text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I have seen this wonderful production, and I wonder if anyone can tell me anything about the actress who played the blacksmith's wife-I am not sure of her character's name. I went to BYU with her and lost touch with her-her maiden name was Kim Luke-and I wonder if anyone has any info on her. She is not listed in the credits. This production was outstanding, a tear-jerker on all accounts, superb acting by all. I guess I don't even want to put it in the general category of 'acting', more like 'portraying with feeling the amazing events that led to the opening of the Heavens for this the final dispensation'.....something like that. If anyone worked with Kim or has a website or something please let me know!!! She was fantastic in her role, by the way....Thanks, Melissa Thorne | 1 |
Sniffing girl's panties kills a guy...and a stupid freaky puppet says a lot of stupid freaky things......My eyes could not leave the screen, my finger could not leave the Fast Forward button....I had to rewatch this spectacle to see if I had really experienced what I thought...I did.....God help us all! | 0 |
Remember when Rick Mercer was funny? 22 Minutes was a great show when Rick Mercer was on it and Made In Canada was a great show once too. Talking To Americans was such a funny special too. But like my friend said "Rick Mercer woke up one day and wasn't funny any more" I think that day was when Rick Mercer Report went on the air. What is the point of this show? Rick Mercer reads wacky fake headlines, shows pictures of bad sheds that people mail in and then spends about 20 minutes of the 30 minute show going somewhere and just talking to people hoping to say something witty or clever enough to get on TV and maybe even make somebody somewhere laugh. We're supposed to be interested in seeing Rick Mercer visit a gymnastics team and then try to do some of their moves, and then suck at it on purpose while trying desperately to be "funny". Rick Mercer got old or just lost interest or just ain't funny any more. Even his classic rant bits have lost all their bite and humor. You can say that about CBC comedy in general though because how many years have they been sticking Air Farce on TV to deliver the same kinds of useless jokes? | 0 |
It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this "traumatic" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: "There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.<br /><br />Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.<br /><br />I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot. | 0 |
The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie! | 1 |
The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon. | 1 |
I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time. | 0 |
This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.<br /><br />Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.<br /><br />The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.<br /><br />Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending. | 1 |
It´s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and "completed" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!<br /><br />And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes. <br /><br />In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and "performed" some new "art songs". Singing complete nonsense like this: <br /><br />"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!" <br /><br />It´s a classic now. <br /><br />Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf / lamb relationship.<br /><br />You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them. <br /><br />So let´s say it all together: "Hurrz!"<br /><br />0/10 Macaulay J. Connor | 0 |
Visually speaking, this film is stunning. It has some delightful black comedic moments. But on the whole, the plot is very clichéd, as is its seeming message. If you're a fan of over-the-top violence in mainstream movies like hostel or saw, you'll love it. If you're looking for something at all high-brow, steer away. I saw it as part of the edinburgh film festival 06, and I only chose it because I was looking for something disturbing. Ultimately, it isn't disturbing. Just grinding and unpleasant to sit through. If you genuinely want to be challenged, go see something like The Lost. If you want to be grossed out, or tell your friends about a really messed up film, then this is for you. | 0 |
For those expecting the cover art and story outline to indicate another entertaining Bollywood Indian production, beware: no musical dance numbers or songs of production value exist to brighten the mood in this rather tired story of arranged marriages in the British Indian culture - with a few variations thrown in. As written by Roopesh Parekh the script jumps around topics worthy of discussion only to cover them up with routine avoidance tactics. Harmage Singh Kalirai directs like a traffic cop, trying to hold together the disparate subplots to the point of Keystone Cop tactics.<br /><br />Jimi (Chris Bisson) is a medical school student who is gay and has a lover Jack (Peter Ash) and they live with Jack's obese, alcoholic, loose morals aunt Vanessa (Sally Bankes) and Sally's chubby daughter Hannah (Katy Clayton). Jimi's family is visited by the Patel family from Delhi who bring their beautiful daughter Simran (Jinder Mahal) to England to find a husband. Jimi's parents (Saeed Jaffrey and Jamila Massey) and his grandmother (Zohra Sehgal) decide Simran is the girl for Jimi to marry and arrange an engagement and wedding in the custom of Indian ways - without consulting Jimi. Jimi discovers the plot and is too spineless not to go along with it, a decision which enrages Jack and infuriates Vanessa. Hannah tells a 'little lie' to Simran (that she is Jimi's daughter) and the wedding is off. When Jimi's parents visit Jimi's house they discover the drunken Vanessa, are repulsed by her, but eventually decide that for Jimi's happiness they will go along with the fact that Vanessa has given them a 'granddaughter' and decide to use the marriage preparations as a wedding for Jimi and Vanessa. Jimi convinces the very reluctant Vanessa to go along with the idea and before long Vanessa is dressed in a sari, prepared for a wedding, and Jimi, terrified at what he is doing just to please his parents, includes Jack as his best man. At the wedding the truth comes out and to Jimi's surprise his family adapts to Jimi's true self and the day is saved by simply being truthful.<br /><br />The cast copes with this silly bit of nonsense rather well and there are some good performances: Chris Bisson and Peter Ash are attractive men and play their roles well, albeit without any indication at all of a loving relationship (the director seems terrified of showing the least suggestion of intimacy between the two men); Sally Bankes provides most of the laughs as Vanessa; the rest of the cast repeat the stereotype roles they've played countless times in Indian movies. This is not a bad film - it has its moments - but it is just too superficial and tired to make us care about any of the characters. | 0 |
Last night I finished re-watching "Jane Eyre" (1983), the BBC mini-series adapted from Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance novel which is deservingly a classic of English literature with Timothy Dalton (my favorite James Bond) as Mr. Edward Rochester and Zelah Clarke, as Jane Eyre, a poor orphaned 18-year-old girl, a governess at Mr. Rochester's estate, Thornfield. "Jane Eyre" has been one of my most beloved books since I was an 11-years-old girl and the friend of mine gave it to me with the words, "This book is amazing" and so it was and I have read it dozens of times and I am still not tired of it. Its beautiful language, refined, fragrant, and surprisingly fresh, the dialogs, and above all, two main characters, and the story of their impossible love have attracted many filmmakers. "Jane Eyre" has been adapted to TV and big screen many times, 18 according to IMDb. The actors as famous and marvelous as Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, George C. Scott and Susannah York, Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton have played the couple that had overcome hundreds of obstacles made by society, laws, religion, by the differences in age, backgrounds, experiences, and by the fateful mistakes that would hunt one for many years. Of all these films I've only seen one, 300 minutes long BBC version from 1983 that follows the novel closely and where Timothy Dalton who frequently plays dark, brooding characters did not just play Edward Rochester brilliantly and with class, he WAS Mr. Rochester - sardonic, vibrant, the force of nature, powerful, passionate, sexy, and tormented master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke was also convincing as sweet, gentle, intelligent and strong Jane who feels deeply and is full of passion mixed with clear reasoning, and quiet but firm willpower.<br /><br />Added on September 17, 2007: During the last two weeks, I've seen five "Jane Eyre" movies and it was a wonderful experience. There is something to admire in every adaptation of "Jane Eyre" even if not all of them are completely successful. This version is still my favorite "Jane Eyre" film. | 1 |
The Cowboys could leave you a little sore in the saddle. Definitely not one of Johns best movies. Don't get me wrong, with any John Wayne move there is always some good spots. And this one has it's fair share. But over all the picture moves slow and just doesn't live up to the aspirations it could have been. Bruce Dern again does an outstanding job as the villain. Roscoe Lee Brown is another bright spot in the movie. The kids in the movie were average but could have been cast better. This would be a good movie for the eight to fifteen year old movie goers.<br /><br />This would be a good family move to watch with your children. Just be aware, there is a couple of scenes that you may want to take a look at before you let the young ones see it. But most kids that I know who have seen the movie like it. Maybe it's because they get to see kids their age do all the grown up work. | 0 |
