you... So i shoot you! :D So here is the reason why movie piracy is a good thing! Imagine if I would have even give money for this torture! I'm sorry for the time I lost watching it... the film makers should pay me <br /><br />for the inconvenience... Worst film ever seen... | 0 |
Passing stones definitely one of the best comedy independent films ever. You must have a sense of humor to fully enjoy this one. This film for some reason hasn't received its credit due. First, lets start with the story line everyone loves a good treasure hunt. When a dead father leaves letters behind advising of a hidden treasure it not only brings two families together but starts a whirlwind adventure. Mix in a polish translator, a comatose mother, a crack-head with turrets syndrome, a twisted homosexual hypnotist, and one drag queen, money not only makes the world go round but can turn family into enemies. My favorite character in this film would have to be the sister/crack addict with turret's syndrome,her sudden out burst will have you crying and mimicking for weeks. | 1 |
That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know. | 1 |
This thriller is one of the few (film) surprises I've had in quite some time. Everybody - and I do mean EVERYBODY - I talked to when it was in the theatres said it was awful...but then I got to thinking...none of these people really understand horror/thriller films or metal rock - so WHY DO I LISTEN TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE????? This film kicks ass - but ONLY if you are able to comprehend and enjoy this type of entertainment. In short (too late) - see it with an open mind and it might just open your mind. ...the soundtracks great too... | 1 |
A rating of "1" does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is. | 0 |
Since its release in 1983, "A Christmas Story", the Jean Shepherd-narrated story of his alter-ego, Ralphie, has become a true classic. "My Summer Story", however, still has Shepherd as the narrator, but it has absolutely none of the charm, and the characters are nowhere near the caliber of the original film.<br /><br />"My Summer Story" is basically a mishmash of mediocre and just plain not very interesting stories, which include hillbilly neighbors and battling tops. Charles Grodin, who I normally like, is extremely unlikeable in the role of the father (more aptly handled by Darren McGavin in the original), and his character never seems anything but forced. Kiernan Culkin is a poor substitute for Ralphie, and the little brother is all but forgotten here. Only mom seems to have any worth here and perhaps that's because she beans a cinema manager with a gravy boat when he pushes his luck too far with irate housewives on "free dish night".<br /><br />The stories in this are mostly inconsequential and stretched paper-thin. May appeal to the extremely undemanding but as a sequel to "A Christmas Story", it's a very poor one and not worth most people's time. 2 out of 10. | 0 |
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it. | 0 |
I switched this on (from cable) on a whim and was treated to quite a surprise...although very predictable this film turned out to be quite enjoyable...no big stars but well-directed and just plain fun. With all the over-hyped crap that is out there it is very nice to get an unexpected surprise now and then... and this little film fits the bill nicely. 9/10 | 1 |
This really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say "yeah" and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen. | 0 |
`Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film.<br /><br />Within the shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of `Damon Runyonesque' characters.<br /><br />Their struggles with moral dilemmas, dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than relying upon `in-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship between Inez and Mac/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is outstanding<br /><br />The script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national distribution.<br /><br />Conrad F. Toepfer | 1 |
Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time. | 0 |
Final Fantasy: Advent Children is and will remain a classic example of style over substance gone wrong. Instead of drawing upon the memorable characters and captivating mythology of the original game, Square Enix has churned out a frivolous montage of incomprehensible battle scenes. Yes, I said "incomprehensible." Did you know that Tifa knows blindingly fast Kung Fu techniques that magically cause the camera angle to shift every second? That Cloud can effortlessly suspend himself in midair for a full minute while wildly swinging away with his 2-ton sword? The English dub is mediocre. While not egregiously bad, it is far from well-produced. The quality is comparable to that of an average anime dub.<br /><br />Here is what I'd like to say to the die-hard FFVII fans who can't stop gushing over this movie: Advent Children is the best fan service you could have hoped for from Square Enix, but even a trashy CG flick like Galerians: Rion had a better story. You'll be embarrassed by this movie and its lack of thought in due time. The days of its novelty are numbered.<br /><br />Movies like Advent Children make me question whether Square Enix recognizes the potential of its franchises. After all (and no offense), it's a Japanese company. Japanese developers can deliver fun games, but most of their offerings are disappointingly shallow. They are utter psychos, however, when it comes to production quality. Advent Children features some of the most breathtaking renders in CG history, but that doesn't save it from its convoluted plot and cardboard characters.<br /><br />Any fan who followed this film knows Sephiroth comes back. Bending the story to accommodate his resurrection was a big mistake.<br /><br />NOTE: The one point I give this "film" is in honor of the 10,000 enslaved Japanese animators who gave their lives to render each bleached blond hair on Cloud's effeminate Caucasian head. | 0 |
It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.<br /><br />Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.<br /><br />Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.<br /><br />The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.<br /><br />Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.<br /><br />No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.<br /><br />Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture. | 0 |
The fifth "Black Emanuelle" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).<br /><br />Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in "Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.<br /><br />The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!! | 0 |
