text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around. | 1 |
A great, funny, sweet movie with Morgan Freeman (who plays himself) and who meets a Spanish girl named Scarlet (Paz Vega) at a small store whilst researching a potential independent film. I was a bit dubious about the film for the first ten minutes but as soon as he was in the store I really started to enjoy the film. It shows how a positive attitude can change anything. It does not contain any complex plots and it is easy to follow but will lift the saddest of moods and make you smile all the way through without the need for petty cliché romance. It includes several scenes all the way through which make you clutch your sides with laughter. A very rare masterpiece! | 1 |
This cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.<br /><br />The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.<br /><br />All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.<br /><br />Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.<br /><br />It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts. | 0 |
The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it. | 0 |
If the movies are to be believed, Chinese ghosts are much prettier and more mischievous than their Western counterparts. The storylines of the three 'Chinese Ghost' films are largely identical, but the direction is excellent and the detail and colour is such that it's not a huge problem. As always, humour is an integral part of the film, accompanied, of course, by a great deal of mugging. For those who haven't encountered the 'Chinese GhostStory' trilogy yet, this film offers an interesting departure from the Western horror/ghost genre; for those who have, another enjoyable romp in the Chinese ghost world. | 1 |
What can I say?? This movie has it all...Romance, break-ups, rich kids, punks and preps. This is my all time favorite movie that I can recite line for line....I remember when it first came out, I was 14 and couldn't get in....so finally got to see it on cable... I was hooked! Wanted to move to California and be a Valley Girl.. (Hey, I even remember the song by Moon Zappa, do you?) Tried in vain for years to get the never produced soundtrack...now you can find it on rhino records.... | 1 |
Karen and her boyfriend Jerry move into their new Los Angeles apartment.They discover an old brass bed that Karen takes a liking to,unfortunately it has a really sinister history involving kinky sex murders."Deathbed" tries to be a creepy supernatural tale,but fails miserably.The action is slow,the acting is nothing special and there is no suspense whatsoever.Even the sex scenes are lame.The climax is pretty gory and violent,so fans of splatter should be pleased.However the first hour of "Deathbed" is deadly dull and offers some tired horror movie conventions and cheap scares.Definitely one to avoid.My rating: 4 out of 10 and that's being generous.Watch "Re-Animator" or "Castle Freak" instead. | 0 |
Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.<br /><br />Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.<br /><br />Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing. | 1 |
This has no relationship to Virtual Encounters 1, so it's not really a sequel. The two videos just share the general concept of people having simulated sex through a virtual reality machine. So if you were really blown away by the story and dialog in VC 1 (yeah, right), and expecting a continuation in VC 2, just be warned. All the actors and actresses are new, but it has the same excellent director, Sybil Richards.<br /><br />But like VC 1, you get lots of beautiful women and a lot of great sex scenes that push the envelope of soft core just about as far as it can go.<br /><br />If you have VC 1 and you liked it, you'll like VC 2. If you don't have either, but like really good softcore sex, get both. | 1 |
I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.<br /><br />I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.<br /><br />Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.<br /><br />Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.<br /><br />The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing. | 1 |
If you are looking for a film that is quick witted and won't bore you then this is the place. It is fast paced and funny with some decent acting comeing from the characters. It is always hard for me to see Mark Walhberg as anything except Marky Mark. That image is burned in my mind forever. As an actor though he is pretty good. This movie is a must see for action fans who like to see a few little twists and turns. I will have to pick this movie up one day and buy it. | 1 |
The real irony is this: Joe Besser was a top notch comedian, in other situations away from the Stooges. He had a definite track record for being very funny and clever. Moe and Larry and Shemp had actually known him or at least of him for many years and liked his work. So what on Earth was going on when he joined the troop as the "third stooge"? Obviously, nothing. In most of these "late Stooge" era shorts, more often than not, the boys are pitted against each other or Joe against the other two and this is not accurate Stooge etiquette. "One for all, all for one, every man for himself", to quote Curly from "Restless Knights". One thing about a good comedy team, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Marx Brothers, no matter how much they all try to take advantage of each other or slap each other around, when the chips are actually down, they stick together and come to each other's aid. In this particular one, none of that happens. It's almost like watching a dog fight as one tries to cheat the others or be mean and nasty, and not for comedic effect either. One might assume that there was something behind the scenes going on here, art imitates life. Maybe there really was hence why Besser did not stay very long with Moe and Larry. Just look at the history of the other teams and tell me I'm wrong. | 0 |
This is, in simple terms, one of the worst films ever made. The story goes way beyond being tasteless and judging by the actors performance, they know it. There just in not one single redemming quality of this film. Patrick Swayze will have to overcome some major obstacles in his career, before people forget about this turkey. | 0 |
This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the "once saved always saved" doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.<br /><br />If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word "rapture" mentioned. | 0 |
Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. <br /><br />Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, <br /><br />hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.<br /><br />Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. <br /><br />However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as "The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias "Macintosh" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.<br /><br />Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10. | 0 |
Fun movie! The script is awful but the quality of actors saves the day. John Hurt is perfect, as is Jane Alexander. Beau Bridges is fair and the actress who plays his wife is very weak. The story is the true star. Based on a true story, the pace moves well and the whole concept of escaping East Germany sucks you in and holds you. Joyous ending provides enough elation to compensate for script. Don't expect Academy Award quality but it's a great ride for the whole family. | 1 |
I am right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end! | 1 |
SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his "muscles" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe. | 0 |
A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50. | 0 |
If you love Japanese monster movies, you'll love this action packed battle pitting an alien invader, intent upon conquering the Earth, and a "Giant Robot" with an armory of super weaponry. The alien, "Emporer Guillotine," from the planet Gargoyle, has a army of thugs called, (of course) "the gargoyle gang," as well as an endless supply of immense hostile creatures that are routinely loosed upon the Earth to smash buildings, make loud noises, panic the populace, etc. A little kid, named Johnny Sokko, has the Giant Robot at his beckon call, and sends the Robot, as needed, to beat up, and then blast these creatures. Johnny joins a group of "good spies" called Unicorn, and endeavors to help save the world.<br /><br />In spite of the campy nature, unintentionally humorous dialog, and the fact that the target audience was obviously children, this movie has non-stop action, colorful characters, decent special effects, and just happens to be downright fun to watch. Battle scenes are well executed, and frequent, as the storyline requires. The good guys and bad guys both made sure they had an inexhaustible supply of bombs, lasers, ammunition, and schemes to attack each other. In spite of the fact the movie was constructed from edited episodes of a TV series, the plot actually develops, and reaches an ultimate conclusion.<br /><br />The film has a positive outlook and appeals to everyone's (especially kids') desire to destroy evil in its many forms. Kids may be the target audience, but it's fun for everyone to laugh at its comical silliness; yet, at the same time, root for the good guys to prevail and "save the world." The acting is cheesy in places, but that is the charm: there are several lines of corny dialog (possibly translation errors or possibly intentional jokes by the movie makers), and you'll find yourself quoting these absurd lines later.<br /><br />Admittedly, this film is not high in production quality or budget. However, for what it is, campy sci-fi, it's enjoyable for some laughs. I recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor for that sort of thing. | 1 |