This movie is very much like "Flashdance", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. "G.I. Jane" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than "Flashdance"... (4/10) | 0 |
This movie shocked me. It was so realistic and the story was incredible touching. They talk German and Russian, which makes it more believable and real. This is a must-see movie. The actors are great too. Really a good piece of work. The plot takes place within a German troop in WWII. They have to go to Stalingrad, Sovjet, to fight against the Sovjetian armies. You get more connected with every soldier in this group and follow them through all the perils as they get captured within Stalingrad. They get face-to-face meetings with death, blood, grief and the coldness of Russia. This is a must-see-movie and you cant afford not to see it. | 1 |
A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier. | 1 |
To say this film is simply a demonisation of Catholics and a misrepresentation of history is untrue. That is not what this film is.<br /><br />What this film is is a comment on the abuses of the Church (although this could be substituted for any powerful body), the ways that this abuse affects people and families and the way so many people choose to simply allow and often participate in the abuse without thinking for themselves. The fact that it is the Catholic church which is in the wrong is simply because of the nature of the true story the film is based upon. To label this as propaganda against Catholics seems to miss the truth about what the Catholic Church has done at times; its history is often not great and is something that films like this highlight and that needs to be highlighted. Yes we should comment on the abuses committed by other organisations but that is not for the remit of this film.<br /><br />It is an amazing film which brought me to tears and well worth watching - 'if we do not study the past, we are bound to repeat it' | 1 |
I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?<br /><br />I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler. <br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Not only is this movie a great film for basic cinematography (screenplay, acting, setting, etc.) but also for it's realism. This movie could take place in any farm or rural setting. It makes no difference if the movie takes place in Louisiana or if it would take place in Kansas. The story and the messages it includes would remain the same. This movie shows family values and connections for an older audience, while at the same time it shows youthful behavior for the younger viewers. Everyone who watches this will walk away with something having touched them personally, I know I did. The ending hits way too close to home for me not to burst into tears every time I watch it. The ending stresses the importance of farm safety, and everyone who has ever worked on a farm needs to see this film. Not paying attention and carelessness gets you into dangerous situations.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?<br /><br />I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.<br /><br />"Hero" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??<br /><br />No, thanks.<br /><br />But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!<br /><br />Viva | 0 |
It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? "PP" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, "This could be me" sentiment. They are not funny either.<br /><br />The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.<br /><br />Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated "Sex and the City". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the "Voodoo Dr" and his coping with widowhood.<br /><br />This concept might work with a whole new writing team. | 0 |
"How She Moves" springs to life only when its high-energy, talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. Otherwise, this stale strive-suffer-and-succeed story is low on energy, low on originality, and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other, likeminded films that have come before it.<br /><br />Rutina Wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner-city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step-dance competitions, but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. As noted earlier, the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing, but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting. | 0 |
I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen. <br /><br />As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary! <br /><br />I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created! <br /><br />Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed? <br /><br />I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task! | 0 |
A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?<br /><br />There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery. | 0 |
Like in a circle the movie leads back to its point of departure, the image of the cranes that are crossing a Muscovite sky. They represent the freedom to realize your life as you wish, in order to aspire the greatest possible fulfilment.<br /><br />In the beginning Veronica and Boris experience such a promise of happiness, and their eyes follow the path of the cranes in exhilaration. It seems as if they might be able to live according to their dreams.<br /><br />But Man is not a bird. Life draws up its own rules, from which no human can escape and which we cannot change - not even by making a supreme effort. War breaks out, and without much hesitation Boris signs up for the front in order to fulfil his patriotic duty. He cannot even say good-bye to Veronica, for she arrives late at the assembly point from which the soldiers are sent away. Surrounded by a jubilant crowd all her attempts to attract Boris' attention must inevitably fail.<br /><br />Boris eventually gets killed in war, without Veronica learning about it for the moment. His brother Mark, a vigorous musician, who obtained the exemption from military service by corruption, is eager to take his place. Veronica initially resists, but in a frightful night of bombing she finally falls victim to his charms. A marriage takes place, which is never accepted by the family.<br /><br />Soon feelings of guilt seize hold of Veronica and she realizes that Boris' return is the one and only thing she actually longs for. She therefore eases her bad conscience and despair by the self-sacrificing work in a field hospital.<br /><br />When war finally is over, once again a crowd of enthusiastic people gathers in order to cheer the victorious soldiers. Again Veronica is among them, forcing her way through a wall of bodies. In her hand she is carrying a bunch of flowers, until she finally has to give it away to complete strangers, for one of the homecomers has just dashed her hopes by confirming the sad certainty of Boris' death.<br /><br />Once again the cranes invade the sky, drawing their wayward lines. But now Veronica is watching them on her own, and the look in her eyes is a different one. She has had to accept the impossibility to live according to preconceived plans, to follow the guidelines of your dreams. For all humans are nothing but helpless puppets hanging on the inscrutable strings of fate.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This scared the hell out of me when i was a teenager. Now I find it more amusing than scary, but with some pretty unsettling moments and with a kind of sleazy quality to it that I like. And, come to think of it, the plot is rather disgusting actually...but handled with some kind of taste. If there is a problem with this movie, it is that there are HUGE gaps where nothing exciting or interesting happens. Also, the ending goes on forever, making a potentially tense climax seem silly after a while with Barbara Bach screaming and screaming. The "monster", after it is exposed, isn't very scary either unfortunately. The somewhat drab look of the movie also works against it, making it appear as a TV-movie more than something made for theaters. But it is an example of films that are rarely made nowadays so I urge horror fans to watch it and feel a bit nostalgic... | 0 |
I have yet to see a film with Nolte in it that I did not like. However, this being said, he's made a lot of films and I've seen just a few. In my minds eye I am keeping the images of his performance here and the one in "The Thin Red Line". Nolte has a a full range of acting talents. When it's necessary to shout he roars like a wounded lion. His best moments are the ones I treasure in actors: when he just emotes through facial, hand and body gestures, without saying anything. Having come to the conclusion that our present generation of actors, by and large, have no appreciation of what an actor can do without speaking, having no conscious appreciation of the mastery of Keaton and Chaplin, this generation of actors relies far too much on the mechanical wizardry of computers. Of course it is also just a sign of the times we live in. Had Chaplin lived in our times....who knows, he just might as well have become an aficionado of CGI tools.<br /><br />I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.<br /><br />Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.<br /><br />So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.<br /><br />The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.<br /><br />I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.<br /><br />Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part. | 1 |
After a few misfires, we are still waiting for THE French horror movie that the critics will certainly vilify, but will launch a new trend. Not this time. Doug Headline can't be accused of not being knowledgable in the genre (He is editor of a high-class fantasy imprint, has worked for legendary magazine Starfix.), but why a scenario that uses EVERY cliché in the book (except maybe the Odious Comic relief) ? Why make it so predictable ? Even the nods towards Argento fails flat. It's not even an euro-teen movie like the German "Anatomy", much better, just a compilation of scenes that barely seems to have any relation one with the other and features LOTS of plot holes. The whole "Celtic" aspect is barely touched. And, after a "revenation" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs. I really wanted to love this film. Really. But even a mother would not. Oh, and writer Valerio Evangelisti was supposed to have a cameo, but I vainly looked for him. | 0 |