'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.<br /><br />In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.<br /><br />This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.<br /><br />Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch. | 1 |
Just awful. It's almost unbelievable that, with characters and situations provided by Dashiell Hammett, such a plodding, passionless mishmash could result. But that's television for you -- filler between commercials. The first warning signal sounds from the fussiness of the period re-creation, which screams "1928" in banner type. Flivvers and touring cars, fedoras and waistcoats, cloches and speakeasy jazz (jarringly played) -- with all the attention paid to pointless, arty detail, the important matters get ignored.<br /><br />Like narrative clarity, or plausibility, or competent writing and acting. The plot sets one of Hammett's operatives ("Hamilton Nash" so whether he's called "Ham" or "Nash" we think of "Hammett" or "Dash") investigating a bogus diamond theft. Thus is introduced the young woman who supposedly carries the Dain Curse (the charmless and talentless Nancy Addison, who went back to soaps where she belonged); she belongs to a crackpot religious cult led by Jean Simmons and seems addicted to "drugs" as well; there's also a Mysterious Gaseous Drug which seeps into rooms....<br /><br />But enough. The writing is never more pedestrian than when it reaches for the poetic or high-flown, and the cast parrots it the only way they know how: by grotesquely overacting. Simmons gets treated like minor royalty from Old Hollywood, but the grande-dame treatment doesn't wash. Hector Elizondo for some reason enjoys second billing (after Coburn) for a dispensable part. Other familiar faces drift through, doing little good for their resumes.<br /><br />The actors aren't even photographed to look good; Jason Miller is an especial fright, but extreme close-ups of Coburn are pitiless, too. Coburn probably copped this role because, with mustache, he bears a strong resemblance to Hammett. He needed more guidance than that; nobody has given him the vaguest hint as to how to play his character, or of the story's tone, or of how the different strands of the plot mesh together (they don't, at least not in this telling). So he flashes his big Chesire-cat grin whether called for or not.<br /><br />The Dain Curse is available on videotape, in a variety of lengths. For those foolhardy enough to "see for themselves," the shortest abridgement is the kindest cut of all. | 0 |
Henri Verneuil's film may be not so famous as Parallax View, 3 Days of the Condor or JFK but it is certainly not worse and sometimes even better than these classic representatives of the genre. Action takes place in fictional western state where fictional president has been killed. After several years of investigation, special government commission decides that president was killed by a lone gunman. But one man - prosecutor Volney, played by Yves Montand - thinks there's something more to be investigated and so the film starts. This movie doesn't deal with some exact theories, but it embraces the whole structure of relationship between government and society in today's world. Such film could be made only in the 1970-ies but it will never lose it's actuality. Furthermore, it's even a bit frightful how precise are it's oracles. 10 out of 10. | 1 |
Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.<br /><br />But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.<br /><br />So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good timeso why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous endingin which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the moviemy head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.<br /><br />And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...<br /><br />'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the bestbut don't expect too much. | 0 |
This is possibly the worst thing I've ever seen on television. First, I'm pretty sure it takes itself entirely seriously, and I tend to be pretty good at recognizing satire. Second, it displays Aristotelian levels of chauvinism; in one of the ads for it, one of the "playas" describes women in terms of "quality". Third, every contestant I've seen on it (six, I think) was a dim-witted meathead of the variety likely to possess a Facebook with "BONING U" or "WOMEN" entered under "Here For". To paraphrase Roger Ebert, this doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel, nor deserve mention in the same sentence as barrels. The closest thing to a redeeming feature I've experienced with regards to Key to the VIP was having a female friend reassure me that the male cast were indeed the opposite of attractive, in both physical and mental terms. | 0 |
When I rented Domino I was expected it to be very dumb. I hate films that have really flashy editing and cinematography and Domino also just got very bad reviews. The only reason I watched it is because I like have liked Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Christopher Walken, and Tony Scott on other occasions. I also just enjoy based on fact adventure stories. Yes the editing and cinematography were frantic, the story was weak, and the acting was mediocre, but I still loved this film for some bizarre reason. Domino was very, very entertaining and often very funny. It was horribly underrated when it was released I think because everyone wanted more of an emotional journey like Scotts last film Man on Fire and instead just got wonderful entertainment. I actually understand why everybody hated Domino so much, even though I loved it and recommend it. | 1 |
*****SPOILERS*********<br /><br />This movie was truly awful. This woman deceives her employers right from the start and then selfishly proceeds to tear them apart. At the end you see her making a profession out of the trade she'd learned from the father of her "pupil". I put pupil in quotes because the governess never really seems to teach the child anything. She seems to hate her and can't stand being near her. I felt sorry for the little girl who simply wanted to be loved, absent that, it was understandable that she would say and do outrages things just to get attention but the viewer wasn't supposed to sympathize with the little girl, the viewer was supposed to sympathize with the governess who hated her pupil and manipulated and deceived her employers. I just couldn't do it. This was not the story of a self made woman, rather, it was a window into the mind of one who uses others at every opportunity with no other thought for anyone outside of her own family. I couldn't stand the governess! This was a really horrible movie. I only paid one dollar to rent it but even that was too much! | 0 |
Evening is an entertaining movie with quite some depth. All the actors and actresses turn in spectacular performances. With the tremendous cast, though, one expects stellar acting, but in this movie the expectations are exceeded. One can relate to personalities and situations in ones own family. As one watches the interaction of the family members one's own family memories are immediately brought to mind. This is one of the few movies that inspires one to read the book. Usually it is the other way around; one reads the book and then wants to see the movie. I will definitely obtain a copy of the Susan Minot book and read it. The Rhode Island scenery is spectacular as is the soundtrack. Any car buff will enjoy the apparently expertly restored period automobiles. Needless to say now, but I recommend Evening highly. See it you will enjoy it. | 1 |