Kind of hard to believe that the movie from this book could succeed in topping its awfulness! The plot is so contrived and unbelievable. . . starting with laying a ton of guilt on a small child to spare her pain! Then we have the collusive behavior of at least six and maybe more people(including clergy) involved in what is a crime everywhere. Next we have a wife who seemingly in the length of a ferry ride goes from being comparatively happy to very shortly kicking over the traces. A very unpleasant and coo coo mother, aided, abetted and supported by a politically correct group of friends! Moving the setting from an island off the coast of South Carolina, did not help the story although it may have helped the film makers budget. The very beautiful buildings supposedly housing the monastery did not seem to logically suit an island small enough to need golf carts and such a small ferry service. Kim Basinger whom I do really like is painfully thin in this movie and her hairdo certainly belongs in another decade. Also there is simply no chemistry at all between her and either of the male leads. I thoroughly disliked the book from which this was taken but did read it all. The movie I kept surfing back and forth to, had to leave whenever that saccharine music got too much. Unless you like an unbelievable story, wooden acting, a contorted mixture of religious/mythological/allegory my advice is to skip this one. Oh and maybe a small carping criticism, but wouldn't a caring father have a life jacket on a small child on a small boat? The best part of this movie is the scenery | 0 |
This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better. | 0 |
Okay, so I'm Singaporean and I would like to say that it's time to stop stereotyping Singaporeans and making such films. Some of the actors/actresses actually have talent, but sadly it wasn't shown much in this film. I was fidgeting in my seat when I watched this, being quite young at that time, my parents dragged me along to see it. Honestly I could say that I was going to fall asleep. And there was this arrogant westernized boy whom just got on my nerves. Overall a boring film, and a general waste of the actors' talent. I have seen better Singaporean movies than this. Chicken Rice War was good. However, I cannot believe that this one would be considered a better Singaporean film. Sorry, I wouldn't recommend it. | 0 |
I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect. | 1 |
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS<br /><br /> The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.<br /><br /> The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.<br /><br /> The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.<br /><br /> Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese. | 0 |
One of my all-time favorite so-laughably-lousy-that-it's-totally-lovable el cheapo and stinko nickel'n'dime independent horror creature features, an enjoyably dreadful marvel that was released by the formidably fecund exploitation outfit Crown International Pictures so it could play numerous crappy double bills at countless drive-ins back in the 70's and eventually wound up being rerun like crazy on several small-time secondary cable stations throughout the 80's. I naturally first saw this gloriously ghastly abomination on late-night television one fateful Saturday evening while in my early teens and have had a deep-seated, albeit completely irrational abiding fondness for it ever since.<br /><br />A meteorite falls out of the sky and crashes into the still waters of a tranquil country lake, thereby causing a heretofore dormant dinosaur egg to hatch. Of course, the baby dino immediately grows into a gigantic waddling, grunting, teeth-gnashing prehistoric behemoth with goofy flippers, an extended neck and a huge mouth full of little sharp, jagged, stalagmite-like chompers. Our Southern-fried male cousin to the Loch Ness Monster promptly starts chowing down on various luckless local yokel residents of a previously quiet and sleepy hillbilly resort town. It's up to drippy stalwart sheriff Richard Cardella, assisted by the painfully idiotic hayseed comic relief brotherly fishing guide duo of Glenn Roberts and Mark Seigel, feisty gal pal Kacey Cobb and terminally insipid nerdy scientist Bob Hyman, to get to the bottom of things before the over-sized gluttonous Jurassic throwback ruins the tourist trade by eating all the campers and fisherman that the hick hamlet makes its cash off of.<br /><br />Director/co-screenwriter William R. Stromberg displays a wonderfully woeful and thoroughly clueless incompetence when it comes to pacing, atmosphere, taut narrative construction and especially eliciting sound, credible acting from his hopelessly all-thumbs rank amateur community theater level cast. The performances are uniformly abysmal: Cardella is way too bland and wooden to cut it as a solid heroic lead while the pitifully dopey redneck comic antics of Roberts and Seigel provoke groans of slack-jawed disbelief -- you aren't laughing with these two atrociously mugging clods so much as at them, particularly when the insufferable imbeciles discover a severed head bobbing up and down in the murky lake water. Better yet, a clumsily integrated sub-plot concerning a vicious on-the-loose criminal leads to a spectacularly ham-fisted supermarket hold-up scene which degenerates into a hilariously stupid mini-massacre when a young lady shopper interrupts the stick-up artist in mid-robbery! A subsequent car chase is likewise severely bungled as well; it's so limply staged and unimpressive that one feels more relieved than scared when the monster abruptly pops up to devour the nefarious fugitive. Moreover, David Allen's funky herky-jerky stop motion animation dinosaur is the authentic gnarly article, projecting a certain raw charisma, sneaky reptilian personality and overall forceful screen presence which makes all the horrendously underwhelming human characters seem like pathetically unbecoming nobody bores in comparison. And as for the rousing conclusion where the sheriff takes on our slavering beastie with a bulldozer, the operative word for this thrilling confrontation is boffo all the way. | 1 |
Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with "Envy", no one could save this disaster.<br /><br />Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.<br /><br />Nick's invention, titled "va-poo-rize" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.<br /><br />The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named "J-man", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.<br /><br />I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tux<br /><br />I say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals | 0 |
Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.<br /><br />On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results. | 0 |
But not too hip. And not too wisecracking. "Judas Kiss" nails the new noir thing just right. Great pacing and a nuanced score round out a twisty tale filled with sex, betrayal and sure-fire one liners. Inspiring work all around. Kudos in partcular to HalHolbrook (his best work ever), Gil Bellows (Ally Mc-what?) and Carla Gugino (the best famme fatale in ages... smart, funny and ultra HOT)... I give this a 9 (out of 10) and that's because 10 should be reserved for like, Humphrey Bogart and Coen Bros movies. | 1 |
Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game. | 1 |
I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time. | 1 |