This is an entertaining "history" of the FBI, but it should be viewed as fiction, because that's exactly what it is. What else could it be when J. Edgar Hoover personally approved and had a cameo role in the production. James Stewart is excellent, as usual, and the supporting cast, except for the talentless Vera Miles, is good. Murray Hamilton is especially good in a supporting role as Stewart's partner and best friend. The FBI accomplishments that the film highlights are undoubtedly all true. What is significant is what it leaves out.<br /><br />One of the most shameful parts of the film is the depiction of the killing of John Dillinger. It is portrayed pretty much as it happened, but no mention at all is made of Melvin Purvis, the Chicago Bureau Chief who headed the operation. Instead, the operation is depicted as if the fictional Chip Hardesty were running it. It has been said that Hoover was jealous of the publicity that Purvis received after Dillinger was killed; Purvis was subsequently transferred to a remote outpost, and shortly afterward left the FBI. This is no doubt why Purvis was never mentioned in the film. But this viewer, at least, paused to think that if Purvis was treated this way, what about all the agents who conducted all the other operations depicted in the film. Were they also completely ignored and replaced by the fictional Hardesty.<br /><br />The film is probably accurate in its portrayal of FBI activity up through the end of WWII. However, after that point, the film would have us believe that the only threat facing the US came from international communism, which is no doubt what Hoover believed. Never mind the Mafia. Never mind the lynchings that were still going on in the South. Never mind that blacks were being intimidated to keep them from voting in much of the South. I don't know if the FBI had started wiretapping Martin Luther King by the time this film was made, but if not, it wasn't very long afterward that it started.<br /><br />As I said at the outset, this is pretty good entertainment, but it should be viewed as the sanitized fictionalization that it is. | 1 |
Nicely done evil little comedy pitting the FBI against organized crime with a nice lady caught in the middle. The actress who played the jealous wife of the mob boss 'Tony the Tiger' almost stole the show with her raging tantrums. 3 stars | 1 |
I have never seen such a movie before. I was on the edge of my seat and constantly laughing throughout the entire movie. I never thought such horrible acting existed it was all just too funny. The story behind the movie is decent but the movies scenes fail to portray them. I have never seen such a stupid movie in my life which is why it I think its worth watching. I give this movie 10 out of 10 for being the most pathetic movie ever created, this movie seems like it was solely created to become trash. I mean the scenes seem so fake and the actors act like "the camera is in front of them". You will get a kick just watching how lame this movie is, me and my friend could not stop making jokes during the movie, the darthvader guy who tries to get the girl got ran over not once but twice and the second time he got ran over it sounded like he said sh!# although he doesn't speak English lol. If you watch this movie you will think to yourself that all those other movies you didn't like you took for granted they are way better than this. This movie should be seen out of curiosity as well as what kind of movie DEFINES lame. The evil serpent encountered the girl so many times it was ridiculous, the evil serpent just roared and roared and let her get away every time. The evil serpent had so many chances it was like god was trying to say hurry up and eat the girl how many miracles do you want. The transition between scenes leaves you wondering did I miss something? So many plot holes from scene to scene. I was laughing like crazy when they decided to "Escape To Mexico" to get away from the serpent. Hmmmm hopping the border will save you from a serpent from Korea? interesting... very interesting.... I guess hopping the border solves all problems. Another scene that completely stupified me.. they met for the first time and had a romantic scene at the beach they kissed and didn't even know each other... the scene was so clichéd and the was no substance at least in other movies it might seem logical afterwhile but i mean they JUST MET even though they are reincarnations there feelings were like they instantly loved each other instead of it rather developing. Anyways this movie is worth watching for the sake of opening your eyes and seeing the light. Bad Hollywood movies will seem like heaven when compared to this. In the end its worth watching you wont get bored you will be occupied criticizing every moment, every scene in your head. | 1 |
This is a great film. Touching and strong. The direction is without question breathless. Good work to the team. I feel so sorry for Marlene, By the grace of God go you or I | 1 |
I loved the first two movies, but this movie was just a waste of time and money (for me and the studio). I'm still wondering why they made this horrible movie. The thing with the plastic gun and with the toy car, that can go into another house are ridiculous. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern in the first two movies were so funny, but the terrorists in this one are so stupid and not funny. Believe me this movie is just a waste of time. | 0 |
Spielberg's first dramatic film is no let-down. It's a beautifully made film without any flaws about the life of an African-American woman. It also proves that not all movies that have the African-American ethnicity as the center of the story have to be helmed by an African-American director.<br /><br />What I love about this movie is Spielberg's ability to make it very realistic despite the fact that it was based on a book. Furthermore, Danny Glover was excellent as Mr. And usually, he's just himself throughout most of his movies. But in this, he completely branches out and is someone else for once. But, the performance de resistance of the whole film comes from Whoopi Goldberg. She is excellent as Celie. You will never forget these characters once you've seen this movie.<br /><br />Now, I heard that the musical version of it is going to be a film as well, and all I can say is: I hope it's about as good as this one is, because this one is a film that shouldn't be missed. | 1 |
Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-) | 1 |
Frank Sinatra has one of his best roles as a reformed heroin addict coming back to his Chicago neighborhood after an extensive stay in a clinic. He plans to stay off the drug and find work as a drummer, but he can't avoid running into his old friends. He had been arrested originally not for any drug-related charge, but because he was caught dealing in an illegal poker game. His skill at poker has earned him the nickname of The Man with the Golden Arm, and the men who run the game, one of them being his former heroin connection, want him to deal again. Meanwhile, Frank has to take care of a woman whom he injured in a car accident, Zosch (Eleanor Parker), and make up with his old girlfriend, Molly (Kim Novak). The film is great at putting us in Sinatra's mental state. When he feels sure of himself at the beginning of the film, I felt good for him. But, when a promised phone call doesn't come one day, he descends into depression and goes back on the smack. Later, when he finally gets to audition, he arrives completely strung out. His embarrassment when he can't play the correct beat is devastating. He had such big dreams, and the other musicians don't even pay him a bit of attention as he rushes out of the room. The film moves quickly and it shows Frank's drug problem in a realistic light without turning into a social message picture. The actors are uniformly fine. Elmer Bernstein's score is one of the best of its time. The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending.<br /><br />SPOILERS<br /><br />Although I really like the character of Zosch and Parker is very good in the film, they could have done a little more to fill in her backstory. The ending is a little too pat. While there is surely pathos that will remain with the characters after the film closes, Zosch's death ties up all the loose ends a bit too neatly. Frank is free to love Molly and he won't go to jail. Also, his dealer is dead, so at least the immediate threat is gone. Well, I guess in Hollywood there's always a desire to tie everything up in a neat little package. It harms the film a little, but, as it stands, it's still one of the best and most adult movies about drug addiction I can think of. 9/10. | 1 |
This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.<br /><br />As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.<br /><br />There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.<br /><br />For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.<br /><br />I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.<br /><br />There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.<br /><br />The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.<br /><br />All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone. | 1 |