if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.<br /><br />It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.<br /><br />Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.<br /><br />Someone said Waters was probably "chuckling" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or "chuckle" at that? <br /><br />Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say "HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!" No.<br /><br />Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.<br /><br />Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.<br /><br />To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.<br /><br />Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion . | 0 |
Plot: None. Script: A string of cliches. Acting: Not in evidence. Special effects: Title sequence kind of cool, but otherwise exceptionally poor. Fright factor: Crossing the road is scarier. Cult factor: Only the most desperate cult would latch onto this dog. Can't you say anything positive: I did. The titles were kind of cool.<br /><br />(Special bonus question ... your idea of hell: Being at a party with people who voted this flop a 7.) | 0 |
I will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.<br /><br />So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.<br /><br />The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's "quest" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).<br /><br />The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.<br /><br />In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.<br /><br />I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value. | 0 |
While the story of a troubled kid turning to boxing for self-respect and anger management is hardly a new thing, the story is given a fresh twist here when the protagonist is a girl instead of a boy.<br /><br />Diana has trouble at school. She just can't stay away from fighting. At home her father is constantly putting her down. Her brother trains boxing at a gym and one day when she picks him up she decides she also wants to train.<br /><br />It would be easy to call this movie a "Rocky with girls" i guess. But that is not at all what this is about. The story actually benefits very much from the main character being a girl rather than a boy. That way you can deal with more problems at once. First the problem of her not being accepted because she's not a girlie-girl, and then when she comes to the boxing gym because she's a girl at all. It's also a story about how a purpose can change someones life. How positive things can make you grow. I don't want this to sound pretentious, because the movie doesn't feel pretentious at all, but what i'm saying is true.<br /><br />Also Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the lead. It's a shame really that she has become stuck in the "tough girl" typecasting now, because that's really not what her part in "Girlfight" is all about. Sure she's a female boxer, but rather it's the more sensitive moments that really makes her shine.<br /><br />So maybe this is basically your average underdog story with a twist, but it's lifted way above the crowd by Rodriguez' performance. I rate this 7/10. | 1 |
I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON? | 0 |
I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully I might say lovingly made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.<br /><br />If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.<br /><br />Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.<br /><br />The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.<br /><br />Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.<br /><br />But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy
!" | 1 |
I think the majority of the people seem not the get the right idea about the movie, at least that's my opinion. I am not sure it's a movie about drug abuse; rather it's a movie about the way of thinking of those genius brothers, drugs are side effects, something marginal. Again, it's not a commercial movie that you see every day and if the author wanted that, he definitely failed, as most people think it's one of the many drug related movies. I, however, think something else is the case. As in many movies portraying different cultures, audience usually fully understands movies portraying their own culture, i.e. something they've grown up with and are quite familiar with. This movie is to show what those "genius" people very often think and what problems they face. The reason why they act like this is because they are bored out of their minds :) They have to meet people who do mediocre things and accept those things as if they are launching space shuttles on daily basis. They start a fairly hard job and excel in no time. They feel like- I went to work, did nothing, still did twice as better as the guys around me when they were all over their projects, what should I do now with my free time. And what's even more boring? When you can start predicting behavior not because you're psychologist, but instead because you have seen this pattern in the past. So, for them, from one side it's a non challenging job, which is also fairly boring sometimes, and from another they start to figure out people's behavior. It's a recipe for big big boredom. And the dumbest things are usually done to get out of this state. They guy earlier who mentioned that their biggest problem is that they are trying to figure out life in terms of logic (math describes logic), while life is not really a logical thing, is actually absolutely right. | 1 |
Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of "Broadcast News," good or bad, almost all the credit for that "thinking" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks. As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to savage an entire business -- in this case, the "business" being television news -- but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in abundance.<br /><br />One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical question -- "Did Walter Cronkite act like this?" Answerve: No! Of course not! And the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF.<br /><br />Now, of course, all that has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that?<br /><br />Let's consider "The Big Three": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings (aka "Stanley Stunning"). All three have now been on the job at their respective anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job). Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter. Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now, imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for (let's say, "put in") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one of these three would have been "put in" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit that he is, or once was, "the most trusted man in America." <br /><br />And this is what "Broadcast News" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field reporter who has no hope for a national job because he "flop-sweats" behind the anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in the news divisions of the various networks.<br /><br />"Network" blazed the trail. Eleven years later, "Broadcast News" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network "news you can use" ..... maybe. Or maybe not. | 1 |
Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes. <br /><br />This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror/comedy. <br /><br />I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!<br /><br />"Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!" Chucky<br /><br />We needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.<br /><br />6.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 1 |
This movie seems on the surface to be a run of mill kids movie that parents can regretfully watch with their mostly entertained little kids. The movie seems and is mostly geared towards children yet it does not stop on this level. I watched this movie first as a young child and found it to be funny, entertaining,and heartwarming and did not see it again for several years. I watched it again recently at age 18 and found it to be almost as funny but just as heartwarming and entertaining. This movie is highly underrated and contains many messages of real life. This movie is an inspirational quest story that is made for kids yet epic in its own right. I recommend this movie to anyone of any age. | 1 |
I enjoyed this film, perhaps because I had not seen any reviews, etc. It was delightful and a little bit of a 'romp'. I don't know why it didn't make more of a splash than it did. As far as the story goes, I could relate to some aspects of the Paul Reiser character, and I could "see my dad" in Falk's character. Made me remember a lot of past times when I was a kid and listening to my grandparents, too. If you enjoyed movies like Grumpy Old Men or On Golden Pond, this is your movie. A "sleeper", in my opinion, and one of those feel-good stories. Peter Falk and Paul Reiser had many wonderful verbal tussles, yet nothing was overdone. I would say it rates at least an 8, perhaps higher. | 1 |
I would hate to have anyone watch this "inspired by a true story" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse? <br /><br />This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. "In the Light of the Moon" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one. | 0 |
Jimmy (Heath Ledger) is given a simple job by Pando (Bryan Brown) a underworld kingpin to deliver money to a particular address, but when no one answers the door Jimmy decides to take a dip at the beach to pass some time, but he notices that his clothes on the sand have been messed up and the 10 grand is gone. Jimmy rings Pando to tell him the problem, but he doesn't want to hear it. Pando and his boys try their best to locate Jimmy, meaning no more Jimmy if they get their hands on him. So now Jimmy goes into hiding to organise a bank robbery to get Pando's money back. Also throughout this mess he meets the innocently sweet Alex (Rose Byrne) and together they're in for one hell of a ride through Sydney's King Cross.<br /><br />"Two Hands" is simply an engrossing pick-me-up film that's brisk, exhilarating and incredibly fresh. What you got here is pretty much an urban gangster film with a seedy backdrop and in-your-face violence
what, how's that fresh you ask? Well, because it takes us into the underworld where the Australian culture shines with criminals wearing thongs (flip flops) and footy shorts, done up cars and a can of beer in the hand
and don't forgot the Australian sense of humour, dry and sarcastic. You can say it owes a lot to the likes of "Pulp Fiction", "Goodfellas" (a fave of mine) and "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" for its inspiration, but for me it still stands on its own. The film has real mixture of light-hearted moments, but also a mean streak to it with some unexpected shocks and black humour that can actually be disturbing. You just don't know what's coming and it has a nice touch of snappy irony (especially the ending) and great timing with its humour. One scene involving a bank robbery will have you in stitches, I guarantee you. The plot's outline is really a coming to age story (or about the road not taken), with a punching love tale added and then the gangster element to finish it off. Most of the sub-plots were cleverly constructed and interlocked, well maybe it could've gone without the supernatural element involving Jimmy's dead brother, but in the overall context the diverse plot seems to all click together. Intense, natural and crisp dialogue filled the outrageously colourful script, with quick jabs of Aussie slang/twang - I'm fair dinkum! <br /><br />What truly made the film was that of Bryan Brown's performance of Pando. He just gave his character such a deviously charismatic/nasty persona that when he wasn't on screen his presence was still felt. He gave his character two sides - one being a prick, but the other side is such a good bloke. A young Rose Byrne glows with her nervously sweet/quirky character Alex. She looked radially gorgeous and added a bubbly personality. Then you got Heath Ledger who fit's the buck as the naive Jimmy. Great supporting cast involved with the likes of Susie Porter, Tom Long, David Field, Steve Vidler and Steve Le Marquand. Such raw performances are achieved and from that you get riveting, fun and believable characters. Pumping rock soundtrack bursting at the seams with the likes of Powderfinger and Alex Lloyd provide a cool vibe. Also being shot on location in Sydney's King Cross really helped it stick out by holding a life of its own and showing the Australian way of life. Gliding camera tricks captured the city's backdrop superbly, especially the piercing nightlife. This was a film that when it ended I was totally satisfied with what I got. Overall, a slickly paced crime thriller that achieves what it intended to do... a fun, clever and crazy roller coaster ride of thrills and excitement.<br /><br />I say, it's a successful Aussie take on "Lock, Stock and Two smoking barrels" by director/writer Gregor Jordan in his debut film. If you come across it, don't hesitate to it give it a go. | 1 |