Excellent example of the disaster that happens when you combine a challenging script with two actors chosen for physical appeal. It is rare for me to be consciously aware of the acting during the first viewing of a movie because I try to just go with the story and save the analysis for the second viewing. In the case of "Full Ride", the acting was so weak that the movie was impossible to appreciate as a story; I was too busy (during first and only viewing) alternating between laughter and nausea.<br /><br />Fortunately for most individual members of the cast, pretty much everyone in the ensemble is weak, the individual talent limitations do not contrast with any actual competent acting. Riley Smith and Meredith Monroe are at least well matched physically, finding common ground in looking far too old for the credible age of their characters.<br /><br />Unfortunately the script requires especially intense and convincing performances to portray their characters which just exposes Smith and Monroe's staggering lack of talent. On the positive side, they know enough to not look directly into the camera and they do not stutter.<br /><br />Better to have used a less attractive pair who could physically pass for the proper age. The basic story is not particularly original, just another variation on "An Officer and a Gentleman", but it would have provided a nice showcase for a talented pair of "teenage" actors.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm just a child. | 0 |
Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me.<br /><br />It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.<br /><br />The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.<br /><br />For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think "originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.<br /><br />Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an "encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).<br /><br />All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.<br /><br />There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.<br /><br />But (you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.<br /><br />Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.<br /><br />The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.<br /><br />The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.<br /><br />That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, "Okay, get on with the story already". | 1 |
Having seen, and loved this film in Australia, I was very keen to get me paws on a copy. I got one on DVD back in the UK only to find that it's a very different edit.<br /><br />The domestic Australain edit I saw is snappier. The UK ,and I presume European, edits spends a lot longer on the narrator played by Jimmy's dead brother.And in truth belabours that and few other points to no real benefit.<br /><br />It is not a serious criticism, but the Oz edit is just brisker and I think more assured.<br /><br />I can't say why they felt it needed expansion for the overseas market?<br /><br />So careful about which one you go for.<br /><br />I went for both. | 1 |
A blackly comic tale of a down-trodden priest, Nazarin showcases the economy that Luis Bunuel was able to achieve in being able to tell a deeply humanist fable with a minimum of fuss. As an output from his Mexican era of film making, it was an invaluable talent to possess, with little money and extremely tight schedules. Nazarin, however, surpasses many of Bunuel's previous Mexican films in terms of the acting (Francisco Rabal is excellent), narrative and theme.<br /><br />The theme, interestingly, is something that was explored again in Viridiana, made three years later in Spain. It concerns the individual's struggle for humanity and altruism amongst a society that rejects any notion of virtue. Father Nazarin, however, is portrayed more sympathetically than Sister Viridiana. Whereas the latter seems to choose charity because she wishes to atone for her (perceived) sins, Nazarin's whole existence and reason for being seems to be to help others, whether they (or we) like it or not. The film's last scenes, in which he casts doubt on his behaviour and, in a split second, has to choose between the life he has been leading or the conventional life that is expected of a priest, are so emotional because they concern his moral integrity and we are never quite sure whether it remains intact or not.<br /><br />This is a remarkable film and I would urge anyone interested in classic cinema to seek it out. It is one of Bunuel's most moving films, and encapsulates many of his obsessions: frustrated desire, mad love, religious hypocrisy etc. In my view 'Nazarin' is second only to 'The Exterminating Angel', in terms of his Mexican movies, and is certainly near the top of the list of Bunuel's total filmic output. | 1 |
In THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA, John Wayne plays Townsend Harris, a real envoy from the United States who was responsible for truly opening up Japan to International relations in the late 1850s. Before him, Commodore Perry basically pushed into Japan with gunboats and forced a treaty upon the Japanese in 1853. Harris, who arrived just a bit later, worked through the details and helped ensure compliance--as many of the Japanese felt no particular inclination to honor the first treaty. All this is true and shown in the film. According to some other sources I found, the romance between Harris and a Japanese Geisha is mostly fiction and this romance is much of the focus of this film (hence, the title).<br /><br />My first reaction the first time I saw this movie was one of surprise. John Wayne as a diplomat?! When he's being diplomatic in most films, he says please and thank you as he pummels people!!!! So seeing him playing a man who is NOT a man of action and is able to play the diplomatic game seemed very odd indeed. In fact, I can't think of too many actors in 1958 who would have been more unusual for this role. By the way, I've seen photos of Harris and Wayne has practically no resemblance to him at all.<br /><br />However, despite the story taking a lot of liberties with the truth and the strange casting, the film is still very watchable. The color cinematography is nice, the film shows some nice insights into Japanese customs and culture and the acting isn't bad. All in all, a likable and watchable film despite it's odd casting.<br /><br />PS--Read through the trivia for this film. You find out a bit more about the real life characters as well as a supposed fight between Wayne and the director (John Huston) where Wayne apparently knocked him out!! Based on what I've read about Huston and the way he got along with actors, this is an incident I tend to believe. And, it's also a nice example of John Wayne "diplomacy". | 1 |
T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3. | 0 |
For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").<br /><br />And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.<br /><br />But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.<br /><br />Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth. | 0 |
just another showcase of led zeppelin at their finest and their absolute rocking best . every band member is at their best jimmy page and his bow and guitar JPJ with his thunderous bass bozo pounding away and Robert singing like theirs no tomorrow . i have to say when we get into the first song where gonna groove it is the beginning of something very special . this DVD follows zeppelin through their 11 year Carree starting in 69 in the royal Albert hall then Madison square garden 73 followed by a much older and mature band in 75 at earls court and finally a different looking band at their last English show at Knebworth in 79. this DVD is fantastic showcase of zeppelin and if your not a fan you will be after . N | 1 |
Once a wise man from India once said, "First they will laugh at us. Then they will hate us. Then they will fear us." Know that yes this film's budget was a bit off, but even then with its story still takes our interest many yrs later, regardless of how it may have looked. But know soon, in due time "Masten Thrust" will arise to the big screen once again. Then he and the new redesigned T-Rex will more then shock you. It will scare many for centuries to come!! This film is in current pre-production and will be nothing like anything you have ever seen before! <br /><br />This will be beyond THX format.....right into 4-DX format. <br /><br />"Be afraid, be VERY afraid!" | 1 |
I have NEVER fallen asleep whilst watching a movie before.<br /><br />I did with this one.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs, give your time and money to a worthy cause instead. | 0 |
I saw this film at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival and Director Aku Louhimies introduced his film and was on hand for Q&A after. For some reason this movie is titled Frozen Land in English so I don't know how the distributors got frozen out of Paha. This is a very good film. It doesn't for me have enough that I would knock it up a notch to the excellent category but I did talk to some viewers who felt that it was an excellent film. Louhimies said that back in Finland people either loved this movie or hated it and said a lot of people in theaters walked out on it. I'm sure some objected to some of the violence, swearing, drug and alcohol abuse and sexual explicate scenes. It's a very clever story of how these different lives are woven together because of a trickle down effect. This film has very interesting and strong characters. I would rate it a 7.0 out of a possible 10 and would see it again and recommend it with caution. | 1 |