There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the "Gee Whiz" technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.<br /><br />With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a "superior being" by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of "Philosopher/King", a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) "wisely" prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment. <br /><br />Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of "The Super", the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.<br /><br />I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose. <br /><br />While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.<br /><br />Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as "Coordinator of Rapid Rupture", as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.<br /><br />Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.<br /><br />Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course! <br /><br />Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.<br /><br />Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.<br /><br />In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!<br /><br />Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.<br /><br />Kusak's "Michael Merriman" is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research. <br /><br />Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.<br /><br />The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or "excessive" bureaucratic oversight. <br /><br />It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb. <br /><br />There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project. | 1 |
For this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.<br /><br />Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.<br /><br />Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!<br /><br />One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,"Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,"Enos,is this a good movie?",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,"No, not really."As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard! | 0 |
**Spoilers contained**<br /><br />I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See. | 0 |
There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have "clairvoyance". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all... | 1 |
Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...<br /><br />I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...<br /><br />Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop! | 0 |
Even an old cynical DOCTOR WHO fan like myself can be left breathless by watching an episode of my favourite show . It happened previously during Eccleston's finale and it happened watching this episode . It doesn't happen often though but The Impossible Planet is an example of both the show and of television at its very , very best . This is stunning television <br /><br />The Doctor and his companion land in a mysterious place where they see strange writing on the wall and the audience ( Many of who will be moving behind the sofa ) are instantly transfixed . A door opens and horrible monsters start stalking the time travellers . This might have taken up an entire 25 minute episode in the original show but all this takes place in he pre title sequence . You may miss the longer drawn out format of the original show but at least this new series is tightly plotted and if we're treated to a disappointing story then at least it's usually only for one week <br /><br />There is nothing to disappointment a viewer here . It is DOCTOR WHO at its most traditional best . Writer Matt Jones and director James Strong have gone out of their way to make a story that will be regarded for years to come . They do this by constructing a doom laden narrative . The Doctor and Rose lose the Tardis and they're stuck with the protagonists in the far flung future . It's interesting how many stories never feature this type of plot point where the Doctor and his companions no longer have access to the Tardis which makes for a more intriguing type of story . Without doubt the highlight is the scene where Scooti goes to look for Toby only to find him standing on the surface of the planet where he turns and beckons her outside . Everything from acting , make up and Murray Gold's music makes this a scene that genuinely shocks its audience <br /><br />I can imagine immediately after this episode the BBC switchboards received a tsunami of complaints for distressed parents saying how traumatised their children were . That it took them several hours to get them from behind the family sofa and that they're now refusing to sleep with the lights out . To do this complaining would be to deny the magic of DOCTOR WHO . Yes it can terrify and yes such images will burn themselves in to the mind of a child , something they will never forget even if hey live to be a hundred . But I will bet my life that these same " traumatised " children would have spent the week begging that no matter what they'll be allowed to watch the next episode | 1 |
I know it's rather unfair to comment on a movie without seeing the complete piece - but I am going to anyway! I waited for a laugh, I tried to give it time. I think 20 minutes is long enough to wait in a comedy for a laugh. My laugh never came, so I gave up.<br /><br />It's stupid humour, not so stupid that you have to laugh, though. It isn't anywhere near that high grade. Let me correct that, it's just *stupid* - not stupid humour. They may have intended for certain scenes to be funny, but they weren't. I suppose, if you were really bored you could somehow blend the movie with a hallucination and end up with a mildly entertaining experience.<br /><br />A very pathetic effort. | 0 |
great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.<br /><br />Overall, not a well written story and too long. <br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this. | 0 |
Shame on Fox for dumping this movie. It was a total riot and I only hope that it will find a second life on DVD and cable.<br /><br />This is a hilarious satire. It takes the "What if" situation to an extreme and it doesn't pull any punches (or kicks to the groin). It makes you think... what is to become of this empire once we've gotten totally to lazy and stupid? Everyone gets hit in this one esp. a number of major corporations, and even Fox News takes a punch(which is probably why the movie never had a proper release - other than the marketing department over thinking the campaign and not knowing how to market it "so we'll just give up!") Some may find the movie sophomoric, due to the groin kicking, and farting, but the movie is much more than that. You either get what Mike Judge is saying, or you don't. Most of the negative reviews I've read seem to come from people who just don't get it or are film snobs.<br /><br />It'll probably play for one week in the selected markets so if you miss it, keep an eye out for the DVD, it'll be worth the rental and I will eventually have it in my collection.<br /><br />Good Job Mike Judge, it's a shame that you got screwed, but you made me laugh out loud and I look forward to the next movie you do. | 1 |
As part of the celebration of the release of Casino Royale, this film with the new Bond starring in it was shown, from director Roger Michell (Notting Hill). I almost turned it off for being a bit boring, but I'm glad I stuck with it. Basically May (Anne Reid) is a single mother of Helen (Anna Wilson-Jones) who hardly sees anyone and has not had a boyfriend in years. Her daughter says that she might want to get married to her new boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig, of course). After knowing each other only a few days, May and Darren have a secret affair. And at her age, with a 30-something, and the new Bond?! Anyway, they obviously want to keep it a secret, but May has regrets and wonders if Helen will find out. When she does, Darren gets less hassle than May. In fact, Helen asks her permission to hit her. Also starring Peter Vaughan as Toots, Danira Govich as Au Pair, Harry Michell as Harry, Rosie Michell as Rosie and Johnny English's Oliver Ford Davies as Bruce. Very good! | 1 |
It is a strangely powerful and moving experience to see "The English Patient" again after Anthony Minghella's death. Most of his body of work is dedicated to one shattering point. The endless moral struggle of those who, consciously, walk a very thin line. In "The Talented Mr Ripley" Minghella moves away from Patricia Highsmith's amoral Tom Ripley to give the murderer a conscience. In "Breaking And Entering" Minghella gives Jude Law's character the need to confess and the rewards are chillingly moving. Here, in "The English Patient", the characters in love are never too far away from their corroding feeling of guilt. Ralph Finnes and Kristin Scott Thomas are extraordinary. They strip their characters from every pretense in a compelling complicity with us, the audience. Juliette Binoche is, quite simply, spectacular and her scenes with the wonderful Naveen Andrews are filled with a "Minghellian" sensual innocence. Anthony Minghella gave us films that were,one way or another, that elusive mix of art and commerce. He was true to himself but thought about his audience. He knew how to push our buttons without betraying his own. There is something clear, honest and startling about Minghella's opus. I miss him already but I'm grateful for the reflection of his soul he left behind. | 1 |
This isn't quite the best Canadian film ever, IMO. I won't get off track and name 3 or 4 better. Just a couple of nights before I'd seen "The Bicycle Thief", the highly rated Italian classic, and there are some parallels. Both filmmakers shot their film in a specific time and specific place, with minimal resources in terms of sets and cast. And the result in both cases is fascinating and a joy to watch for the realistic setting and characters alone. The lingering shots over faces and landscape almost make this worth watching on its own. That being said, this one isn't quite in the same league as the Italian classic. The movie is shot in a frigid, barren Quebec asbestos mining town. That frigidity is contrasted with the warmth of the people and the eye of the filmmaker Claude Jutra. Basically, what you get is a series of vignettes that are likely nostalgic recollections of Jutra - not ha, ha funny - but poignant, and probably sometimes difficult at the time, but now warmed over with the patine of nostalgia. The movie meanders; there is little tension. Somewhere around half to two thirds way through the story begins. Everyone you've met to this point is involved, and you've gotten to know these characters rather well; so have a little patience at the outset. The story is a good one; it will leave you thinking, and it involves sex, love and death, all the basic elements. If you like Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, all that kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed by this. | 1 |