In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.<br /><br />Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a "midquel", as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.<br /><br />The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a "second home country", be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.<br /><br />Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: "The Beatles are much better than us!"), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).<br /><br />Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid. | 1 |
Each year the company called Nu produces couple of "action packed", "full of suspense" movies. This little nugget, called Shadowcaster III(Until I visited this site I wasn't avare this is a whole trilogy), is a great example of the good job the company is doing. Frank Zagarino is as mean as always and does a great job as almost undestructable(?), schizophrenic(??) android. I won't waste any more words since I don't want to reveal the terrific plot and ruin you a couple of great laughs.<br /><br />Rating 2/10 (Revard for those hard working tehnicians. Man, putting together this kind of rubbish must be nervewracking.) | 0 |
I have never read a Jacqueline Susann novel, but I have also seen Valley of the Dolls, based on another of her books. On both occasions I thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). The reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion, design and behavior patterns. And in this aspect The Love Machine offers quite a lot. The set design fits the story perfectly. And all the characters fit in, too. They're perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. They are superficial and do not develop, it is true, but in this movie I wouldn't want it any different.<br /><br />David Hemmings reprises the role he played in Antonioni's Blow Up. And it's more than a rip-off. He's a fashion photographer, looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. Robert Ryan reprises the role he played in Max Ophül's Caught, he is Smith Ohlrig all over again, greedy, bored and boring, uninspired and uninspiring. It's possible Ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly, on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. Whatever happened, it fits the picture. Dyan Cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe!), she dominates every scene she's in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie: the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the Hemmings character with a Academy Award statuette.<br /><br />The title, The Love Machine, is, of course, meant ironically. Robin Stone is a kind of a Barry Lyndon of the pop era (incidentally, the movie IS slightly kubrickysh). That he chooses a TV station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. He sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. There are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. Homosexuality is treated very casually, probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. The open cynicism of the TV executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like A Face in the Crowd or Network or Truman Show. They are producing crap, they agree among themselves it's crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it.<br /><br />I did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following, provided it's given the chance (meaning a DVD release). | 1 |
I love this film. The noir imagery combined with Spillane's no nonsense character Mike Hammer works marvellously to create a mood and feel seldom found in low budget detective films of the early fifties. It may not be 'The Maltese Falcon' but this film makes it's own solid contribution to the genre. Spillane is often criticised for alleged misogyny etc, but his 'dames' are way above their male counterparts in terms of cunning and intelligence. Poor old Mike Hammer, as effectively played by Biff Elliott, is blinded by the beauty of the mysterious psychiatrist whom he meets when investigating the death of an army buddy. When the penny finally drops his face is a picture. Good to see that 50s censorship did not force the film makers to omit the famous last line. A bona fide low budget classic. | 1 |
Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.<br /><br />Avoid this like a leprous prostitute. | 0 |
A routine mystery/thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. During the early days of television, this one was shown so often, when Dad would say "What's on TV tonight?" and we'd tell him "Strangler of the Swamp" he'd pack us off to the movies. We went to the movies a lot in those days! | 0 |
Feature of early 21 century cinema of lets pit different evil creatures and bad guys against each other. We haven't seen stuff like this since Godzilla v King Kong and the like. Always sounds great on paper when you're splicing up and in a haze of the good stuff you have an inspired idea and see the whole playing out before you like Beethoven's symphonies. Then you come to writing it. Great ideas like all vampires are female. Ergo hot, seductive deadly but in a way I want to perish sort of way. And all zombies are men. well thats what men are like to a woman just after shes been dumped or cheated on right? So it all looks good up to actually making it. Then the rot starts to set in. Mosters have fight. Nothing much happens. Another fight. Philosophical noodling and cods wallop. Eureka we've found how to win. Big fight again and the End. Sounds great doesn't it? If it was made an indie company it would be great. But this is Hollywood with the eye on the bucks: gloss instead of what the fans want. It all could have been gore soaked beautiful. | 0 |
I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).<br /><br />I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.<br /><br />This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this). | 0 |
All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!" | 0 |