I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.<br /><br />The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.<br /><br />Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.<br /><br />The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.<br /><br />The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.<br /><br />This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.<br /><br />Go see it, if you get the chance. | 1 |
Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.<br /><br />The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.<br /><br />The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.<br /><br />The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.<br /><br />So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this. | 0 |
I have to agree with Cal-37 it's a great movie, specially for the family, Kelly Linch is beautiful, the little girl is really talented and cute, of course Jim Belushi has earned his strips! But want I really liked was the piano song, if you're a musician or not watch this movie just for that, you'll know which it is.<br /><br />"You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You" Written by Russ Morgan, Larry Stock, and James Cavanaugh<br /><br />So have fun watching<br /><br />See ya,<br /><br />Nelson | 1 |
I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike. | 1 |
After a chance encounter on the train, a young couple spends a single night strolling the streets of Vienna, discussing life and love. The primary reason to see "Before Sunrise," is to watch a young Julie Delpy deliver her lines. As "Celine," this sexy, brainy, soulful brown-eyed blond is sort of a cross between Brigitte Bardot and Joni Mitchell as they were in their mid-twenties. Risking overstatement, Celine is practically the ideal woman, unusually beautiful and very feminine while being natural, unpretentious, introspective, and selflessly loving. We can easily forgive that she is a bit eccentric and talks a blue streak, for her sincere, intelligent remarks are occasionally penetrating. Further, her varied expressions are nothing short of captivating and she speaks English with a French accent that is very endearing. <br /><br />If there is a fly in the ointment of this good movie, it would have to be her unkempt and disheveled costar. Ethan Hawke as "Jessie" comes off like a vaguely appealing slob, sort of a Maynard G. Krebs of the nineties. Attempting to appear detached and nonchalant, he sort of drags himself through certain shots. His pants fit poorly, his tee shirt is coming untucked, his wavy dark hair (his most attractive feature) needs a good washing, and someone really should have showed him how to properly trim his youthful goatee. Nevertheless, he is supposed to represent an unwashed youth on a two-week train ride around Europe, so the look he has cultivated is probably pretty genuine. His oft-cynical observations and wry sense of humor seem to impress the unapologetically romantic Celine, although she is occasionally disturbed by the extent of his alienation. When he finally admits to her that he is utterly sick of himself and likes being near her because he feels like a different person in her presence, we know he is getting somewhere. <br /><br />After blowing their collective funds on a series of cafes, bars, and silly diversions, they agree that because they may never see one another again, they should make the most of it. Jesse bums a bottle of red wine off a sentimental bartender so that he and his newfound lady love may repair to a local park in the middle of the night to lie on the grass, looking up at the moon and the stars and watching the sun come up. <br /><br />Given his boundless luck in the romance department, it is especially irksome when Jessie, as the very definition of a naive jerk, foolishly allows this wonderful young lady to slip from his grasp. He contents himself with a half-baked plan, quickly devised at the railroad station when he bids her adieu, to reunite at the same spot in half a year. When the appointed time comes, you just know this beautiful and unusual girl will be involved with another, perhaps even married and pregnant. For whatever reason, she probably won't show, while Jesse, who ends up working at Target or (if he's lucky) the local library, will go back to Vienna, desperate to see her again, only to wind up alone.<br /><br />Despite what for me was a very discouraging conclusion, "Before Sunrise" is a beautiful movie. I highly recommend both it and the sequel, "Before Sunset." | 1 |
I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.<br /><br />I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERS<br /><br />I think I need to puke now | 0 |
I didn't mind all the walking. People really did walk places back then. It loaned an air of authenticity to this period piece and some perspective on the technology of the Martians. I too was disappointed by the effects, in particular the "Thunderchild" scene, which I regard as one of the most exciting in the book. But I can't praise this film enough, for its faithfulness to Wells's story! It's about time. The actors are likable and the performances are charming. Also this film is very much worth seeing just to hear Jamie Hall's truly great musical score. It was interesting to see the same actor play both the writer and his brother in London. | 1 |
I'm actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man! | 0 |
If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.<br /><br />Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.<br /><br />One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort. | 1 |
I will not vote this movie as an awful one, mainly because i kind of like it, i was one of those summer days that i was so lame to do anything and decided do rent a movie in the stupid section of the videostore. Besides that i didn't slept in the nigh before and the movie got me awake...Let's just start the autopsy, OK, the movie haves a strange plot, first is isolation, there is an expedition, they get isolated in an island because there is no gas on the boat, something like that, there is not a single convincing performance on the actors part(so far), the main problem starts after the isolation idea, the POV of a snake, then another, ...then another, then snakes that change, then false spooks, a lot of them, and when we believe the movie is going on a good way for a b flick keeping the suspense it fails, because after ten or eleven spooks we don't get carried away, the one scene that unmistifies all is the scene when we witness a drunk lesbian show watched by snakes that seem to dance, after this it's becoming not a horror\adventure but a comedy driven movie, the adventure part is discarded also.<br /><br />For me the problem in a movie is the third act, it is the one section that just drives the movie for a already guessed conclusion, or if it succeeds we don't noticed it, like a ninja smoke in our eyes, well....Snake island haves a bad conclusion, it all comes to a «by the book» ending, with a confront, persecution and escape sequence, it was predictable in the moment i rented the dam copy. The other real problem is concept, concept is very important, it is the reason you believe in dinosaurs coming to life or a corpse full of stitches that just wants to live, the main concept about snakes that want revenge after decades on torture by the human civilization, well...hmmm, just doesen't glues on the wall. One thing you will enjoy (if you watch it with an opened mind) is the more b-z sequences, naked lesbian girls, some amateur camera angles, the braindead homage with the grass cutter, the black dude doesen't die first, and thats all... if you want to see snakes, black dudes and comedy and you prefer bigger budgets go and see «snakes on a plane».<br /><br />Hasta moviegoers | 0 |
This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping. | 0 |
Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)<br /><br />Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:<br /><br />(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.<br /><br />(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.<br /><br />(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.<br /><br />(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.<br /><br />(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled. | 0 |
How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how! | 0 |
I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff. | 1 |
Anybody who has ever been a fan of the original series, or even has a clue about the storyline should be embarrassed by this series. The Borg does not come around until Q brings the Enterprise to the Gamma sector, the Klingons are NEVER seen until Kirk encounters them, the NCC-1701 was the FIRST ship to carry the Enterprise name....need I go on? Berman and Pilliar have made a mockery of Gene Roddenberry's creation. After he died, they only saw $$$$ and just went their own way. No wonder Majel Barrett was in every single episode of star trek until this series. I don't blame her for not being involved with this mess. Poor Bakula. He's a great actor, as are the entire cast. I like them all, but the storyline is tragic and ignores all of the precedents set by the original series. Just check the ratings. I think more people watched Deep Space 9 (which was untimely canceled). | 0 |