One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.<br /><br />Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.<br /><br />A great look at life in the late 40's.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Blue ribbon banners, stars and stripes forever, decorated generals, and unconditional surrender from the enemies which required tons and tons of radiation, this was the summon substance of the United States victory in World War II!! The celebration on Times Square as well as everywhere else in the United States suggests a national zenith!!! America is on top right!! one thing, one agonizing and painstakingly perverse thing..The period of adjustment!!..The actual celebration ended when the bottle of champagne was finished..Now everyone needs to get on with their lives...only one problem though...they have to get new lives...the old lives are gone forever...Polite and pleasant smiles had a fragile facade with a longevity of ice cubes in boiling water!! Everyone of the characters in the movie is paraded by primal doubts, and unable to masquerade a pretense about how nothing was seriously wrong, for the simple reason that it was not true!!! Once sergeants, and generals, and their wives, and daughters, and sons and virtually all other Americans touched by World War II, were exposed to disabilities, nightmares and recriminations of World War II and what it really accomplished as well as negated, nobody was the same!! For now, social and moral issues had a self serving interest...Frederick March and Myrna Loy had to start over!! Dana Andrews realized that he should never have been married to Virginia Mayo in the first place!!! Theresa Wright has become painfully aware of the fact that she is constructively selfish!! Las but not least, the character, Homer, is about to get married and he thinks that everyone around him is as devastated by his injury as he is, basically in the sense that they are unable or unwilling to cope!!<br /><br />The reason this film is so fabulous is because a happy ending was attained the hard way, once everybody recognized the new beginning of the new United States and the new world overall, tragedy from WWII was recognized, and things that were emotionally torn asunder were taken in stride, and dealt with accordingly!! Frederick March and Myrna Loy need to go back to chapter one in their marriage, Homer has apprised his new bride as to what it takes to be married to him (i.e. half the times, she will feel like a nurse) and Thresa Wright's involvement with Dana Andrews means that her entrance into adulthood has resulted in partial responsibility for breaking up a marriage...This is tantamount to learning how to drive a car to get your driver's license at the Indianapolis 500...The characters in the movie are the typical post WWII Americans in that they are stalemated by the rude awakening of coercive changes to their lives...Happiness no longer is afforded the luxury of the adjective cop-aesthetic...it is now about formidable conditions, and good winning out over evil by way of the less ugly choice!!...World War II did not just happen!! It will henceforth dominate the social patterns of American living!!!<br /><br />The aggregate catastrophe of World War II has mirrored most Americans' feelings of personal human inadequacy as well!!I loved this film and so did AFI, probably for the reason that it brought out issues that were at one time unjustifiably taboo!!..Bottom line, see this movie!! Nightmares about combat, dilemmas about marital unhappiness and/or readjustment, coping with your life when stricken-ed by a disability and just basically acting human are portrayed constantly in movies and television today, HOWEVER!! this is 1946!! Very new to Americans then....REMEMBER THAT!! Director William Wyler has illustrated how Americans feel about the aftermath of WWII in the days when the movie industry has left him with one hand tied behind his back!!! Take that into account and you will probably realize just how sensational this movie really was!! | 1 |
"Ahh...I didn't order no amazing hit show"....."We'll you got one" Hack is simply the greatest television show ever made. A little bit of me died when I flicked on the t.v. one Friday night to catch a little Hack and it wasn't on. The show dug deep into key social issues of our culture. I found that at the end of any episode I watched; I walked away having been both entertained and informed. I am actually dumber now that Hack is gone. I no longer want to help the needy and less fortunate. Since Hack has been gone I see them as eyesore's and an unneeded strain on taxpayers. So for the love of God we need to bring back Hack! | 1 |
Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, "Meet John Doe" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.<br /><br />Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.<br /><br />S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper. | 1 |
Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame. | 0 |
This is the first Tom Hanks movie I have gotten the privilege of seeing in the theater, although he is my favorite. When I heard he was going to play a hit-man, I was a little stunned thinking "can Mr. Hanks pull this one off"? And he did in high fashion. This 1930's depression era film is a about loyalty, redemption, and one path that you don't want your children stumbling down. Tom Hanks leads a stellar cast as Michael Sullivan. Being the family man, and the secret life of the contract killer for the Oscar nominated Paul Newman. This movie Tom Hanks relies more on reaction and gaze rather than dialogue, which he delivers a knockout performance.<br /><br />On one night of one of his jobs, Michael's son Michael Jr., played by newcomer Tyler Hoechlin, witnesses the hit. And Michael Sr.'s partner in crime, fellow stage actor Daniel Craig can't have that information out. So he wacks out the son and wife of Michael Sr., except Michael Jr. So the two head for Chicago to get Conner Rooney(son of Paul Newman's Mr. Rooney).<br /><br />The drama and intense plot really thickens from their as father trys to set things right, even though son is along for the ride. While on this deadly journey, someone has hired a hit for Michael Sr. The assassin would be the photographer of the deceased Harlen Maguire, played by a stain-teethed Jude Law.<br /><br />The movie will have you feeling the old days. And with Thomas Newman's beautiful and haunting Oscar nominated score to go along with it, you can't help but appreciate this film from Oscar winning director Sam Mendes. So sit back, and enjoy the wild ride. | 1 |
It's said that this film is or was banned in the US since it was released. Since there is no information on IMDb I must rely on my other sources and believe it. If this is really true, the movie is even more hurtful and frightening and is it is anyway.<br /><br />The movie is a so-called mockumentary, although I think the topic is too serious call it like that. It creates a scenario where America is like a military state and all revolutionary objects are arrested immediately without proof. After an obligatory tribunal they have to decide if they go to prison for some years or choose the punishment park. In that, they have to walk through the desert for three days to reach an american flag, posted 50 miles ahead, while they're are followed by police and army troops.<br /><br />The movie itself pretends to be a documentary about these incidents and follows both the tribunals and the hunting through the desert, filmed by european film crews. All the facts are explained, the interviewers ask questions and film everything. People stare directly into the camera, shouting at it. It seems very, very real. Talking about realism here is nonsense. This movie is not about how to make a realistic film, it is about how such a film would look like, if it was real. And it certainly would look like this. If it would be filmed anyway. In an 'utopian' state like this, there surely wouldn't be a european film crew allowed to film those things.<br /><br />There are many things that frighten us. The defendants are people from all social classes. Political leaders, musicians, authors, philosophists, unemployed, etc. They seem to be hopeless, rebellious or scared. They are no heroes. They talk a lot in the tribunal, knowing it doesn't lead to anything, saying nevertheless all they said in speeches and books and songs before. One says he's not afraid to die. Is this true? Well, he doesn't have to run through the desert hunted by cops. The defendants have no chance, or at least, their only chance, the decision between prison and punishment park, is no chance really. The way they decide in the end and the way film ends, makes it clear that this kind of heroism is suicide.<br /><br />These tribunals remind us a lot of tribunals in the Third Reich. The officials use the same kind of idealistic speeching, ignoring all the arguments from the defendants, starting to scream at them and then telling them they should be quiet. They warn the defendants of "watching their language" and insult them much more. They ask them questions, the defendants can not answer, but it's never intendend they should. These scenes are a statement about what we call justice.<br /><br />The scenes in the desert are on a different level. When we see the prisoners for the first time, we realize that they realize, they haven't got a chance. Seeing the desert and the mountains, feeling the sun and the thirst, they don't have a clue how they should stand this free days. The film crew follows them and talks to them while they try to escape this madness. They argue, should they play the game, or escape, or revolt? It all leads to the same and no one is surprised. Some will question if such parks would exist in reality in such a state? Why not? It empties the prisons and allows the government to punish the revolutionaries as they want to. It is not a gas chamber, but the Nazis killed jews before concentration camps were built. The comparison is fair, since they is no real difference.<br /><br />The movie is scary and depressing. The problems that are talked about sound to familiar to ignore. These is not science-fiction. Talking about poverty, unemployment and crime is not utopic. The film shows us that government and democracy as it is presented to us, is not only useless, but dangerous. It also shows us that revolution is not definitely the solution. The defendants seem to be confused because they don't really know how to fight this. They do things, but for nothing. Even is this delivers no solution to us, it still is a statement.<br /><br />To me, the most frightening thing is the fact of the banning of this movie. Here we have a film that accuses the loss of freedom, moral and peace. It accuses the government, a fictional goverment nevertheless, to be dangerous and inhuman. And such a film is banned. Think about it when you see the american flag the next time. | 1 |