WORST MOVIE EVER!!!! Can't believe I wasted 90min of my life watching this crap. The only reason I didn't turn it off was I wanted to see the Gangster dude on the cover and he wasn't even in it talk about False advertising. The people that gave this movie a ten are either Dumb,Stupid or CAST MEMBERS or friends of CAST MEMBERS.<br /><br />I gave it a solid 2 because no one else did<br /><br />I have to write more and I don't even want to. wasting my time talking about this rubbish. Please don't watch it and if you did then vote so this movie can go where it belongs. bottom 100 movies. i can't even tell you how bad it really is. think the worst movie ever that you've seen then times that be ten and thats this movie. It sucked!! If you just think I'm being bitter then watch it I dare You!! This movie should be used to torture war criminals or Terriosts. If they Watch this even two times and they'll be spilling the beans and begging for MERCY!! | 0 |
Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies. | 1 |
Along with South Pacific, Guys and Dolls is for grown-ups - - it is sassy, sexy, and full of men being men and women being strung along.<br /><br />There is an energy and drive that makes this stand out from the pack - the strength of Jean Simmond's performance, and the charm of a young Brando, and an already masterful Sinatra add much to the overall feel and look of the piece.<br /><br />Guys and Dolls wins as it is unashamedly what it is: an MGM musical.<br /><br />Still good to look at and listen too with great tunes and dance numbers - it will remain one of the classics of 20th Century cinema and be watched with pleasure for years to come.<br /><br />Warmly recommended. | 1 |
In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.<br /><br />The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.<br /><br />Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.<br /><br />"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.<br /><br />At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.<br /><br />Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.<br /><br />Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history. | 1 |
The inspiration for this film was the fact that American Gangsters are well dresses, but the Aussies, well when you might kill a guy as soon as look at the blighter, then you can dress as badly as you want and people won't criticize you.<br /><br />Jimmy is fighter, an illegal boxer, sometimes bouncer and is offered work by Pando, the local gangster boss in the cross (That is, Australia's notorious Kings Cross District, not the Cross of London fame as many a British backpacker finds out the hard way).<br /><br />Due to feelings of love he stuffs up a job, loses a lot of money and has to get it to Pando before Pando and his heavies can kill him.<br /><br />Lots of dark humour, interesting action, revelations about the Australia's underside and human nature. It is very centred in the Australian nature and explores the nature of Australian criminals (versus the American and British ones).<br /><br />One problem is that each of the elements of the story don't have enough substance and depth, but it is a painting with broad strokes that covers a lot of area not covered previously, so as an overall package it is worthwhile.<br /><br />Team it up with "Chopper" and "Dirty Deeds" for your Aussie Crime fest or "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Miller's Crossing" for an International falling short of the criminal gangs fest.<br /><br />By the way, Bryan Brown is a great actor who has just done a huge number of really bad movies. Here is one of his great movies. | 1 |
this is the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't WATCH IT | 0 |
I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.<br /><br />The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.<br /><br />I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason. | 1 |
OK I caught this film halfway through, but.oh.dear.god.it.sounds.like.they're.all.reading.from.scripts.<br /><br />Especially that guy who is now in Teachers and the Book Group, although at least he has proved that he can act if he wants to! (the part where someone has a heart attack stands out as a bastion of bad film making both in terms of acting, scripting and general plausibility) It quite clearly appears to be a cash-in on Human Traffic, but whilst that is not the best film ever, it is at least original and had actors whose delivery did not resemble that of earnest-yet-hopeless GCSE students trying to get a pass grade. Not so much as Human Traffic as a bit of a car crash! | 0 |
This film is a knockout, Fires on the plain referred to is, (the burning off at the end of harvest time) A happy memory for Tamura, He relives this in his mind many time's,and at the end of this bleak film, Like a man dying of thirst, he believe's he is home and this last illusion is all he has left. Billy Wilder's The Big Carnival (Ace in the hole) is the only film (that comes to mind)that is as bleak as this little masterpiece by Kon Ichikawa. While I think the whole film is brilliant Two scenes that come to mind are when a platoon of Japanese soldiers trying to escape (Crawling on there belly's)are ambushed by Americans and massacred,True Horror, And as an American soldier and a pretty Philippine Girl soldier are having a cigarette on the side on the road, she smiles as she flits with the yank,then her face Changes to rage as she see's two Japanese soldiers trying to surrrender, she grabs a gun and kills them with joy, The American soldier attempts to stop her but has no chance , to me this speaks volumes at the atrocity's committed by the Japanese in the Philippines, all in all a great film if you have the stomach for it. | 1 |
For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.<br /><br />Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.<br /><br />Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's. <br /><br />Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.<br /><br />I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders. | 1 |
Bad, bad, movie, so bad it is worth watching. As long as you watch this movie knowing that it is bad and you'll be spending 2 hours of your time watching a bad movie, it's worth it. The special effects are cheesy and the animals look fake and the acting is bad, but watching the faces of the actors as they try to look frightened is just very funny. If your sister is about to be eaten by a giant komodo dragon wouldn't you do a little something to try and save her? If she did get eaten wouldn't you fall on your knees crying your heart out? This guy just sat in a chair and ran his fingers through his hair. How anti-climatic is that? Maybe he was supposed to be in shock or something. He does join his sister in the komodo's belly - oh didn't mean to spoil it for you. | 0 |
