text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would. | 0 |
Before "Miracle on 34th Street," Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.<br /><br />Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of "A Stranger in My Arms.") The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.<br /><br />If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be. | 0 |
This movie is maybe the most touching and uplifting one that I have ever seen. I am not a religious person, but sometimes a great piece of art like this movie can give me an almost religious experience. One suddenly realizes that there is really meaning to life.<br /><br />I must admit that when I first heard about this movie I was sceptical. I thought the plot sounded contrived and I was afraid that the story would be banal. But being a David Lynch fan I decided to give it a go. It took me about 30 minutes to be fully captured by the movie, but then I was completely lost in it. There is so much wisdom and warmth in this movie! I left the cinema feeling that I had truly learned something valuable about life.<br /><br />This is not a typical David Lynch movie, and in some ways it was very surprising that he should make such a film after exploring the dark sides of human nature for so many years. On the other hand, I am not surprised that he manages to convey deep emotions and profound human insight because I also thought he managed that very well in The Elephant Man. Lynch is one of the most gifted directors around and I think The Straight Story is his best yet. 9.5/10 | 1 |
This is such a great movie to watch and all the actors put together a great film which would be enjoyed by everyone! It is very emotional in parts, so when you watch it grab a box of tissues to keep you company!! This movie doesn't deserve a rating below 10/10! | 1 |
This film, though, critically acclaimed, has of course not yet been released in the U.S. on DVD, like another great - Christine Lahti's "Housekeeping", out the same year. But if you can support Region 4 (Australian) DVD's, this little masterpiece should be in your collection. There are still some VHS copies available on the internet as well.Davis is complemented by a great story, as well as memorable performances from her supporting cast, especially Claudia Carvan and the late, great Jan Adele. Amazingly, or maybe not, this film and its stars went unacknowledged at Academy Awards time, as did "Housekeeping", but treat yourself to both of them - you will be glad you did! | 1 |
The movie is truly poignant, unique and uplifting. The story is universal in that it's a battle between good, evil and the world between. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is that its rating is wrong, misleading, and a travesty. Blockbuster has it rated as though it were an X rated movie. The truth is is that it is closer to G than PG and should be seen by children who can read the clear and simple sub-titles. | 1 |
I was in my early 20's, just graduating from college when this movie appeared. Seeing it was event of great impact, not only because of the high quality of the film (as evidenced by its many awards), but because of its place in the historical context of 1959. Because of social progress since then, it is nearly impossible to fathom that my college had only begun admitting (carefully screened) black students in 1953. A mainstream, high-budget extravaganze with an almost entirely black cast was a distinct novelty in 1959.<br /><br />The movie was given a deluxe roadshow (reserved seat) presentation in only the best theatres, complete with a souvenir program detailing the lavish care that had been taken with lighting and color, multi-track stereo sound, etc. Almost every black entertainer that we white people had any knowledge of was in the movie. Gershwin's music, superbly performed, and the sheer universal humanity of the story was tremendously moving.<br /><br />I was recently able to obtain a faded copy of a two-hour cutting of the film, and repeated viewings have confirmed my opinion. Time has made what seemed steamy sex scenes in 1959 seem quite tame, but the musical quality has not diminished. Sammy Davis and Pearl Bailey are masterful in their portrayals. What a crime that the young black artists of today are unable to see these performers at the peak of their careers! | 1 |
Flame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.<br /><br />Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.<br /><br />By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.<br /><br />Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.<br /><br />Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has "Attack of the Monsters" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!" | 0 |
Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with "I'm Late" (from "Alice in Wonderland"!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and "too much time to shave"!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for "Make Believe" (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic "How Does the Wine Taste?" is amazing. "A Kid Again" is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is "Sweet Zoo" ("I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!"). "Where is the Wonder" is very cool and elegant, and her "People" number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of "When the Sun Comes Out" (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by "Why Did I Choose You?" (probably her best early song), a too-quick "Lover, Come Back to Me" (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, "Happy Days are Here Again", which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand. | 1 |
Witty and disgusting. Brash and intelligent. BASEketball redefines comedy/sports with a pot spoof of an easy target. Makes other so called comedies like dead boring. One of the best of all time! Trey Parker and Matt Stone play their roles as losers with apt perfection. | 1 |
It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching "The Wind." Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting "ad peliculam" with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.<br /><br />To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked "Cold Hearts", "Midnight Mass," "Jugular Wine," etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated "The Wind."<br /><br />The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem. <br /><br />Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the "lambent sex goddess," or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.<br /><br />Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the "atrocities" presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.<br /><br />The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either. <br /><br />As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure "shock" and/or "dangerous art" value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from "mediocrity warranting criticism" to "film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue."<br /><br />So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition. | 0 |
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that this movie belongs to the 'Aussie trash' pile, but it's fair to say that there are no Academy Award nominees here. What must be considered is that most of the actors in this film weren't actually actors as such, just kids with nothing better to do at the time. There were many others that were offered roles in the film but turned them down to go surfing up the coast; all things taken into account, it really wasn't a bad movie for its time. In some respects it's really not unlike today's times, where peer pressure is still alive and kicking, just without the mobile phones, computers and other similar gadgets that kids lived without, unlike this generation. Anyway, I have to rate this flick as an old fave that I watch once in a blue moon and never take too seriously... | 1 |