After being hugely entertained by Mr. Brosnan's performance as a cad in "The Tailor of Panama" (which I rate 10/10 across the board: casting, acting, script, story, editing, pace, music, emotional impact, etc.), I enthusiastically anticipated this film. I was hugely disappointed. It is a script reading not a film, vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, bankrupt in every way that "The Tailor of Panama" is rich and satisfying. Blame it on the screen writing and directing. I sat in the theater waiting for the "good part;" it never came. I neither laughed nor cried, although one line of dialog did make me smile. Worth $7? Hardly. | 0 |
The director was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning. | 0 |
This movie was not only disappointing to the horror/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!<br /><br />-party | 0 |
I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.<br /><br /> Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.<br /><br /> I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity. | 0 |
Prior to this film, I had only seen two films by director Andrea Bianchi: the trashy zombie flick Le Notti del Terrore (1981), famous amongst horror fans for its unforgettable performance from man-child Peter Bark, and the enjoyably sleazy giallo Strip Nude For Your Killer. Neither film was a particularly spectacular piece of cinema, but both were entertaining in their own special way (and the fact that they featured plenty of gore and nudity didn't hurt). Massacre, however, is dull, dull, dull, despite quite a bit of splatter and the odd spot of gratuitous bare flesh.<br /><br />The story, about a series of murders in a hotel where the cast and crew of a horror film are residing during their shoot, is confusing and oh-so boring: when the blood isn't flowing and the skin isn't on show, the film is a real struggle to sit through (it took me four attempts to finish), with endless scenes of unlikeable characters bickering among themselves and doing very little of note.<br /><br />The only point of interest about the film is that its producer, Lucio Fulci, used several of its death scenes to pad out his mega-gory movie Cat In The Brain (AKA Nightmare Concert). And if you've already seen that film, then there is very little reason to bother with Massacre. | 0 |
This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.<br /><br />I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.<br /><br />The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.<br /><br />I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating. | 1 |
I´m not surprised that even cowgirls get the blues if this movie is anything to go by. I expected something better from Uma Thurman, which was the reason I suffered my way through this experience in the first place. An awful film with only the music as a redeeming quality. It´s just a shame that we are incapable of giving 0 out of 10 in these reviews. This movie deserves it. | 0 |
Skippy from "Family Ties" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, "Rock Star". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from "Family Ties" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party | 0 |
Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it. | 0 |
-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.<br /><br />The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is. | 0 |
This film, an early William Wellman, has an important message, particularly today. It posits the notion that sometimes there are things more important than your own personal safty or well-being. The film, which has Walter Huston as the lead, is stolen by the performance of "Chic" Sales as Grampa. He's the most completely drawn character in the film and a joy to watch. You'll recognize some familiar faces if you watch many movies from the '20's and '30's. Wel worh your time to watch if you get the opportunity. Recommended. | 1 |
This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie. | 1 |
sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy "sneaking peeks at the kid's body". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.<br /><br />The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.<br /><br />Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.<br /><br />Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who "casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).<br /><br />I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.<br /><br />The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.<br /><br />The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual "facts", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every "factual" matter he discusses.<br /><br />I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye. | 0 |
... The reason I like this movie so much is because of the spirit it has. It's a genial summer camp movie, so the jokes aren't mean minded in a lasting way that makes one character the permanent butt of ridicule. Pranks do take place, but you get the feeling that the respective fall-guys would be able to look back and laugh, having been dopey enough to fall for them - and without being too cheesy, it's actually kinda nice that everyone still remains friends in the end!<br /><br />It's an extra special bonus when the ringmaster of all these jolly japes is Bill Murray. For me, he's still looked upon as the comedy god without peer when he gets a chance to cut loose. No one's better at generating a sense of freewheeling wacky anarchy without really hurting anyone. The tone of the entire film has the same style as its leading man, established with a great opening scene showing the Murray way of getting ready for the day. Everything's silly, yes, but more important than behaving like an adult is to have a whole lot of good-natured fun. "Meatballs" promises such and ultimately delivers a nourishing watch. | 1 |
Watched both parts twice. Enjoyed the story and enjoyed seeing an older Patrick Swayze as the hero. He was very believable as the hunter Alan Quartermaine and certainly bested the performance of Richard Chamberlain. I do admit that I would have preferred seeing someone else as the "Lady in Distress". Alison Doody should stick with modern and not period pieces. She didn't have the look of the woman of the 1800's. The rest of the cast were terrific and followed the plotlines very well. I am glad to see that the actors of this generation are not afraid to try on different characters and are not afraid to be seen as getting older. Age is inevitable, but let's not hide from it. A man at 50+ can be much sexier (and , Patrick truly is sexy) then a green youth, no matter how pretty. Hoorah for character lines to go along with a great smile. | 1 |
I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.<br /><br />It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black<br /><br />Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10. <br /><br />''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now'' | 1 |
The Killing Yard is a great film, although uneven at times. Morris Chestnut puts forth a phenomenal effort as a mentally wounded and judicially jilted prison inmate, and the presence of Alan Alda as his defense attorney is none other than genius. The emotion and raw reality portrayed in this film's "flashback" scenes have the ability of putting viewers directly into the midst of the events being pictured. I was not even born when the Attica riot took place, however, through extensive research, I find that "The Killing Yard" does the story all of it's fair justices. I would definitely recommend this film for viewing by any educational or activist group as a much needed learning tool. | 1 |