I loved this movie! It was adorably touching and funny. Finally, here's a story about a group of people who meet some challenges, flounder a bit, and then decide to just be themselves and end up happy for; when was the last time you saw that in a film? Dealing with the fluidity of life, love, and sexuality, the characters are faced with real problems (albeit in often ridiculous situations like the men's group camping trip, and the explicit realatory liaisons) and manage to learn and grow without the movie getting preachy, darkly desperate, or too unrealistic. You'll love and care about the characters who, far from being hollow stereotypes, portray real people with just a touch of the truth behind their would-be labels.<br /><br />A good romcom for a Saturday afternoon, and the only movie I've ever seen where sexual fluidity ends happily, and no one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. Far better than Kissing Jessica Stein, a good choice if your tired of watching gay movies that have some painful lesson and bitter lesson. Or, maybe you just like a good British romp? James Purefoy looks dashing as always, and Tom Hollander is deliciously funny. So go forth, watch, enjoy; you won't regret it! | 1 |
In 1970, feminists invaded the 'Miss World' beauty contest in London and brought the occasion to a halt by pelting the stage with flour and eggs. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they felt the event to be demeaning and degrading to women. I offer no criticism of their actions. Its a free world we live in. What I want to know is: why don't their modern-day equivalents invade the studios where shows such as this are made and do likewise? <br /><br />'Sex & The City' is all about four self-absorbed women from New York: Carrie is a slave to fashion who turns into a pussycat when a man so much as claps eyes on her, Charlotte yearns to find the perfect man ( they don't exist, love ) so she can use sex to ensnare the poor devil, lawyer Miranda scares men away by wittering nonsense like 'out of touch with my emotions', and lastly we have Samantha, the living embodiment of the old Martini ad 'anytime, anyplace, anywhere'. Feminists hold up these characters - particularly Samantha - as a shining example of modern-day womanhood. Well, if shouting rude words in busy restaurants is progress, I think the feminists should take a long hard look at themselves and what they're supposed to represent.<br /><br />Had 'Sex & The City' been the creation of a man, it would have been pulled from the airwaves for being sexist. Instead, like 'Charlie's Angels' before it, it has conned supposedly intelligent women into thinking it has acted as a positive force for good. There's something very clinical and cold-blooded about the show. 'The Benny Hill Show' was sexist too, but at least it was funny. | 0 |
Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view. | 0 |
Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.<br /><br />Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.<br /><br />This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3/10 | 0 |
I loved this movie! I'm shocked and disappointed that it never made it to the theaters. Every story was better than the last..much better than the much hyped "Scream" series and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"and way better than the terrible "Urban Legend". I'd recommend this film to every horror fan. | 1 |
I saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.<br /><br />At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.<br /><br />Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I rented domino on a whim, not even knowing it was inspired by a true story, and even though it's the least likely and true biopic you'll probably see. i found it to be rather awesome.<br /><br />With Richard Kelly writing he crams together a mass of plots and narratives into 2 hours of pure entertainment. And once you've seen it more than once you get it and appreciate it. <br /><br />Domino is a model turned bounty hunter who leaves the perfect Hollywood life to pursue a not so subtle or perfect career. It has an edgy acid trip style provided by director Tony Scott. And with fast paced music and editing, it provides the visual flare to keep your attention, with slick performances and unexpected comedy, the movie is well made and enjoyable and should have reached a wider audience. <br /><br />I suggest it to anyone who wants to think and be entertained at the same time for 2 hours. | 1 |
This is a hilarious film. Burt Reynolds is a NASCAR star who signs a sponsorship contract with Ned Beatty's Chicken Pit restaurants. The contract has all sorts of humiliating clauses in it, such as forcing Burt to wear a chicken suit during the race! Jim Nabors is his (not quite convincing) chief mechanic. Loni Anderson (oh, yeah!) is assigned by Beatty to keep Reynolds honest and strictly adhering to the contract. This is a funny film in which Burt proves that he ain't too proud. I like it! | 1 |
This is a movie that will leave you thinking, is he or isn't he? While many people have complained about the ambiguous ending, it gives room for the audience to think and interpret it from the signs. This is my interpretation and theory, and I believe it is very sound. <br /><br />First, here is the plot. One day, Prot (Kevin Spacey) suddenly appears in the midst of a busy train station. After attempting to help a woman from muggers, he is arrested and sent to Bellevue, and later transferred to Dr. Mark Powell's (Jeff Bridges) hospital. Prot freely talks about how he came from the planet K-Pax and is here to do a report on Earth. Naturally, he is classified as a looney and is locked up in a low security level ward. He befriends the other patients and quickly convinces them of his story. In fact, he tells them he can take one person back with him. Soon Dr. Powell is beginning to question Prot's insanity and as the plot progresses, it is harder and harder to prove Prot wrong. <br /><br />In the end, Dr. Powell learns that Prot is Robert Porter, a smart man who worked in a slaughter house in New Mexico, when his wife and daughter were murdered. Prot claims that he plans to leave for K-Pax at a precise time on the fifth anniversary of the murders. The time comes and goes, and Powell finds Prot or Robert in a catatonic state. One of the patients is missing and is never found again. <br /><br />On to my theory: Prot is not crazy. Prot is from the planet K-Pax. Robert Porter is a friend of Prot's. On one of Prot's previous visits to Earth, Robert was a child, learning about the constellations from his father. Prot and Robert became best friends. After the death of his family, and Robert slaying the murderer, Robert decides to commit suicide. Prot is on K-Pax at the time, but he rushes back (in multiples of light speed) to stop Robert. So Prot takes over the thinking of Robert, taking over his body so to speak. Awhile later, Prot (still inhabiting Robert's body) comes to New York and is locked up. When he leaves for K-Pax on July 27, he takes Bess with him, but he must leave Robert's body behind. Hence, we now have the catatonic Robert.