Well I'm not the world's biggest Sondheim fan, so although I have the cast album and I've listened to it a few times I've never actually seen this show performed and I haven't seen the Tim Burton movie version either. I felt like I wanted to see something more faithful before I see the Burton one and give it a chance just as a movie. This version isn't a movie at all, it's a filmed play with some of the original members of the cast, including most importantly Angela Lansbury's performance as Nellie Lovett. This is one of those performances that's just like a conduit into the heart of the magic of Broadway and theater itself. She must have had so much fun with this role. Sweeney Todd himself isn't played by Len Cariou, who did it originally, but by George Hearn. Hearn does a fantastic job; his voice isn't quite as good as Cariou's, but he seems to play it a bit broader.<br /><br />The only problem I had really was with the Johanna character as played by Betsy Joslyn, and to some extent her lover Anthony as played by Cris Groenendaal. Joslyn's voice can't sustain high notes, but I wasn't entirely sure if that was maybe supposed to be the point since I'm not hugely familiar with this play. More importantly, I'm not sure if the story of "Sweeney Todd" really holds up enough weight to sustain some of the music, but thankfully the whole thing doesn't seem to have been taken too seriously by its creators. As a lark, and a bit of comedy in the vein of "Grand Guignol", it's quite enjoyable. I don't feel like it's as significant a piece of work as "Company" and "Into the Woods" or some of his other shows. Some of the music is quite spectacular, but at other points it seems to exist in a world outside of the show.<br /><br />I won't say a whole lot about it here because this is a film website and this is really not a film, but just a play that has been shot on film. There were maybe 3 or 4 scenes where they moved the camera around but that was it. People will want to see this, because it preserves Lansbury's legendary performance which deserves its legendary status because it's a hilarious and insightful performance. George Hearn can be proud of his version of Sweeney as well. This would be a good film to show children over the age of 5 or so to get them interested in musicals because the blood and cannibalism will really surprise them. Seeing a performance filmed so expertly and so faithfully makes me wish that more efforts like this had been made over the years with musical theater, because I prefer shows from the 20s through the 50s to these later era affairs. "Sweeney Todd" is an exceptional show from its era however, miles and miles above the AL Webber madness. | 1 |
Bergman's regular Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann starred as a village couple, Jan and Eva Rosenberg. The story began with an ordinary couple who fights and make up. Jan was a sensitive person, but an escapist who isolated himself from the world. Eva is a practical woman who is getting fed up with her husband's lack of ambition. Because Jan procrastinating in fixing their radio, the are oblivious of the impending war. Of course the war arrived, and the movie was a fascinating study of their transformation of each other and to each other through the invasion as they were mistreated by the enemy and by their own government.<br /><br />There were no musical score to the movie, but the soundtrack was the war noise. In one scene the pulsating background gun shot, the explosion, and sound of the fly by planes was incredible. Now and then, Bergman zoomed into the facial expression as different event took places. When something violent happened, he zoomed out to let the audience sensed the violence rather than seeing up close. Very well done movie. | 1 |
High school. Years and decades later, some look back on it with fondness, others with embarrassment. But few find it easy to forget. It's one of the most critical phases of our lives, when changes come fast and furious whether we're ready or not. No longer children, not yet adults, irresistible forces buffet us, pushing and pulling us in every direction.<br /><br />"Fame" did its best to capture this turbulent, chaotic period for its cast of young characters. For the most part, it succeeded. It meandered, but did feel like a slice of life. This movie holds a special place in the hearts of the Class of '80. We had just bid farewell to a decade, and soon to the end of three or four stimulating and sometimes difficult school years. We were headed out into the cold, cruel world, leaving home for college then parts unknown. As we approached our watershed event, this newly released movie was like a two-hour yearbook for us. We couldn't escape the titular song on the radio. That was us up there on the screen. Those were our friends, rivals and classmates as we had faced our own dreams, frustrations, successes and failures.<br /><br />It's especially poignant for those who attended any of New York City's other elite, top-tier high schools, especially Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of Science or Brooklyn Tech. Like the kids here, we were considered the best of the best. We had no auditions, but instead rigorous entrance exams. Perhaps even more than the Performing Arts kids, we were expected to change the world, although not necessarily become famous. Like them, not all of us made it. But the pressure cooker environment fostered extraordinary camaraderie and esprit de corps, not unlike the toe-tapping "Hot Lunch Jam" in the cafeteria. On our own graduation day, our spirits soared almost like the jubilant crescendo in the rousing finale. The film leaves us fittingly on a single, triumphant note at the end of "I Sing the Body Electric," pointing to the blindingly bright, boundless future and all the promise it held.<br /><br />"Fame" couldn't have been set anywhere else. This story never would have worked in a small or suburban school. Los Angeles has a stronger identification with movies and television, but NYC is a mecca for all of the arts. Home not only to what was then called PA, but also world-renowned Juilliard, NYC is a cultural center unmatched by any other city in the world. It's also a time capsule of the rest of the city of the time, showing the seediness, grit and dirt that was endemic of a New York still struggling back from the fiscal crisis that had nearly bankrupted it. But most of all, it showed the vitality, since muted by the inroads of Giuliani, Disney and tourism.<br /><br />What I wouldn't give to be young again. But with "Fame," at least I can remember what it was like. | 1 |
I'm surprised that mine, so far, is the only comment on this t.v. movie...as far as I'm aware, the series itself, has had a huge following, reviewer pundits and real people alike, have praised it to a person. Anyway, let me tell you right away that, if like me, you're a sucker for gritty police dramas, you'll like "The Lost Child" Tennison, the heroine, throughout the "Prime Suspect"series, has been battling the male police establishment, throughout the series, getting to her present, comparatively powerful rank in the police hierarchy through hard work,obstinacy, and sheer talent for police work. She is,essentially, an ambitious career woman, but she has a romantic side and is certainly no man-hater. Unfortunately her relationships are affected by the wicked hours, which her career demands, and she has never married, so when she finds herself pregnant from her latest affair, she is faced with the choice of becoming a mother, and jeopardising her entire police job, let alone future advancement, or having an abortion - which she opts for. This abortion never looms large in the ensuing drama - it's very skilfully dealt with, in less than a couple of minutes screentime, a marvel of economy in scripting, and editing - but it's always there, as a counterpoint to Tennison's desperate efforts to find another "lost child" - a kidnap victim - before it's too late. The story takes many twists and turns,before the surprise ending, and one is fascinated, alike, by the plot, and characters (although I found the many villains a little overdrawn), the police, and especially Tennison, herself, are not always competent, nor that likeable, which figures, given the unpleasant job that they have to do, in the sleazy underworld which this series, habitually inhabits.<br /><br />Mirren, herself, has said that she'll make no more movies in the series, but, excellent as she's always been in the role of Tennison, the series, itself, is as "actor proof" as is another addiction of mine -Dick Wolf's American"Law & Order" - whoever appears therein, each could go on forever. As is my fervent hope. | 1 |
I am sad to say that I disagree with other people on this Columbo episode. Death Lends a Hand is frankly kind of a boring Columbo to me. After a few times, I get bored and changed the channel. I still love Robert Culp and Patricia Crowley and Ray Milland in their roles but the story was weaker in this episode than in the others. First, Robert Culp plays an investigator for Ray Milland's character. He hires him to investigate his young pretty wife played by Patricia Crowley to see if she is having an affair. In return, Culp's character blackmails the cheating wife who plans to expose his scheme to her husband ruining his career. Out of anger, Culp kills her by striking her in the face and setting the up the body elsewhere. I don't know. Maybe I just didn't care for this one at all. Of course, Columbo gets him in the end. It's just the question of how. | 1 |
I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.<br /><br />I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.<br /><br />Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond "art". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...<br /><br />Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.<br /><br />This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.<br /><br />See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did. | 1 |