I've been writing hardboiled crime fiction for a number of years now. When a writer develops a story he always has a character/actor in mind to bring the story to life. Last weekend I found a new one in Paul Vario playing uncle Benny in Eddie Monroe. This was a slick film highlighted by Vario's presence both on and off the screen (as his voice-over narration is also heard). I also especially liked the actress playing Benny's niece and Eddie's ex-wife, although everyone did a fine job in this exciting movie about playing with bad guys and the double-crossing that goes with it. A nice job all around ... and Mr. Vario shined brightest. He's gotta be my Tony Gangi someday ... | 1 |
This movie has always been my favorit Disney movie. Then on 11/21/01 I saw the 30th aniversy of this movie DVD. WOW I remembered why I loved this movie. The DVD is So great, It has an extra 30 min that the original did not have. I did not know this when I first started watching. The movie made ever so much more since. The music they cut out should have been left in. You have not seen this movie until you have seen the Full 131 min version. A lot of people say that the music is forgettable. I remember every song in this movie by heart, every song has it's own Charm by it's self, and comes together as a hole. I remember when i was younger I had the "Eglantine" song stuck in my head for days at a time. As well as "Briny Sea" (that song was meant for marry poppens but was cut out of the film) Please Watch the new uncut 30th aniversy movie and re-vote for this movie. the 10 that it really is. | 1 |
Just as in "Columbo" we see the fatality occur right at the beginning. What follows is an escalating web of lies, sex, blackmail, and murder. The investigating officer, Adam Arkin, is even somewhat of a fumbler, not unlike "Columbo". It is William H. Macy, as the movie critic suspect who carries the film. Constantly twisting and turning, the plot sends Macy deeper and deeper into the quicksand of his "perfect crime". William H. Macy fans will enjoy "A Slight Case Of Murder", as will those who like crime capers with all kinds of delicious possibilities. Add some well timed comedy, and this is very similar to a fine episode of "Columbo". Highly recommended. - MERK | 1 |
Enchanted April is a tone poem, an impressionist painting, a masterpiece of conveying a message with few words. It has been one of my 10 favorite films since it came out. I continue to wait, albeit less patiently, for the film to come out in DVD format. Apparently, I am not alone.<br /><br />If parent company Amazon's listings are correct, there are many people who want this title in DVD format. Many people want to go to Italy with this cast and this script. Many people want to keep a permanent copy of this film in their libraries. The cast is spectacular, the cinematography and direction impeccable. The film is a definite keeper. Many have already asked. Please add our names to the list. | 1 |
I like this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is good if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very good, and it has a moodiness that doesn't exist in all episodes.<br /><br />But one major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.<br /><br />It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the "death bed" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days. | 1 |
I always loved that scratchy voiced guy in all those westerns. He was the sidekick (Jingles) in the Wild Bill Hickock show back in the fifties. In this he has the perfect vehicle for his wonderful bragging character. He is harmless and no one believes him, but he is non-flustered and goes on anyway. When you have a guy like this, there's no challenging because the details aren't there to quibble with. Of course, in this episode, he is taken on board a space ship by a group of aliens who have no sense of humor and believe everything they hear. They don't have the word lie in their vocabularies. As it turns out, he is so insufferable that they can't handle him; and then, of course, there is the secret weapon. See this just to watch Andy. | 1 |
If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.<br /><br />After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.<br /><br />Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.<br /><br />Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.<br /><br />Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.<br /><br />Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.<br /><br />I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release. | 0 |
This is a feel-good movie and nothing more. And for that, it is great fun to watch. Sure it skims over political issues. But so what? I am sure she wasn't trying to make 'Good Night and Good Luck' here. Let's not try to make it anything else but what it is...light fare. <br /><br />And very enjoyable at that!<br /><br />Do we remember what 1984 was like? We've become very sophisticated according to the media as far as what we watch or not. I tend to differ on this point. Goldie knew this was fun-fluff and she went ahead and did it.<br /><br />Like her lightest fare: Protocol, Overboard, Housesitter, Wildcats, Private Benjamin, Seems Like Old Times, Foul Play, Death Becomes Her, First Wives Club and the remake of Out-of-Towners, GOLDIE knows what she is doing...she plays every role for the camp that you can get out of it! Goldie just knows herself really well, and she knows what she can do really well.<br /><br />She has always made me laugh cheerfully and innocently. I loved her in Laugh-In and every thing she's ever been in. She has never tried to be anything else but who she is...and that's that bubbling, giggly, girl next door who happens to be very pretty and has a smile and a laugh that will always endear me and remind me that life is pretty short and you've just got to lighten up because before you know it...you are old, wrinkled and suffering from one of life's inevitable ailments. If it even comes that late.<br /><br />I appreciate Goldie for what she is: a lovable, comic actress. | 1 |
Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!! | 1 |
If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.<br /><br />STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.<br /><br />Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.<br /><br />A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.<br /><br />An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.<br /><br />Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.<br /><br />The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.<br /><br />PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout? | 0 |
If this film becomes a holiday tradition I am going to have to hide for Christmas for the rest of my life. How do you even think of comparing this with 'A Wonderful Life'! It was absolutely awful! The boy singing made my toes curl. And what on earth was the deal with his hair?? Emmy worthy performance?! Please. Granted, Lucci did OK but an Emmy????? I think this film is a waste of money. The fact that they stuck so close to the original story pretending to give it a modern and retro touch made it even worse. It lacked enthusiasm and persistence on all accounts. Lighting, wardrobe, make-up, it seemed everybody wanted to go home. Just a big NO from me. | 0 |