Buffs of the adult western that flourished in the 1950s try and trace its origins to the film that kicked off the syndrome. Of course, we can go back to Howard Hawks's Red River (1948) or further still to John Ford's My Darling Clementine (1946), but if we want to stick with this single decade, then it has to be one of a couple of films made in that era's initial year. One is "The Gunfighter," an exquisitely grim tale of a famed gunslinger (Ringo) facing his last shootout. Another from that same year is "Winchester '73," and it's worth noting that Millard Mitchell appears in both as grim, mustached, highly realistic range riders. In The Gunfighter, he's the town marshal expected to arrest Ringo but once rode with him in an outlaw gang. In Winchester, he's the sidekick to Jimmy Stewart, a kind of Horatio to Stewart's Hamlet in this epic/tragic tale. The plot is simple enough: Stewart's lonesome cowpoke wins a remarkable Winchester in a shooting match, beating the meanest man in the west (Stephen McNally), who is actually his own brother and caused the death of their father. When the brother steals the gun, Stewart and Mitchell go after him in a cowboy odyssey that takes them all across the frontier, meeting up with both outlaws and Indians. (In one wonderful bit, two future stars - Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis - play an Indian chief and a U.S. cavalry soldier - during a well staged pitched-battle. Dan Duryea steals the whole show as a giggling outlaw leader, while Shelly Winters, just before she began to gain weight, is fine as the shady lady who ties all the plots together. Today, filmmakers would go on for about four hours to bring such an ambitious idea to the screen, but Anthony Mann does so in an extremely economical amount of time, with not a minute wasted. Such western legends as Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp (terrifically played by Will Geer) make brief appearances, adding to the historicity as well as the epic nature. The final battle between good and bad brothers, high atop a series of jutting rock canyons, is now legendary among western buffs. It's also worth noting that Stewart, however much associated he became with western films, does what is actually his first western leading man role here - yes, he was in Destry Rides Again eleven years earlier, but was cast in that comedy spoof because he seemed so WRONG for westerns! | 1 |
This sad romance is untellable because the director decides to break its narration and to offer the points of view of each characters. So, there are a lot of flashbacks, of re-shooting of the same scene. But, it would be an extraordinary moment of cinema to put all the fragments in order to see the result! <br /><br />And it would worth it, because it's for me, just one the best French movie ever made! <br /><br />It has everything: <br /><br />Cast: first steps of Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel! Such a presence and such voices, even for a hard-of-hearing! It's symbolic for them to have fallen in love with this movie!<br /><br />Directing: his camera is bright, alive, plays with the sets or can be mysterious with long close-up "à la David Lynch".<br /><br />Cinematography: the light is beautiful, between gold and rust, like their love!<br /><br />A never-seen before Paris: It's a Paris out-of-time of more accurately, a composite of a lot of districts! Huge search here! It's look like Gotham City, modern and old at the same time! <br /><br />Music: Not the big orchestra but in perfect tune with the frames. And the song of Charles Aznavour made me discover this great singer! <br /><br />Ah,
the story! As I said, it's a love story but rather tragic: Saying that love can be for nothing, that it doesn't make all people happy or isn't guaranteed for a sweet ending is great because this message isn't often told! Love is passion, which is derivative from the Latin "pain". You can suffer a lot when you are in love! Because of the Why .. ?, of the endless waiting, the lack of courage, the indecision. <br /><br />And when you can ease yourself, fate, destiny, god (?), devil (?) can stab you in the back , just because you arrive too soon or too late, and above all, because love means 2 in a world of billions! A lot of things can happen and as much stories can be written! So, what's love? <br /><br />Personally, I lived some moments like this: in a car with the dear one. Her mobile rings and you know it's her "special friend" whom she kisses goodbye (and not you, even if we are always together). So, you want to go out of this car to leave them together, to not hear the sweet but cruel words but you can't, because an amazing hard rain just started! <br /><br />I found that this movie depicts those moments of tragedy as no one else! | 1 |
This has always been a favorite movie of mine. I've owned a VHS copy, and a couple of months ago I found a DVD release which is also part of my video collection. I also happen to be a huge baseball fan, and as part of my off-season reading, I picked up a copy of Robert Whiting's excellent book "You Gotta Have WA", that profiles the ins and outs of Japanese baseball, and the challenges that foreign players have encountered playing in Japan. As I began to read yesterday, it made me think of this movie, because it appears the screenplay was based almost verbatim on this book. The parallels are uncanny. The Jack Elliot character closely resembles Bob Horner, an aging MLB slugger whose best days were behind him. Horner's teammate Leon Lee is also depicted in the character Max "Hammer" Dubois, a veteran in the Japanese league who has made his peace with the frustrations of the Japanese game, and helps keeps his teammate sane. The Elliot character goes through the same sequence of encounters as Horner, from big fanfare signing, early success that fuels an already ravenous sports media, and the ensuing slump that spurs frustration, alienation from teammates, fans and media, and the resulting disillusionment that prompts a desire to go back home to the US. The only difference is that the movie adds such Hollywood touches as a love interest and a happy ending. <br /><br />Speaking of love interests, I'm sure many viewers have come to this site (as I did) to look up the actress who played "Hiroko" (the beautiful Aya Takanashi), and what other work she has done. It only lists this movie. It turns out, based on an article I read, that the brief love scene she has with Tom Selleck (a foreigner) in this movie (mild by our standards - basically they kiss while he's in the bath and she's wearing a towel) caused such an outrage on the part of the Japanese public (males in particular) that she has never been offered another role of any kind, in Movies or television - essentially blackballed by the Japanese movie industry. It's a real shame, as she is(was) quite a talented actress in this movie. <br /><br />If you like this movie as much for the baseball elements and cultural differences as I did -- go find a copy of "You Gotta Have WA" by Robert Whiting. A good read and a great companion book to this movie. | 1 |
Octavio Paz, Mexican poet, writer, and diplomat, who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1990, said about "Nazarin": "Nazarin follows the great tradition of mad Spaniards originated by Cervantes. His madness consists in taking seriously great ideas and trying to live accordingly". A humble and spiritual priest (Francisco Rabal in a wonderful performance) attempts to live by the principles of Christianity but is cast out of his church for helping a local prostitute by giving her a shelter after she had committed a murder. Nazarin wanders the country roads of the turn of the 20th-century Mexico, offering help to poor and begging for food. His two followers, a murderous prostitute Andara and her sister Beatriz who is a failed suicide desperately searching for love, consider him saint but it does not prevent him from hatred and humiliation from both the church and the people he meets on the road. He ends up beaten in prison and begins to question his faith for not be able to forgive his attacker. <br /><br />Bunuel tells the story in a manner of a Christian parable masterfully and uniquely combining admiration and irony for the main character and strong criticism of formal religion and hypocrisy. The film is simple and profound as well as beautiful, ironic, and heartbreaking.<br /><br />I consider Bunuel one of the best filmmakers ever. I've seen twenty of his films and they all belong to the different periods of his life but they have in common his magic touch, the masterful combination of gritty realism and surrealism, his curiosity, his inquisitive mind, his sense of humor, and his dark and shining fantasies. With great pleasure I am adding little seen and almost unknown but amazingly candid and touching surrealistic tragic-comedy "Nazarin" to the list of my favorite films. | 1 |
Right, where do I start? I cannot even imagine to comprehend this preteen pathetic excuse of a show. Picture this: a boarding school, where kids whose parents are rolling in money simply chuck them in there so as to jet around the world themselves. It could not get any more diabolic than this.<br /><br />If you taught these kids, shall not even upgrade them to the term teenagers, because they hardly even act like sane homosapiens, were self-centered, think again. About 23 minutes choked full of their so-called problems, boy troubles, and the like.<br /><br />The heroine of the show, of course, Mademoiselle Zoey, played by Britney's Polly Pocket Little Miss I'm All That sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, has obviously much to learn about acting. However, I will give her some face, because her superficial, one dimensional character, does not allow much room for depth. She plays Pacific Coast Academy's sun, moon and stars, crusader fighting for the plight of all women, equality of all genders.<br /><br />Perfect in everyway, always with her two loyal sidekicks, Nicole, the daffy bimbo, who obviously has too much of Daddy's cash, and tough chick, Dana, who proves a hard nut to crack. Both left the show in seasons 2 and 1 respectively, not that I blame that. But horror of horrors, in comes Lola, who deems herself the greatest actress since Natalie Wood, with green feathers in her hair and fake tan. She is even more rude than Zoey herself, if that is even possible, and even more dumber than Nicole, and hell, we know that cannot be possible.<br /><br />This show, like all the sorry excuses for television programmes Nickelodeon has been spewing out since 2000s, is a prime victim of stereotyping. Get girl next door and dense to her best friend's feelings for her Zoey, a great albeit inarticulate at times best boy friend, Chase, a cool, arrogant ladies man, Logan, a boy and clothes crazy girl, who is not very bright, Nicole, the one whom everyone thinks is weird just because she is extremely smart, the nerd, Quinn, the over-dramatic, annoying yet super thin, Malibu picture perfect model, Lola, and the tough yet soft inside woman, Dana. Now, where have I heard these characters before? I am sorry, but what is so wrong with having a personality? Just because Quinn is passionate about Science, and actually cares about her future and doing well in the academic aspect, in which the rest should be concerned about as well, she is "weird" and a "nerd"? Lola at the beginning of the series, proved to be a potential great character with her sassy ways and different outlook in life, Zoey just had to go, get out your pitchforks, burn her at the stake, she's going back to Weird Town and all that jazz. So much for womens rights. Unfortunately, Lola just became nothing more of another OC clone, in all its anorexic glory. Probably so as to not outshine her Mistress.<br /><br />But hey, the 2000 generation of MySpace whores seem to love it with the Chase/Zoey typical fairytale romance, the tension between adamant, "hot" Logan and "kick-ass" Zoey or Dana, whichever to your liking, and the pretty people. Please, this show exists to remind us that people do not like realism, they prefer a pretentious, shallow and vapid lifestyle. Sorry to break it to you darlings, that will not happen, unless you have a major trust fund and parents to cushion you. | 0 |