This HTV series is beautiful. I strongly recommend watching the movie. It has got everything it should: remarkable script, strong characters, beautiful scenery and exceptional atmosphere. Add some ambient score from Clannad and you receive unforgettable picture. I love every adventure movie from HTV I saw: Return To Treasure Island, Smuggler, Adventurer, but Robin of Sherwood beats them all. I would like to thank the whole HTV production team and Richard Carpenter in particular for giving me plenty of adventures and excitement. I have got the DVD release in my little movie collection. I regret very much movies like these are not made anymore. | 1 |
Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.<br /><br />The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.<br /><br />I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny... | 0 |
I remember watching "Gung Ho" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.<br /><br />Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.<br /><br />I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have "the best of both worlds." And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too. | 1 |
For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars! | 1 |
Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.<br /><br />The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.<br /><br />The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.<br /><br />The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.<br /><br />From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.<br /><br />The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.) | 0 |
Slaughter High starts like any other day at Doddsville County High School where little minx Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) has tricked resident nerd Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) into the girls locker rooms where she tells him to get undressed in the shower, while doing so Carol's gang of friends come in & give the now naked Marty a big surprise as they film him as they stick his head down the girls toilet in an April fool's day joke. The school's sports coach (Marc Smith) saves Marty & punishes the gang who rather harshly blame Marty, they decide to play another trick on him only this time things get out of hand & Marty is caught in an explosion & has nitric acid splashed over his face. Years later & the whole gang are invited to a class reunion at the now closed down school, they all arrive to discover they are the only ones there. They all venture inside where they quickly learn they aren't the only ones there as Marty is back & has revenge on his mind...<br /><br />Originally shot under the title April Fool's Day which they changed probably because of another slasher film named April Fool's Day (1986) made the same year this American English co-production is unusual in that it has three credited writers & directors, George Dugdale, Mark Ezra & Peter Litten (after never seeing a film with three credited director's I've now seen two in a week the other being the Jean-Claude Van Damme flick Kickboxer (1989)) & I have to say I really rather liked Slaughter High even though it seems to have a pretty bad reputation. One of the things I like about the script is that it is a pure unashamed slasher flick, it doesn't try to be anything else & it just accepts the genres rules, short comings & trappings & plays up to them. Basically it delivers what it promises, a homicidal killer, blood, boobs & babes. I thought the character's were alright, the story was OK even though it's just an excuse to get a load of teens inside an isolated location so some killer can bump them off one at a time & I actually liked the twist ending as well which is also something for which Slaughter High gets a lot of flak for. The first half starts off a little slow but the second half moves along at a rate of knots as there is one gory killing after another. Some of the situations & character reactions make little sense but the same can be said of just about any film ever made so who's complaining?<br /><br />Despite three credited director's Slaughter High turned out pretty good, I liked the look of the film a lot. The isolated rundown school made for a really atmospheric location & looked good, the makers throw in a good thunderstorm as well & there's some nice photography especially at the end where there are numerous impressive uninterrupted long lasting stedicam tracking shots which follow Carol through various corridors of the rundown school. While not particularly stylish it certainly looks nice enough & is professionally made. There is some good gore here including burnt bodies, people melted with acid, impalings, stomach explosions, axes in faces & death by lawnmower as well as someone who gets drowned in fecal matter down a drain! The special effects are also better than one would expect & I was both impressed & pleased with the higher than expected body count.<br /><br />Technically the film is better than I had expected & beats most low budget horror crap that gets released today, I would have thought it was relatively low budget itself though. Supposedly set in America this was very obviously shot in England. Harry Manfredini composes another score which sounds exactly like all of his other musical scores & is basically the same as the theme from Friday the 13th (1980) & it's sequels. Anyone living here in the UK will probably recognise Billy Hartman who played Frank as a regular in Emmerdale Farm (one of our nations top rated soap operas) in which he plays Terry Woods! While most horror fans will recognise the sexy Caroline Munro in a rare staring role. Legendary exploitation producer Dick Randall did the deed on Slaughter High & actually appears in the film as a porno movie producer... talk about typecasting! You can also see a poster for the misunderstood brilliance that was Pieces (1982) which he also produced behind him in his office.<br /><br />Slaughter High is a slasher film that I liked a lot, did you see that? I didn't say it was great I actually said I liked it on a personal level & I'm sure the predictable plot & lack of story will probably put many off so I can't recommend it but I can say I liked it, make of that what you want. Make sure you you watch the uncut version if you ever decide you want to check it out. If your not a fan of the slasher flick genre then Slaughter High won't change your mind but if your looking for a simple & effective slasher then you could do a lot worse than this. | 1 |
OK, let's start with the good: nice scenery, Channing Tatum is easy to look at, Amanda Seyfried has nice hair, that's about it. How much of this movie went on the editing room floor? Probably the plot, action, good dialogue, and point. Terrible acting, horrible choppy dialogue. Let me tell you how bad it is: my friend who always cries at movies got to the part that was meant to evoke tears, and she laughed so hard we thought she was crying! The movie seems to want to take a stab at too many issues- war, loss, autism, cancer, but fails so miserably to cover any one topic satisfactorily. Make sure you have something to munch on and your cell phone to return text messages! | 0 |
I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.<br /><br />On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.<br /><br />But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster. | 1 |
Greetings All,<br /><br />Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?<br /><br />I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about "Flatliners" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.<br /><br />Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought "Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition".<br /><br />Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !<br /><br />Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.<br /><br />I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.<br /><br />In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.<br /><br /> | 0 |
The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.<br /><br />It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.<br /><br />The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.<br /><br />Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
My only problem with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is that the movie does not take the time to properly introduce Wallace and Gromit to those not familiar with Park's short films. Strangely, "A Close Shave" manages to do this with a lot less time to spare. Still, I loved seeing the boys back in action and loved all the new characters, human and otherwise. I especially loved Ralph Fiennes voice as the scheming Victor Quartermaine. It is also interesting to see the series on the large screen. The workmanship with the clay characters really stands out. It's a hoot, and great for the whole family! I buy very few DVDs but I have every Wallace and Gromit and will happily add this one. | 1 |
My kids enjoyed the movie, but I was bored. There were a few good lines and a handful of funny parts, but the plot was pretty lame and relied on the special effects and gadgets to pull it through. Still, it hit the center of the bullseye that it was aiming for: it was good for the kids. | 0 |