Director Kinka Usher stays true to his own credo, "Play it straight and they will laugh," and with the help of a superb cast has crafted what should become the #1 cult film of all time, `Mystery Men.' When an evil villain, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush) is released from a mental institution, captures the local superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear), and threatens to take over Champion City, three wanna-be superheroes, Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), The Shoveler (William H. Macy) and The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) come to the rescue. Frankenstein has been joined by a myriad assortment of underworld scum, however, and has become a formidable opponent. The trio realize that help is needed, and decide to recruit; what they end up with is nothing less than the most unforgettable team of `superheroes' ever assembled in the history of the cinema. Mr. Furious has his rage; The Shoveler, his shovel; The Blue Raja flings silverware (mainly forks, and the occasional spoon, but never a knife); the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell) can turn invisible as long as no one is watching; the Sphinx (Wes Studi), a heavy hitter from down south, is very mysterious and can break guns in half with his mind. Maybe; the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) can fling a ball with deadly accuracy; and The Spleen (Paul Reubens) wields flatulence that can incapacitate an entire room. This is a brilliant ensemble piece that delivers the laughs without ever becoming condescending or patronizing the audience, while playing it straight at all times. The dialogue is witty, and the performances given by Stiller, Macy, Azaria and Garofalo are exemplary. There is a number of memorable, hilarious scenes, especially the one in which they throw a pool party and barbecue to recruit, and conduct interviews with a stupefying assemblage of applicants; and another, in a bar, when the Bowler has a conversation with her long-dead father, whose skull has been implanted in her bowling ball. The funniest of all, however, has to be when the team actually attempts to rescue Captain Amazing. But these are only examples, for the entire movie is composed of one hilarious scene after another, laced with subtle humor that will keep you laughing and thinking about it for a long time. The real secret of it's success, though, is that Usher keeps it all real; the relationships between the characters are true, and the whole concept of being a `Superhero' is played as being entirely reasonable, which somehow gives a sense of credibility to the entire proceedings. In this world, the aspirations of Mr. Furious and the rest are tenable, and Usher keeps the laughs coming without ever resorting to slapstick or mere sight gags. The solid supporting cast includes Lena Olin (Dr. Annabel Leek), Eddie Izzard (Tony P.), Tom Waits (Doc Heller), Claire Forlani (Monica), Louise Lasser (The Blue Raja's mother), Jenifer Lewis (Lucille) and Pras (Tony C.). `Mystery Men' is a truly inspired movie that can be seen over and over again, with a new chuckle to be had with every viewing, guaranteed. In the immortal words of the Sphinx, `We are number one! All others are number two, or lower.' Is it an Oscar-worthy movie? Hardly; but for a good time and a lot of laughs, treat yourself to this masterwork of comedy; it's the real deal, and you won't regret it. I rate this one 10/10. | 1 |
I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.<br /><br />Although this movie doesn't have the "horror" factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, "House of Wax") it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest. <br /><br />This is a must for Vincent Price fans. | 1 |
Working-class romantic drama from director Martin Ritt is as unbelievable as they come, yet there are moments of pleasure due mostly to the charisma of stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro (both terrific). She's a widow who can't move on, he's illiterate and a closet-inventor--you can probably guess the rest. Adaptation of Pat Barker's novel "Union Street" (a better title!) is so laid-back it verges on bland, and the film's editing is a mess, but it's still pleasant; a rosy-hued blue-collar fantasy. There are no overtures to serious issues (even the illiteracy angle is just a plot-tool for the ensuing love story) and no real fireworks, though the characters are intentionally a bit colorless and the leads are toned down to an interesting degree. The finale is pure fluff--and cynics will find it difficult to swallow--though these two characters deserve a happy ending and the picture wouldn't really be satisfying any other way. *** from **** | 1 |
This is an embarrassment to everyone and everything used in making this joke. I personally don't care one way or another about Jessica Simpson and her talent or whatever so many people find fascinating about her. Just as a movie this is something that wouldn't even get a passing grade in film school. The script is a mess, the acting is atrocious, and the fact Luke Wilson (co-writer of "Bottle Rocket") did this makes me wonder what the hell he was thinking. He did "Old School" for crying out loud! This doesn't even belong in the same state as my "Old School" DVD! Please for whatever reason DO NOT WATCH THIS! I see there is a comment that this is so bad it's good, but that frankly is too kind. When will we stop seeing singers that obviously can't act keep trying to, I hope ends soon. The worst part is that there are actually some decent actors (Penelope Ann Miller, Rachel Leigh Cook, & Luke Wilson) who are part of this dump. As far as the plot, well it is almost non-existent and so poorly done and written (yes I know it's another rehash) I very much doubt anyone will remember anything about this. Please whatever you do don't waste your time, but if you do, feel sorry for the ACTUAL actors involved for wasting their time doing this bomb. Jessica Simpson you're pretty, but stick to singing, although I'm not much a fan of that either. And whoever did this film, I wouldn't put this on your resume. 1/10 because you can't give a zero. | 0 |
I've been watching Attack Of The Show religiously for about 6 months (maybe longer but not much). I was very infatuated with Olivia and I found Kevin to be very witty and the repertoire between them very good. Lately though it's starting to wear thin due to many factors for me. First my favorite segment is the first 15 minutes called Around The Net, that shows 5 video clips that you would find on a site like Youtube, that are generally funny, or of people getting hurt inadvertently (some intentionally). Umm, this when watched 4 to 5 times a week shows again and again the same stuff, I really haven't seen anything that good and I can only laugh at people actually probably breaking their necks and being paralyzed so many times. The show is like a Late Show wanna be/Colbert Report wanna be with it's politics also, if you do not live in a blue state and are not an automatic liberal, this humor gets old also, McCain is old, yeah yeah, whatever. Libs have no guts to make fun of themselves because they are not smart enough to realize that would endear themselves as having a sense of humor that they can laugh at themselves, so it's almost every show bash McCain or Palin, sheesh. So we get the same old vids of people getting hurt that we are supposed to keep laughing at and then some leftist political humor that never laugh's at itself out of it's own weakness. I'll keep watching since I watch at work and it's all that's on, hoping that I'll be entertained but it is getting somewhat old. I did like the fill in host's of Chris and Alison though, they were actually a good change of pace; maybe this show could do a rotating host thing. Olivia who I thought at times in the beginning was really funny has resorted to this constant pouting response and it's getting old, lol. 7 of 10; it will keep you in a young mindset which is good if you're a younger Baby Boomer like me (mid 40's). Maybe a cartoon of the day would be another segment they should do, there is a ton of stuff available they could use. | 1 |
I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.<br /><br />It begins with a good quiet horror/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.<br /><br />About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.<br /><br />Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this #4. The 900+ theater was full and at the end it received a standing ovation. This was classic Peter Falk if you are a Falk fan and displayed a lot of chemistry between the Peter Falk and Paul Reiser characters. The film's title seemed to long and too odd sounding to me. I am surprised this didn't make it into general release. This was far better than the majority of junk that the major studios throw at you. Maybe too adult in that it was geared to the baby boomer and senior audience. A lot of people could relate to situations in this movie. This will probably enjoy a revival of sorts years from now when people look back at this film and consider it a kind of a gem. I would rate this 8.0 to 8.5 on a scale of 10 and definitely recommend it. | 1 |
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.<br /><br />We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all. | 0 |
This is a very funny movie. There is a self deprecating, iconoclastic tone to the movie that is very appealing. The characters are interesting. The movie flows very well and holds your interest throughout the 1 hour, 50 minutes duration of the film. The film quality is not of the highest Hollywood standards; however the original film was supposed to be made in the genre of a gritty punk-rock style. The documentary about the attempt to make the film and the subsequent betrayal of the film makers is very well detailed and easy to follow. The original film makers themselves become the main characters in the documentary version of the movie. The interviews of the film makers and the actors has been assembled in a highly entertaining story that illustrates the struggles involved in making the original film, the eventual failure of the original project and the phoenix-like rising from the ashes that evolved into this documentary film. In my mind the documentary (A Texas Tale of Treason) is a much more interesting and entertaining film than the original film (Waldos Hawiian Vacation) would have ever been. Two thumbs up for a job well done. | 1 |