'Carolina Moon' is an adequate made-for-TV movie about a girl with psychic powers who returns to the town where<br /><br />she grew up in and where her childhood best friend was murdered. Turns out that every year on the same date another<br /><br />young girl is murdered and Tori, played by Claire Forlani, must solve the mystery before she ends up dead. Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, CSI New York) is the female lead and does a pretty good job of it, ably supported by the rather delicious Oliver Hudsom and a still luminous Jacqueline Bisset. The script, adapted from a Nora Roberts novel, is bog-standard and the plot<br /><br />is tediously predictable. That, however, is offset again by, like I said, the rather delicious Oliver Hudson. | 0 |
My favorite part of this film was the old man's attempt to cure his neighbor's ills by putting the strong medicine in his bath. There is more than a sense of family, there is a sense of community. | 1 |
There are certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch "Cat in the Brain" instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in "When Alice Broke the Mirror". As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between "When Alice Broke the Mirror" and some of Fulci's greatest horror films ("The Beyond", "City of the Living Dead",
") lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, "When Alice Broke the Mirror" is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend. | 0 |
For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV. | 1 |
It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.<br /><br />I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead. | 0 |
Fabulous cinematography from Sergei Urusevsky help to make this a stunning piece of work. The opening scenes are as if one is leafing through some master photographer's album and as the story begins to unfold we are swept away with both the events depicted and the beautiful look. All is well shot but there are several whole sequences that are simply breathtaking. Difficult to describe without 'spoiling' but suffice to say one is a very intense scene during an air raid and the lady left behind and her lover's brother are at odds as the sirens whine and the windows shatter. Another superimposes a swirling staircase and a spinning shot of tree tops and even develops into a fantasy sequence. Soviet film making of the highest order. | 1 |
Actually I liked this movie very, very much. Not because of it`s plot, acting, jokes, no. I liked it, because it`s one of the worse movies ever created. It`s so lame, so bad, that it becomes terribly funny. Some jokes are actually cool, but the rest makes me pray for unemployment for the scriptwriter. "Men in white" are so dumb and stupid, that you can do only two things. Turn the TV off or roll on the floor laughing (beer helps a lot:). I chose the second option. | 1 |
Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement. | 1 |
Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie. <br /><br />Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed <br /><br />If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth | 1 |
This movie is the most moving and funny movie I've seen in a very long time. As a housewife ( "homemaker") and a fan ( Rupert) I found it to be sympathetic . Anyone who misinterprets Dirk's angry outburst has it wrong. Kathy Bates is not really an actress I know but she is perfect , the whole cast is perfect for their roles. Julie Andrews had me in stitches .I am watching it after reading Rupert's auto-biography so the inclusion of her was even more fun. It is at times terribly moving .I am not really a fan of the type of music in the film but you get drawn in to the romance and find you are singing the songs for days .This movie deserves to be more widely available .Our favourite scene involves Dirk and a gun and his trousers , watch it and see ! | 1 |
Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).<br /><br />Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.<br /><br />4 out of 10 | 0 |
Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending. <br /><br />I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever. <br /><br />This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good. | 1 |
Holy crap, the beginning picked up where the first one left off (good start). Then it goes downhill from there. You it looked like as if you were watching TV and you keep on switching between this teenage soap opera, a Predator movie, and some crappy detective show. The characters that are introduced in the first ten minutes don't have anything to do with each other until the final 45 minutes or so (the characters of the teenage soap opera and the actual Alien story).<br /><br />Then for the end the producers were quickly running out of money and decided to end the movie so they decided to drop a nuke on the city.<br /><br />P.S- What the crap is the deal with the cameras being so zoomed in you can't tell what's going on? Seriously, movie makers, do a good job with fight scenes and make it to where we can see the fight. | 0 |
OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie! | 0 |
How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).<br /><br />The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.<br /><br />It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single "voice" and "author".<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1 |
Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me. | 1 |
Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.<br /><br />I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring. <br /><br />There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.<br /><br />I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it. | 0 |
This movie was very funny with just a bit of gore. It is about two grave robber that are going about business as usual when they discover that there is a different clientèle they can serve. This changes the direction of the corpses they collect. The movie is told by the younger of the two as he is explaining the business to a priest before he is sent to be beheaded. His partner had already been beheaded. The priest is required to take down the last confession and it takes the form of a story. There is some animation thrown in which gives it a Tales From the Crypt feel. In the story we meet another group of grave robbers that everyone fears, but at one point, the younger of the two up for execution is offered a job, so this calms some of the animosity between the groups. When a woman joins the two men, she oversteps her boundaries and gets them in trouble with the feared grave robbers. The story leads up to the meeting of the two groups, which led to the arrest of the man that is confessing and the man that has already lost his head. | 1 |
A failure. The movie was just not good. It has humor that 5 year olds that will not even giggle at. I mean, sure, some parts were amusing, but most of it is not. Lindsey Lohan is a great actress (and a bad singer,) and she should be working on better movies. The movie should have been aired as a Disney Channel original movie, that is FREE.<br /><br />The only thing that was well done about this movie was the music. Nothing like a remade rock soundtrack to brighten up your day. These songs are so good. Especially Alyson and Amanda's Walking On Sunshine and Caleigh Peter's, Beach Boy song, Fun Fun Fun.<br /><br />4 out of 10. If I gave it a ten, 9 of that would be the music and 1 will be the movie. Not worth your money, but the soundtrack is. | 0 |
This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her "picture" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then. | 0 |
This IS the worst movie I have ever seen, as well as, the worst that I will probably EVER see. I see no need to rehash what all the others have said previously, just be forewarned...<br /><br />This IS NOT one of those bad movies you think you want to watch because you want to be able to make fun of it, its just plain BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.<br /><br />This movie is the equivalent to having a "pet rock" as your friend. You wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for something to happen. Unfortunately, it never does. At least with a pet rock you knew what you were getting into. Lion's Gate completely deceives on this bombshell... No...this is a disaster. After watching this film, you would swear George W. Bush had his hands all over the making of this film... yes its that idiotic.<br /><br />Stay away, unless of course you just want to watch the worst movie of all time. Its probably how Lion's Gate figured it would make some money off this piece of tripe. | 0 |
Man, did this film stink! It's obvious this film helped spurn Hollywood's need to churn out tired sequels to appeal to the masses. First of all, it came out too quickly, and second of all, it just didn't have the same hipness which made the original film so successful. No new ground was broken, and it turned into a rather mundane effort. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.