This film is so old I never realized how young looking Ray Milland looked in 1936, I remember him playing in a great film, "Lost Weekend". Ray plays the role of Michael Stuart, who is a very rich banker. There are three girls in this picture who are not very happy about their father and mother separating and they find out their father is going to get married to a young blonde who is a gold digger only looking for a rich sugar daddy. They hire a man to pose as a very rich Count, his name is Count Ariszted, (Misha Auer) who is drunk all the time and is penniless and gives plenty of comic laughs throughout the picture. Deanna Durbin, (Penny Craig) surprised everyone when she was booked in a police station and told the chief of police that she was an opera star and then Penny starts singing with the most fantastic soprano voice I have every heard, the entire police department and convicts started applauding, which was a very entertaining and enjoyable scene from this film. This is Deanna Durbin's first film debut and she became an instant success over night and went on to become a great movie star with Universal Studios after leaving MGM. | 1 |
I really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.<br /><br />I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.<br /><br />I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.<br /><br />The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.<br /><br />The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.<br /><br />This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously. | 0 |
The only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.<br /><br />the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the "Sweeney " theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney / Minder rip off.<br /><br />the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.<br /><br />When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here | 0 |
Dakota Incident is a curiosity for several reasons. It will be obvious from the start that it was made long before anyone ever thought of political correctness. Although, the Ward Bond character softens the edge with "maybe we can communicate with them, after all they're humans, too" type of dialogue. His part stands side-by-side with the preacher attemtping to communicate with the Martians in War of the Worlds. In fact, it's uncanny. The title is curious too. Use of the word "Incident" contributes an importance and sophistication to the film that probably didn't hurt boxoffice. The contrived assortment of characters and Linda Darnell's fancy dress and hat are wonderful dated touches that make Dakota Incident a cool western artifact from the mid-fifties. | 1 |
Harvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster, a real talented hot shot with a discerning "golden ear" and the son of a famous jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight, mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both the Group and his credibility.<br /><br />Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing "Superfly") shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to "make chicken salad out of chicken s**t." Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary "fifth Beatle" Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host of NBC's "Friday Night Videos" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely "Just One Look") as a church pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's. | 1 |
The Mother is one of those films that you know is good, maybe even great, but it is like eating vegetables or doing math homework is to a kid - too much work and a whole lot of pain to get invested in.<br /><br />The story is potentially distasteful in many ways: the death of a character within the first half hour, the December-May romance, the idea of a man cheating on his wife and then cheating on his lover with her mother, the collection of weak and rather unpleasant thirty-something characters, the apparent indifference of the adults to the children in their lives. This movie was made in the 2002 or 2003, but is a throw back to a collection of British (usually made-for-TV) movies from the late 1980's - it has a moral severity that never lets up, which produces an enveloping throbbing angst.<br /><br />The Mother is flawless, but that is in part the problem; if a film dealing with so many sensitive issues has some flaws - inconsistencies of script, some lesser actors - it takes the edge off, but if such a film is so pitch perfect, the experience of watching it is raw and painful. Even the technical qualities - lighting, editing, etc. - make the viewer ache; the London in this movie is bright and open, filled with harsh, cutting light.<br /><br />If you are tough as nails, or are one of those super-sensitive people who likes to torture themselves with gut-wrenching sad movies or novels, then you will enjoy The Mother. Anyone in between, give it a miss, or be prepared to squirm. And be warned: as tough as the movie is from beginning to near-end, the worst is to come.<br /><br />Toward the end of the movie, the mother asks her daughter what she can do to make up for it (for having slept with her boyfriend), and the daughter calmly says that she has thought about it and would like to hit her. The mother agrees to this, they both stand up, and - instead of a well primed slap - the daughter clenches her fist and delivers a boxer's blow. Argh!!! | 1 |
As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure. <br /><br />The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.<br /><br />The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie. <br /><br />Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow. <br /><br />Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD. | 0 |
Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race. | 0 |
Being a fan of Saint Etienne and the City of London, I was very excited to see this movie on the list of the Vancouver International Film Festival. This movie has great shots, an absolutely excellent soundtrack and interesting insights into a 'not so well known' London.<br /><br />The movie is held completely in 'dark' colours, which I personally don't like too much. Furthermore the narration was a little too British and the comments sometimes got a little flat. Other than that, there are some great comments by Londoners and excellent shots. FINISTERRE doesn't glorify London by showing all the great attractions of the city, but rather gives deep insights in what London is really like. From the East end to the vibrant centre with its music scene as well as the 'special little retreats' for Londoners.<br /><br />All in all:<br /><br />+Great Soundtrack +Nice shots +great insights<br /><br />-Narration -Tiering to watch at times -Very dark picture<br /><br />Worth watching! I give it a 7/10 | 1 |
I wasn't planning on watching wasted when I saw the MTV preview but since I had nothing better to do or watch on a Sunday night I watched it.<br /><br />Wasted was no Requiem for a Dream but it was a very good movie considering it was made by MTV. One thing that drew me to watching it was Summer Pheonix the sister of the late and wonderful River Pheonix stared. I suppose talent runs in the Pheonix family because she was good and so is Jaquien though niether are River. Nick Stahl also gives a great preformance as a junky jock. There isn't much else to say about wasted. It was a dark depressing and insightful look into the lives of three small town junkies. I recomend it to those who like the subject. 8/10 | 1 |
Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.<br /><br />Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schürer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane? <br /><br />I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.<br /><br />But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director José Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality "quickie"). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears "washed out", with compromised contrast.<br /><br />Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.<br /><br />The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schürer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schürer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.<br /><br />The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together. | 1 |