Yeah, I made it all the way to the end. It was pretty hard though.<br /><br />Sometimes I was wondering if there was even a director on set. The acting...well, I don't even know what to say. I thought the girl who played Emily tried her best with the boring, sometimes wacky and sometimes predictable dialog. <br /><br />I know that it was low budget but the hollow sound and the lighting unfortunately made it look and sound like a 100-minute-long audition tape. <br /><br />I'm not even going to talk about the ending...<br /><br />The best thing about the movie was the music.<br /><br />That being said, I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Even for lesbians who don't have many movies to watch overall, this is nothing to waste your time on. If you're looking for a sad lesbian themed movie, check out The Children's Hour, Lost and Delirious or High Art. Those will all leave you depressed and gloomy but you won't have to suffer cinematic hell in the process. | 0 |
The Italian concept of "sprezzatura" was the grace and nonchalance in social manners that led to success in love, as described in the 16th century manual "The Courtier." The film "Hitch" is worth watching for the embodiment of the "sprezzzatura" concept in the dynamic performance of Will Smith.<br /><br />Smith plays the character of Alex "Hitch" Hitchens, who is a professional dating consultant to those short on luck and confidence. The best scenes are when Hitch coaches the painfully shy and maladroit Albert in his quest to win the heart of a New York socialite and in Hitch's own attraction to Sara and a surprise for her when visiting Ellis Island. In these scenes, Smith is supported with good work from Kevin James and Eva Mendes. But this film is driven by the charm and winsome personality of Smith.<br /><br />From start to finish, Smith rises above the average comic script to make "Hitch" an eminently watchable and entertaining film. I do not believe there is another actor working today who is capable of delivering the charisma and the perfect timing with the comic moments like Will Smith in this film. And his secret is in the "sprezzatura"! | 1 |
At my local video rental store, they have a special place for Two Girls and a Guy. It's a long running joke really. The clerk lets people rent it for free. They value their customers too much to let them waste their hard earned money on it.<br /><br />I was extremely surprised to see that people gave this movie a good review. Maybe someone can explain it to me. (or maybe the positive comments were jokes? Did people involved with the movie write them? Perhaps the mother of the director/writer?)<br /><br />Maybe I've just seen so many good movies that this one fails in comparison. | 0 |
****Excellent<br /><br />***Good<br /><br />**Fair<br /><br />*Poor<br /><br />`Go Ahead, make my Day!' <br /><br />The fourth picture in the series is directed by Eastwood himself (Who was rumored of directing most of Magnum Force) and he brings back the violent society from the first two films. However, the film still lacks impact and believability. This film was released in the early `80s, the time of Regan and the young republicans. The premise of a raped woman taking vengeance on her rapist doesn't appeal to this time frame. This plot would have been better for the Enforcer, which actually would have made it a good movie. What Sudden Impact needed was a plot like in Wall Street but with Dirty Harry in the middle. <br /><br />RATING: 3 STARS | 1 |
But this is a great martial arts film. Liu Chia Liang ranks second to none as a fight choreographer, only Sammo Hung at his best compares. This is immediately clear from his proud exhibition of technique -rather than flashy camera angles etc. - during fights. The direction is tightly controlled to not only excite the viewer by the speed and movement but to awe her with the precise skill displayed. This film benefits also from Liu's participation in front of the camera. Liu's performance at the banquet scene with which the film opens is one of the high points in kung fu movie history. Liu is supported by the beautiful and talented Hui Ying Hung (of My Young Auntie fame) and 'Hsiao Hou' whose acrobatics are breathtaking, and preferable to any amount of wirework As for the plot , this film follows the not uncommon theme of revenge, but with character and moral development along the way, and a most fitting resolution. The humour in this is also of the best. If you only watch one kung fu film ever, this would be a good choice- it has it all. | 1 |
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original. | 0 |
I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone. | 0 |
I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible. | 0 |
I saw this film as a kid about 30 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. I couldn't say whether it's a good picture. But in those days I instantly fell in love with Jean Simmons. The memories concentrate on the very erotic feel of the movie, but I still remember the plot. Simmons was very young then, and there is another film that gave me the same feeling: David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And again it was the young Jean Simmons. It's a pity that BLUE LAGOON is not available on video; I'd like to correct my memories... | 1 |
The narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed.. | 0 |
This was a strange film. A bit horror and certainly film noir. Some fifth columnists meet and mysteriously start dying off with a Japanese dagger in their hands after Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi) shows up.<br /><br />Soon the Lone Ranger arrives in the person of FBI Agent Richard 'Dick' Martin (Clayton Moore). Martin is ineffective in finding the killer as he is more interested in the niece (Joan Barclay) of a missing doctor, who is part of the gang.<br /><br />After the last man dies, and the doctor is horribly disfigured by some strange serum, the true story of the group comes out and that is where it gets interesting and weird. I won't spill it.<br /><br />Lugosi was marvelous as the skulking killer. | 0 |
I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.<br /><br />Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.<br /><br />My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.<br /><br />And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron. | 1 |
In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the "MIGs" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary. | 0 |
The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to<br /><br />rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,<br /><br />and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of<br /><br />everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real<br /><br />quickly. | 0 |
One of my favorites non-MGM musicals, it's a classic!> Rita Hayworth is in top form, her beauty leaps out of the screen. Gene Kelly shows off his dancing skills and introduces to musicals his edgy and innovative choreography that eventually would change the way musicals are choreograph. Phil Silvers is the perfect second bananas, and Eve Arden injects this movie with a lot of class.<br /><br /> The structure is so theatrical that one has to wonder why, in this era where major Broadway shows come from the movies, Cover Girl hasn't been adapted to theatre. | 1 |
This is one great movie! I have played all the Nancy Drew games and have read the books, and I never expected the movie to be so exciting and funny! If you never heard of Nancy Drew, read the first book (Secret of the Old Clock) so you can kinda' get used to Nancy, then you can watch the movie, because in the movie, they don't really introduce the characters' names fast. ;) My whole family enjoyed it and the plot was extremely interesting. This is an ultimate come-back from the previous Nancy Drew movies, which the Nancy Drew actor didn't seem to match. This movie is much like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. It's so cool! Nancy Drew lovers, you must watch this! | 1 |
Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies. | 0 |
I work in a library and expected to like this movie when it came out 5 years ago. Well I liked Parker Posey a lot (she's a wonderful actress) and Omar Townsend was really cute as her boyfriend (he couldn't act but when you look like him who cares?) but the movie was bad. It wasn't funny or cute or much of anything. Posey kept the movie afloat with her energy. But she learned the Dewey Decimal system OVERNIGHT and then shelves tons of books to the beat of music??!!!!??? Come on! Also I did have a problem with the way she looked when she became a full-fledged librarian at the end--hair in a bun, glasses, no sense of humor--can we let that stereotype go please? Worth seeing for Posey and Townsend but that's about it. The TV series was much better. | 1 |