<br /><br />Explanations or clues:<br /><br />PROT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANETS AROUND LIBRA: As Prot says, any child knows about their own system. Only a few people on Earth had an inkling about the system, and Prot added to their knowledge. Robert Porter, while smart and knows his constellations, was no astro-physicist. <br /><br />DR POWELL FEELS CHOSEN BY PROT: It's true. Prot could've left the institute at any time, but chose not too. Prot's last words to Dr. Powell are, "Now that you've found Robert. Take care of him." Prot was probably staying there to ensure a place for Robert when he left. <br /><br />SUPER-HUMAN ABILITIES: It was a proven fact that Prot had a significantly higher sensitivity to sunlight and could even see UV rays. Prot provides his usual K-Pax reason, but there was no Earthly reason given. It was also mentioned that Prot was given extremely high doses of medicine with no effect.<br /><br />HELPING THE PATIENTS: Throughout the movie, you see Prot helping the other patients (or the patients discussing Prot's suggestions) to a better sane world. While the psychologist balk at Prot's help, Dr. Powell talks at the end of the movie about the new lives the patients are leading.<br /><br />THE SPRINKLER SCENE: The sprinkler is associated with Porter's home in New Mexico (which is ironically where Roswell is). Does Porter associate the sprinkler with the death of his family? Is her trying to protect Powell's daughter from that horrible fate? I have a different point of view. It is assumed that Porter had committed suicide in a river. Indeed, Prot (under hypnosis) is greatly concerned about Robert. I believe that Prot associates the danger with the water, not the sprinkler. He is trying to protect the girl from watery death, like he did Robert.<br /><br />HYPNOSIS: Dr. Powell feels that under hypnosis he can uncover Prot's true identity, but while Prot gives plenty of information, he never gives up his Prot persona and claimed homeland of K-Pax.<br /><br />THE SECURITY CAMERA: Why would the camera just give out for no apparent reason? <br /><br />MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES: First, Prot disappeared for a few days to his trip up north. Funny, the patients are not at all alarmed. Indeed, they try to reassure the doctor. Sometimes I think they understand better than the staff. Naturally, the most telling disappearance is of Bess, the winner of the essay contest. Not only does she disappear at the approximate same time, but the only remaining clue is her winning essay.<br /><br />This is only my humble theory. You can conclude what you want. You can take Dr. Powell's theory, that Prot was merely a persona taken up by Robert Porter to mentally defend himself from reality, but that would be giving up too many plot holes. | 1 |
This deserves a 12 out of 10. An absolutely refreshing show with real characters and real stories. This show needs to come back, I've seen every episode and this is real quality.<br /><br />The show centers around a couple of New Yorkers, plays around with the concept of the six degrees of separation and cleverly intertwines their lives. Bridget Moynahan and Jay Hernandez are stunning and so is the adorable Caseman. The scenery is amazing and wardrobes are exquisite.<br /><br />We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones.<br /><br />If it never comes back, six degrees will be sorely missed. | 1 |
Richard Brooks excellent 1967 film of Truman Capote's novel IN COLD BLOOD is a perfect companion piece to Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar winning performance in the 2005 CAPOTE. They really play well together (try them on separate nights). It is unusual to find films made 38 years apart that mesh so well. These two truly enhance each other. Even though different actors play the roles of killers Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, the two pieces blend well. Only the part of the writer (played by Paul Stewart) in the Brooks films is weaker, as they give him a different name then Capote. I'd suggest watching CAPOTE first, followed by IN COLD BLOOD. It makes for a powerful experience! | 1 |
I definitely recommend reading the book prior to watching the film. This book won National Book Council Award in 1978 and is a very gripping read (pun not intended). It's not too difficult to read for those out there that don't read often so don't be afraid! The book seems to capture the passion of the relationships more so than the movie and the movie will make more sense after reading the book. Having grown up in Melbourne I could really relate to this book and movie. Very few Australian female writers were around the in the 70's therefore very little is documented about the way of life for a women in an urban city in Australia during this era or class. It's a precious piece of Melbourne history. It's a shame that it is documented as some sort of 80's soft porn movie. It's far from that and as the other reviewer has mentioned please do not read the DVD jacket, it does not represent what the movie is about at all. Those that rent the movie based on this description will only be disappointed. Just remember this movie was made in 1982, so don't expect the Hollywood over dramatization that they seem to incorporate these days. This is what I like about it. It's also great seeing Noni Hazlehurst in this role, she is just fantastic as Nora and it's great watching her really acting, for if you're close to my age you will best remember her for her stints on Playschool and Better Homes and Gardens. Who knew she hid this talent? This movie will give you an entirely new impression of her. A classic Australian Story! | 1 |
Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.<br /><br />The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.<br /><br />I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it. | 1 |
Another awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4/10 | 0 |
Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.<br /><br />But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect. <br /><br />This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening. | 1 |
So, Americans make t.v. series based on movies, whilst us Brits make films based on t.v. shows.It should never work, but on this occasion it does because of a sublime meeting of character and actor. Cliches are sometimes justly so, and Leonard Rossiter was BORN to play Rigsby.This is one of the great comic creations, kind of how Norman Bates would have turned out if he'd been melancholic instead if murderous. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.