I saw "Heaven-Ship" ("Himmelskibet") at the 2006 Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy. What a great movie! This Danish steampunk saga is the stirring tale of the first trip to Mars, in an era when wireless telegraphy hasn't been perfected. The spaceship hasn't got a radio, and the heroes are brought back from the landing field via horsecart. Even the intertitles are delightful ... some of them written in rhymed couplets in the original Danish.<br /><br />The actors' performances are laughable, largely hand-to-brow histrionics. But the sets are astonishing, easily surpassing anything done by Georges Melies a decade earlier (or in "Die Frau im Mond" a decade later). Of course, the plot is simplistic. The spaceship's crew consist of seven thin guys and one fat slob. Guess which one cracks. Interestingly, everyone in this movie (except the dubious Professor Dubius) ardently believes in God. Even the Martians.<br /><br />Impressively, the scenarists have the sense to acknowledge that a trip to Mars is no doddle: the title cards establish that it takes the scientists two years to build their spaceship (which has an airscrew) and six months to reach Mars. During the construction sequence, there's one extremely impressive set-up which must have been choreographed: dozens of workers all hustle through the worksite in different directions, with no hesitations and no collisions. The Danish scientists christen their ship "Excelsior" ("packing materials"?) and set course for Mars, even though the Moon and Venus are closer. When the ship (which flies horizontally, not vertically) lands on Mars, it is greeted by "Marsboerne" -- Martians -- who turn out to be Nordic blondes, all highly-developed pacifists and vegetarians. (As a highly-developed meat-eater, I resented that part.)<br /><br />Conveniently enough, Mars turns out to have an atmosphere just like Earth's, as well as equal gravity. In an exterior shot of the Martian landscape, the Sun's apparent magnitude when seen from Mars is the same as it is when viewed from Earth. I also couldn't help observing that all the wise elder Martians are male. In fact, female elders are thin on the ground here: both the Earth-born hero and the Martian maiden are motherless. The Martians speak a universal language, wear ankhs on their robes, and greet the Earth visitors with a globe of Earth ... which of course they hold with its North Pole upward.<br /><br />That Martian maiden is Marya, played by an ethereally beautiful Danish actress. (Waiter, I'll have some of that Danish!) We see a Martian dance of chastity which might have been twee or ludicrous but is actually quite touching and beautiful. Also, the Martian funeral scene features one shot which reminded me of a sequence in "The Seventh Seal". I wonder if Ingmar Bergman saw this film.<br /><br />"Himmelskibet" has a few flaws, but its production design and its other merits very far outweigh its drawbacks. The Ole Olsen who is named in the credits (and who appears in a brief prologue) is no relation to Chic Johnson's vaudeville partner from "Hellzapoppin". I would give "Himmelskibet" a 12, but the scale tops off at 10 ... so, a full 10 out of 10 for this delightful trip to Mars, the blonde planet! | 1 |
<br /><br />Heather Graham is not just a pretty face,she is also an extremely talented actress. She adds a unique flavour to the movie. Overall,it's an intelligent and yet compassionate look at love,marriage and relationships.I thoroughly enjoyed it! | 1 |
In a lonely road in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, a black man driving a car is chased and hit by a truck, falling off-road and dying. His daughter Cassie Robinson calls her former boyfriend Dean and asks him to investigate the mysterious accident. Sam and Dean see that three Afro-Americans and the Caucasian Major of the town were killed in weird accidents on the same road. When the truck threatens Cassie, her Caucasian mother Mrs. Robinson tells a tragic racist murder that happened thirty years ago, and the brothers realize that they have to fight against a hatred spirit in a ghost truck.<br /><br />In this episode, Dean discloses his first and unique love to his brother, surprising Sam and showing that he has feelings, but also that his hunting wish is stronger than his love. The story is only reasonable, touching in the delicate theme of racism in an efficient manner and blending it with a supernatural event. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Rota 666" ("Route 666") | 1 |
then you will be a big fan of this movie. Its almost the same basic concept, a nice mixture of music, soul, and drama. I'll admit, i was a little aprehensive about seeing this movie, I had only seen previews of a white trash girl chained to a radiator, but I am a big fan of Samuel L. Jackson and I enjoyed Hustle & Flow so i thought I would give it a chance.<br /><br />I'm very glad that I did. It turned out to be more than just the surface story of a nymphomaniac southern girl being imprisoned by a 60 year old black man. The story had heart, and was very influential.<br /><br />The music in this movie also added a nice touch. Craig Brewer mixed his style from Hustle & Flow into this movie, except took a new spin and used the Blues. His musical scenes are still at the top of the charts as far as performance scenes go by. He also has very interesting flashback scenes and just gives you an overall crazy feel during some of the more controversial scenes.<br /><br />No doubt, if you liked Hustle & Flow, you will love this movie, and if you are a fan of the blues you should definitely go an see this. I give it a 9 out of 10, very interesting film, and it is extremely under rated. shame.<br /><br />Go out and rent this movie. | 1 |
...which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Overall, "DinoCroc" was a much better movie. Sure, in that movie Matt Borlenghi played a complete wuss-bag who spent the entire movie crying about his little brother getting eaten by the DinoCroc. But the special effects in "DinoCroc" were better, the plot lines were better, and the acting was better. Here are the problems with "Blood Surf" -- 1) the killer crocodile looks like a kid's model with a retractable jaw. 2) the plot is ridiculous. Matt Borlenghi & Co. get shipwrecked on a deserted island, in which they encounter a rabid group of ugly Filipino natives who try to force themselves upon the women in the group. Which was a complete waste of 15 minutes of film. And 3) there's not enough croc time. There are a couple of redeeming qualities of "Blood Surf" -- the actresses are pretty attractive and Matt Borlenghi gets eaten by the croc towards the end of the movie. But if you're on your deathbed and only have enough time to watch one Matt Borlenghi/killer crocodile movie, skip this one and fire up "DinoCroc" instead. | 0 |
I liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.<br /><br />One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.<br /><br />The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.<br /><br />Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.) <br /><br />Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.<br /><br />So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4/10. Another Disney failure. | 0 |
I personally liked "The Prophecy" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, "The Prophecy II" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the "Prophecy" films. "The Prophecy II" is nevertheless the weakest of the three "Prophecy" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that. | 0 |
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create. | 0 |
Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one. | 1 |
Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.<br /><br />Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.<br /><br />Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.) <br /><br />But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.<br /><br />And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)<br /><br />Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply. | 1 |
Does anyone remember the alternative comedy show THE COMIC STRIP PRESENTS . One edition featured Charles Bronson ( Robbie Coltrane ) being interviewed about his new movie GLC :<br /><br />" It's about a man , an ordinary man whose wife and family gets wiped out by creeps and I have to hunt them down and kill them in a sadistic and graphic manner " <br /><br />" And after GLC what next for Bronson ? " <br /><br />" We're using a new angle . My family don't get wiped out but I go after creeps just the same " <br /><br />This accurately describes THE EVIL THAT MEN DO . It's a Bronson vigilante thriller where his motivation isn't down to a blood feud but this leads to credibility becoming strained <br /><br />Bronson is a retired hit-man who isn't giving up his retirement for anything until someone shows him a video tape featuring interviews with the victims of " The Doctor " , not the legendary time traveler but a infamous expert on torture . It's never really explained why The Doctor is so infamous since any police state has a myriad of these sadists nor is it explained why The Doctor and his sister have ridiculous English accents <br /><br />As you may guess it's a lazily written movie and incidents happening because the screenwriter needs things to happen to further the plot no matter how unlikely they are like one of the bad guys getting invited to a threesome so he can be killed or things being revealed like The Doctor's sister being a lesbian so some T&A can be included <br /><br />In many ways it's like one of those nasty Chuck Norris vehicles that were being released at the same time , but the most disappointing thing is that the director is also the same man who made ICE COLD IN ALEX and THE GUNS OF NAVERONE two very well regarded war dramas that are often shown on Sunday afternoons . Believe me this movie won't be shown until well after the watershed | 0 |