There are many familiar Hitchcock elements (of previous and later films) and this time they mix to a jolly, but hardly suspenseful piece of entertainment. You can tell that Dorothy Parker had a hand in the script, the most memorable scenes are the dialogues of hero Cummings with the blind man and his encounter with a rather bizarre group of circus people. The famous climax on the Statue of Liberty seems a bit heavy-handed - judged by today´s standards, but also compared to other Hitch monument finals (e.g. Blackmail, North by Northwest). | 1 |
In an era where nearly every great horror film of the 60s and 70s is being remade for audiences weaned on horror flicks of today that are not too terribly good, it is instructive to look back at John Carpenter's 1982 opus THE THING, which itself is a remake--of a childhood favorite of the director's, Howard Hawks' 1951 sci-fi/horror classic THE THING FROM OUTER SPACE. Although Carpenter's film was not initially that big a box office hit when released in mid-1982, it has since garnered a very large following.<br /><br />In fact, Carpenter's film is less of a remake of Hawks' film than it is a reworking, as he goes back to the original idea posited by the source material, namely the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There?", in which a US scientific crew in Antarctica is menaced by a shape-changing alien thawed out from the ice after 100,000 years. Kurt Russell, who had starred for Carpenter in the director's 1979 TV movie ELVIS and the 1981 film ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, heads a cast of stalwart character actors, including Keith David, Donald Moffat, Richard Dysart, and Richard Masur, in this tension-filled exploration of paranoia, as the shape-changing "thing", which first comes to their camp in the form of a guide dog a Norwegian team is trying to kill, takes over each of them one by one. It isn't long before everybody in the camp begins to mistrust his fellow man. The ending of the film, in which Russell and David are the only ones left, has a disturbing and chilling ambiguity akin to the similar codas to both THE BIRDS and STRAW DOGS.<br /><br />Almost universally, when the subject of THE THING is bought up, the emphasis is on the extremely gory special effects make-up and alien designs created by Rob Bottin, who had worked with Carpenter on the 1980 horror classic THE FOG, and on Joe Dante's 1981 werewolf film THE HOWLING. These effects are indeed quite spectacular and graphic, and even today, they can also be quite stomach-turning. But all of this would make Carpenter's film nothing more than a high-end splatter epic if the direction, the story, and the acting weren't up to snuff; and thankfully, each of them are. When he's not concentrating on the enormously gruesome transformation sequences, Carpenter builds suspense in the same Hitchcock-influenced way that informed his previous films HALLOWEEN and THE FOG, with cinematographer Dean Cundey's prowling camera-work, particularly through the corridors of the station, a significant help. The acting enhances an already-fine screenplay adaptation by Bill Lancaster; and we are also given a taut score by Ennio Morricone, whose work on director Sergio Leone's classic 1960s Italian spaghetti westerns is well known to all, including of course Carpenter himself. THE THING also features additional fine visual effects from Albert Whitlock (who worked on many Hitchcock films, including THE BIRDS), and Roy Arbogast, who worked on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and JAWS 2.<br /><br />Carpenter's film was not the success it could have been because Universal chose to release this graphic shocker a mere two weeks after it had released Steven Spielberg's far more family-friendly E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (not surprisingly, critics and audiences at the time favored Spielberg's excellent film over Carpenter's equally excellent but exceedingly different one). Also, most of the horror film box office business in 1982 was going to another Spielberg-produced film, POLTERGEIST. As a result, at a cost of $15 million, THE THING suffered from lack of attention in its time.<br /><br />Over time, however, many have come to see Carpenter's film for what it is--an extremely gory but extremely intelligent combination of science fiction and horror, done with a great deal of flair and a true understanding of the psychological paranoia at the heart of its story. Though it is still quite gruesome, THE THING should be as much remembered for the skill by which the story is put together as it is for the gory alien designs and make-up effects; for it is the storytelling skill and the suspense that make it so memorable in the final analysis. | 1 |
ZERO stars out of ****<br /><br />Endless Descent has absolutely no redeeming values, whether it's the ridiculously bad acting, the laughably awful special effects, the incompetent direction, the stupid script, or the gratingly annoying musical score. It's the kind of pitiful production that makes me wonder how a movie like this could even have the slightest consideration for being greenlighted by a studio in the first place.<br /><br />I don't think I'm going to delve into the plot other than to say it's about a bunch of people who are trapped under the water and have to kill a lot of fake-looking creatures.<br /><br />Let me go more into detail as to what is so awful about this flick. First of all, the acting is simply horrendous. Jack Scalia is ten times worse than Sylvester Stallone, a feat that is hard enough to accomplish as it is. The supporting performances aren't really any better. And what is with actor Luis Lorenzo, the guy who plays the cook, Francisco. He has a high-pitched voice and an accent that sounds appropriate for a comedy, not a sci-fi horror film.<br /><br />The special effects are even worse. The creatures range from weird-looking eels to giant starfish and "mostquitoes." The effects look like something you would see in a muppet movie, and I don't believe I need to delve further in this issue.<br /><br />Director J.P. Simon has slight cult status because of all the terrible films he's made. I'm sure some will enjoy Endless Descent in an Ed Wood type of way, but I don't even think it's that good. Everything he does is shoddy, especially the camerawork. The man cannot direct a movie, that's all there is to it.<br /><br />This was the last of four films that took place underwater, and it sure does make Leviathan and Deep Star Six (Both bad films in their own right) start to look masterful in comparison. Either way, just stick with The Abyss. | 0 |
This 1997 film-blanc classic tale of smoldering passion has achieved its well-deserved legendary status as one of the screen's greatest sagas of a doomed and hopeless love. The pervasive, ongoing and progressive magnetism between Judge Reinhold and what's-her-name is sure to set many a viewer's heart a-flutter with memories of one's own first crush. The brilliant screenplay dangles this embryonic affair-to-be in front of the enraptured audience, sitting transfixed as the abstract, almost-expressionist cinematography deep-focuses on the just-under-the-surface desires that ebb and flow between the principals. You can cut the sexual tension with a dull tire iron. <br /><br />A tiny drop of perspiration on the end of a nose catches the bright sunshine, and leaves no doubt as to its significance. Scenes like this abound and bear watching again and again. As with "Jane Eyre" and "Rebecca" (to which this masterpiece is so often compared), the closeups of the actors' faces as they experience the slow dawning of the great love-that-is-not-to-be will haunt you forever. <br /><br />The now-classic RC soundtrack score, with its creative and unique use of solo synthesizer, emphasizes the emotion that drips throughout like a leaky crankcase.<br /><br />If I had any criticisms at all by mentioning what I consider a minor flaw (and dared to risk the wrath of the millions of fans who hold this classic so dear to their hearts), I would say that the hallmark of "Runaway Car" - its sense of mounting sexual tension - is briefly broken by the highway scene, which now after repeated viewings seems just a bit overlong (and probably even unnecessary?) to the eternal, bittersweet tale of Love Interrupted.<br /><br />Dare I advance what I perceive as the tiniest of flaws in this critically-acclaimed triumph of modern cinema? 'Citizen Kane' had its 'Rosebud' . . . 'Runaway Car' should have its catchword as well. Perhaps the film could have opened with an extreme closeup of Judge Reinhold saying something such as "A car is an extension of its owner!", and the rest of the storyline could then be dedicated to parsing every syllable, subtlety and nuance of that phrase. Had that plot line been done, this film could have topped "Titanic" at the Golden Globes that year, I'm convinced.<br /><br />My one regret? That I didn't read the novel first. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.