Fabulous actors, beautiful scenery, stark reality. I won't elaborate on all of the other reviewers' comments because you get the picture! However, the movie isn't for the squeamish. Reality is slaughtering pigs and other livestock in order to survive. I also have Elinore Randall Stewart's homestead book. I read it several years ago, I have to reread it, since I just watched the newly-released, remastered DVD of the movie.<br /><br />I tried to buy the video for several years, finally bought it used from a video store that went out of business. But Yippee! The DVD is now for sale, I purchased it on amazon.com. Not cheap, but well worth it to me. This is a movie I will be watching until the end of my days! | 1 |
Aside from the discotheque scenes that epitomize the swinging sixties (especially with everyone dancing to instrumental versions of Monkees hits), I am surprised how well this lightweight farce holds up 37 years later, but indeed it does thanks to the breezy execution of its deception-based plot and the sharp interplay of the three leads. Directed by the redoubtable stage-to-screen expert Gene Saks, this 1969 comedy is about Julian Winston, a successful Manhattan dentist and confirmed bachelor, who pretends to be married in order to avoid long-term commitment with his young girlfriend of a year, Toni. In response to Toni's half-hearted suicide attempt, Julian agrees to marry her, but Toni first insists on meeting his wife to alleviate her conscience. Enter Julian's devoted nurse Stephanie to play the wife, and the inevitable complications ensue with white lies growing into major whoppers that lead to presumed couplings and de-couplings.<br /><br />As Julian, a relaxed Walter Matthau dexterously plays the deceptive dentist in his typically sardonic manner, but he lets his two female co-stars walk off with the picture. In her big screen debut, a pixyish 24-year old Goldie Hawn is still retaining her giggly "Laugh-In" persona but provides unexpected savvy and depth as Toni. She and Matthau have great, unforced chemistry in their scenes together. Screen legend Ingrid Bergman, still serenely regal at 54, is obviously having a ball playing Stephanie, initially starchy and quick-witted but blossoming into a liberated spirit as the story evolves. I particularly like how casual she appears after her overnight romp. There is nice supporting work from Rick Lenz as Toni's bohemian neighbor Igor and Jack Weston as Julian's smarmy actor buddy Harvey. Billy Wilder's longtime collaborator, I.A.L. Diamond, provides the sparkling screenplay and opens up the story beyond its stage-bound origins for Saks, who is not the most cinematic of directors. Other than a couple of trailers, there are no significant extras with the DVD. | 1 |
This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.<br /><br />Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.<br /><br />I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.<br /><br />Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".<br /><br />I hate this movie! | 0 |
I totally agree. This is "Pitch Black underground" and a well worn plot. The best scenes I thought were the divers exploring the caves, going through impossible subterranean passageways, some of them were heart pounding. The scenery was great. Had they dispensed with the staple "alien" toothy CGI badboys entirely the movie would have been much better. All they would have had to do is never show any monsters at all but have everyone wondering, and follow Jack's descent into madness, and this might have been a top rate hitchcock-style thriller, maybe award material. The acting isn't bad. But those rubber bats just reduce it to standard fare. | 0 |
Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the "different" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.<br /><br />For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.<br /><br />With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand. | 0 |
One of the biggest hits of 1926, Brown of Harvard is a exciting comedy/drama featuring regatta and football scenes that gave William Haines the role he needed to become a major star. It's patented Haines all the way: brash smart aleck who takes nothing serious until he is rejected by everyone wises up and becomes a man/hero and wins the girl. No one worked this formula like Haines. A terrific comic actor (Little Annie Rooney with Mary Pickford, Show People with Marion Davies), Haines could swing from comedy to tragedy with a change in facial expression. He is a total joy in this film as he was in Tell It to the Marines (with Lon Chaney) and West Point (with Joan Crawford), where he repeats the formula. Mary Brian is good as the girl, Jack Pickford is very good as the sickly roommate, Ralph Bushman is the rival. Edward Connelly, Mary Alden, David Torrence, Guinn Williams, and Grady Sutton co-star. This film is noted now for its homoerotic relationship between Haines and Pickford and for being John Wayne's film debut as a Yale football player (but I never spotted him). Haines was a top-five box office star starting with this picture through 1932. It's a shame he has been largely forgotten and that most of his films appear to be lost. He was one of the most appealing and talented actors of his time. | 1 |
Arthur has always been a personal film for me for two reasons. A good friend of mine who worked on the film as an extra and to help out with the horses during the stable scene just recently passed away. If you look fast you can see Frank Graham during the restaurant scene in the background while Dudley Moore and Jill Eikenberry are in conversation. Frank was a champion equestrian and will be missed by all who knew him.<br /><br />Secondly though, I actually knew a real life Arthur Bach. He was not quite as wealthy as Arthur, but spent 47 years of his life basically as a kid. His parents tightly controlled his purse strings, but his rent and utilities were paid for in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. He spent a good deal of his time getting himself intoxicated on various spirits and making a public spectacle of himself, just like Dudley Moore does. <br /><br />The wonder with Arthur is why anyone would bother with him wealth of not. But that's the other half of the equation. My friend was a most charming person when you got to know him. In fact it was almost a compulsion to be charming. He couldn't buy a newspaper or magazine without trying to establish some level of relationship with the vendor. He spent his life being a perfect party guest. The term wastrel which was in common use in the 19th century would apply to him.<br /><br />And that's what Dudley Moore is, a wastrel. Unlike my friend Moore has John Gielgud to clean up after him. That's a full time job as we see demonstrated in Arthur. My friend also never found a Liza Minnelli, a male Liza Minnelli in fact because he was gay. Still Moore's portrayal of Arthur Bach is deadly accurate and so real for me.<br /><br />Arthur, 20th century wastrel, is being forced to marry another trust fund baby in Jill Eikenberry. Since he won't work for a living, the threat of being cut off is quite real for him. He only has his butler Hobson played by John Gielgud and chauffeur Bitterman played by Ted Post to pour his troubles out to. We should all have such troubles.<br /><br />John Gielgud in his nearly century of life certainly did better work than in Arthur on film and in fact Gielgud is more prominently known for his stage performances. Yet 1981 was a year of sentiment at Oscar time. The Academy gave Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn Oscars for On Golden Pond and Gielgud the Best Supporting Actor Award essentially for the work of a lifetime. That man was amazing, still at his craft almost to the end.<br /><br />So to Frank Graham who worked in the film and to Jackie Weiss, a genuine real life Arthur, I dedicate this review. | 1 |
In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in and of itself - is truly "MANNA FROM HEAVEN"!!!<br /><br />In what could best be described as a "cute" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience (allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY.<br /><br />Truly well-positioned to take its place in the "feel-good" movie genre, this quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing your faith in mankind.<br /><br />From the spectacular opening scene shots of Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family and "family by association" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with thoughts of "shuffling off" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits it just fine. The quiet beauty of the "Queen City of the Great Lakes" compliments, rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's "second cities" instead of running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more believable.<br /><br />Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true talent outlasts Hollywood's "flavor of the week" any time!<br /><br />GO SEE THIS MOVIE!<br /><br />You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long! | 1 |
I watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.<br /><br />In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this film. | 0 |
Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching. | 1 |
This is absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively. <br /><br />The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character "Joe" (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't "get" Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class. | 0 |
An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, "Is there a cafe' around here?" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, "This is Paris." | 0 |
hello boys and girls... this isn't your regular movie review, because this is going to be the cold. hard. truth. are you serious? this movie sucked so many balls i couldn't keep them out of my mouth! they might as well have sprayed me in the eye with monkey semen. you'd need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie.<br /><br />the plot was very lacking. the actors were terrible. i rewound the dance number several times and had to pause it even more because i was choking on my own spit. do boys, everyone!<br /><br />peace R&H besties4lyf | 0 |
I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10. | 0 |
It would be wrong and reprehensible of me to advise you to watch Killjoy 2, you must have better things to do, washing the car, throwing stones in a stream, but at the same time it's nowhere near as awful as you probably think it is. It's almost a proper film, which a lot more than most straight-to-DVD sludge can manage. Killjoy 2 is helped a great deal by Trent Haaga's manic turn as the eponymous clown, he throws himself into the role with such fevered abandonment that he almost tips the scales in the movie's favour, but, of course, it takes more than one man in big shoes. Tammi Sutton gives the most entertaining director cameo since Roger Corman in Creature from the Haunted Sea and the whole thing is nearly destroyed by the rushed, sugary ending. All over the place and almost good fun. | 0 |
I love those kind of movies. Blood, Revenge, A Lot of Action, Very Dark, Cheesy and More. But this one doesn't deliver the genre that you might expect. When I saw Kite Birds and Ichi the Killer before, I had fun watching those but why this one not? Dead or Alive: Final is a decent anime and its not hardcore and don't even expect nudity in this movie.At least add some more action to entertain the audience. Even the drama wasn't that good. Well, I don't want to spoil the movie nor the plot.But I felt that Dead or Alive: Final is a bit nerdy. So, without further to do. I don't recommend this movie to everyone but I recommend for the people who love decent and well directed anime.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne | 1 |
Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended. | 1 |
I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.<br /><br />Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.<br /><br />Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying. | 0 |
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).<br /><br />Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
This movie was kind of interesting...I had to watch it for a college class about India, however the synopsis tells you this movie is about one thing when it doesn't really contain much cold, hard information on those details. It is not really true to the synopsis until the very end where they sloppily try to tie all the elements together. The gore factor is superb, however. Even right at the very beginning, you want to look away because the gore is pretty intense. Only watch this movie if you want to see some cool gore, because the plot is thin and will make you sad that you wasted time listening to it. I've seen rumors on other websites about this movie being based on true events, however you can not find any information about it online...so basically this movie was a waste of time to watch. | 0 |
One of the other reviewers has mentioned that after watching just 1 Oz episode you'll be hooked. They are right, as this is exactly what happened with me.<br /><br />The first thing that struck me about Oz was its brutality and unflinching scenes of violence, which set in right from the word GO. Trust me, this is not a show for the faint hearted or timid. This show pulls no punches with regards to drugs, sex or violence. Its is hardcore, in the classic use of the word.<br /><br />It is called OZ as that is the nickname given to the Oswald Maximum Security State Penitentary. It focuses mainly on Emerald City, an experimental section of the prison where all the cells have glass fronts and face inwards, so privacy is not high on the agenda. Em City is home to many..Aryans, Muslims, gangstas, Latinos, Christians, Italians, Irish and more....so scuffles, death stares, dodgy dealings and shady agreements are never far away.<br /><br />I would say the main appeal of the show is due to the fact that it goes where other shows wouldn't dare. Forget pretty pictures painted for mainstream audiences, forget charm, forget romance...OZ doesn't mess around. The first episode I ever saw struck me as so nasty it was surreal, I couldn't say I was ready for it, but as I watched more, I developed a taste for Oz, and got accustomed to the high levels of graphic violence. Not just violence, but injustice (crooked guards who'll be sold out for a nickel, inmates who'll kill on order and get away with it, well mannered, middle class inmates being turned into prison bitches due to their lack of street skills or prison experience) Watching Oz, you may become comfortable with what is uncomfortable viewing....thats if you can get in touch with your darker side. | 1 |
An odd, willfully skewed biopic of Dyan Thomas in which we hear little more than a dozen lines of his poetry. Instead we have to endure a raw character exposée seen through the prism of his proto-bigamous relationship with wife (Sienna Miller) and childhood love (Keira Knightley). Matthew Rhys plays Thomas with sufficient charm to inoculate us against his otherwise repellent self-interest and Cillian Murphy makes up the persistently tense lovetet.<br /><br />The film never seems to decide on where it's going. There's no arc so much as a viaduct from one end of the war to the other. Maybury seems much more interested in his two female leads (who wouldn't!?) than in the man who brings them together and then divides them. Miller is the choice of the two (I found Knightley competent at best but then I have never found her sympathetic) but they both offer dreadfully inconsistent Welsh accents. Other funny decisions include too much for the inconsequential character of William (Murphy), arty production (eg double crossfades) that is neither impressionist nor symbolic and the old chestnut act of period footage which doesn't blend. 4/10 | 0 |
'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.<br /><br />Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').<br /><br />'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.<br /><br />This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb. | 0 |
Well, this movie actually did have one redeeming quality. It made up the funniest season one episode of MST3K. I wish Rhino had released this one instead of "The Crawling Hand." | 0 |
This is a Frank Loesser masterpiece of amusing lyrics, competent themes and solid construction by those who adapted Damon Runyon material to the musical's "book". What is surprising about the film is how seamlessly the musical numbers flow from the storyline. Abe Burrows did the book with contributions from Loesser; Michael Kidd was the choreographer, and the outstanding art direction was contributed by Joseph Wright. The storyline can be told in two sentences. Nathan Detroit, played by Frank Sinatra, needs cash to finance his permanent floating crap game to amuse Big Julie, a Chicago Mob Boss. He bets odds-player Sky Masterson, well-presented by Marlon Brando, that he cannot get a Salvation Army girl to go to Havana with him; Masterson wins the bet, saves the Mission, falls in love with the girl, gets the gamblers and riffraff at the crap game to attend a service, and tells everybody the lady was impervious to his charms--a complete lie. Of course he ends up with the lady; and Detroit marries hi long-suffering fiancée, Vivian Blaine. Others in the cast include Stubby Kaye, Johnny Silver, Robert Keith, B.S. Pulley as Big Julie the Mobster, Sheldon Leonard, Regis Toomey, Mary Alan Kokanson, Kathryn Givney as the Salvation Army leader, Veda Ann Borg and Jean Simmons as the tepid Salvation Army girl, Sarah Brown. The famous musical numbers in this award-winning Broadway smash include "Fugue For Tinhorns", "Guys and Dolls", "Luck Be a Lady", "I'll Know", "A Person Could Develop a Cold", and "The Oldest Established Permnanet Floating Crap Game in New York!". Joseph L. Mankiewicz of "Cleopatra" and "Letter to Three Wives" Fame directed the proceedings; and the flow of the work is very interestingly and successfully kept moving. He is equally adept at getting fine dialogue acting and directing such huge numbers as "Luck Be Lady", the varied and challenging brawl section, the Havana "A Woman in Love" section created for the film that precedes it, the presenting of the title song "Guys and Dolls" and "Pet Me, Poppa" set in the club where Blaine works. The acting is very uneven. Simmons seems wrong for the part at times, Brando gets by with the singing and is very good much of the time on instinct, charm and underplaying, even in the comedy. scenes. Sinatra tries hard but is wrong for the role for several reasons as Nathan Detroit; Blaine is a bit too-theatrical in selling her numbers, which she of course sings professionally. Leonard, Toomey, Kaye, Keith and Pulley do what is asked and more at all points. The stylized opening and closing are made to work well; all in all, this film is a triumph for Loesser's amiable and subtle lyrics, for director Mankiewicz as ringmaster, and for the genre of musicals itself, so ably justified in this instance. Delightful and very different. | 1 |
"The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse. <br /><br />"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS<br /><br />From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail. <br /><br />In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself. <br /><br />The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes. <br /><br />Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).<br /><br />Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.<br /><br />Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.<br /><br />DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE<br /><br />I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent. <br /><br />The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.<br /><br />The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br /><br />"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making. | 0 |
Man's Castle is set in one of those jerry built settlements on vacant land and parks that during these times were called 'Hoovervilles' named after our unfortunate 31st president who got stuck with The Great Depression occurring in his administration. The proposition of this film is that a man's home is still his castle even when it's just a shack in a Hooverville.<br /><br />Spencer Tracy has such a shack and truth be told this guy even in good times would not be working all that much. But in a part very typical for Tracy before he was cast as a priest in San Francisco, the start of a slew of classic roles, he's playing a tough good natured mug who takes in Loretta Young.<br /><br />One of the things about Man's Castle is that it shows the effects of the Depression on women as well as men. Women had some additional strains put on them, if men had trouble finding work, women had it twice as hard. And they were sexually harassed and some resorted to prostitution just for a square meal. Spence takes Loretta Young in who's facing those kind of problems and makes no demands on her in his castle. Pretty soon though they're in love, though Tracy is not the kind to settle down.<br /><br />The love scenes had some extra zing to them because Tracy and Young were having a torrid affair during the shooting of Man's Castle. And both were Catholic and married and in those days that was an insuperable barrier to marriage. Both Tracy and Young took the Catholic faith quite seriously.<br /><br />Also in the cast are Walter Connolly as a kind of father figure for the whole camp, Marjorie Rambeau who's been through all the pitfalls Young might encounter and tries to steer her clear and Arthur Hohl, a really loathsome creep who has his eye on Young as well. Hohl brings the plot of Man's Castle to its climax through his scheming. <br /><br />Man's Castle is grim look at the Great Depression, not the usual movie escapist fare for those trying to avoid that kind of reality in their entertainment. | 1 |
OK, look at the title of this film.<br /><br />the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.<br /><br />well, sadly, you won't see any of that.<br /><br />just a bunch of bad actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.<br /><br />oh, well, i think there are about 5-10 minutes of zombies and vampires indeed...<br /><br />get away from this if you want to see a good movie. else get it. | 0 |
Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of "civilized warfare", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with "war", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a "something" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing. | 0 |
I read that this did not well, that the story is not solid, that Volckman feels he has failed in some way.<br /><br />I disagree. First, it is well executed. Volckman is doing well to not only to try a new technique, but to have a focus that is worth thinking about: would immortality reduce the value of life? Big question ...<br /><br />I can see he trying hard to build a feeling, and he is not compromising. This is to be applauded. I am sure it was an interesting exercise to build characters in such a form. I have seen artists reduce a form to bare minimum to build the intensity of a moment. I identify this film with this.<br /><br />Further, it is much more interesting than Richard Linklater's roto-scoping, and Volckman's story has more meaning than Linklater's later stories of a wasted life on drugs. Old news. Everyone knows it, but no one does anything about it. Renaissance has more to offer, something new to think about. And there are many more stories out there with loads of holes in them that do far better.<br /><br />Well done, Volckman. Really nice work. | 1 |
If you want to watch a good film about how women can fight back against sexual assault, then this film is not the film that you want to watch. It was a social commentary about a woman who was victimized and fights back. Spoiler: Rosario Dawson turns the tables on her assailant. Instead of using the criminal justice system, the victim resorts to using vigilantism. She in essence nullifies the judicial system. The film "The Accused" was a much better film because the victim uses the judicial system and wins. What the "Descent" does is telling victims of assault that they should resort to violence? Is victim any better that the accuser? No!!! | 0 |
Darling Lili is fantastic! Its by far one my favorite films! It certainly didn't deserve the poor reviews it received. Julie Andrews, playing the title role of Lili Smith (Schmidt) is the best part of the whole movie. She is entrancing and spectacular! As Julie Andrews is my most favorite actress and singer by far, I was most definatly not surprised by how stunning she is. This movie is just...great (I'm running out of adjectives!), it's magnificent, marvellous, amazing, funny, terribly romantic, sad, and just an all-out thrill and its all thanks to Dame Julie Andrews!And to her husband, director Blake Edwards. Oh, yeah Rock Hudson was ok, too :)<br /><br />Julie Andrews is the beautiful and well-loved singer, Lili Smith. Rock Hudson portrays Major Larabee, who quickly falls for Lili, and she with him. But their affair was not coincedental. There meeting was planned by the German Government (I'm not sure if that's exactly what you'd call them, but you get the point), because the warm, happy, singing entertainer Lili is actually a German Spy. Lili is told to seduce Major LArabee in order to get information of the new Top Secret Opertaion (later know as "Crepe Suzette"). Though Lili is on a solemn mission, she falls in love with Bill (Major Larabee), for real, making her original quest challenging. But Lili pulls through and completes er task, after she finds out something that is not really true about Bill. The ending will remain unsaid by me as it is wonderfully layed out. If anything, you'll thoroughly enjoy this movie, I most certainly did!!!!!!!!<br /><br /> | 1 |
Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, but my wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set in present time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crime syndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor of leader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, and plan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is a story of betrayal and cold, brutal death.<br /><br />Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story but change the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?) dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work and the violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that it keeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, but the violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it is calculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action is actually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movie to its knees.<br /><br />What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between the superfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns into something else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, so much that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.<br /><br />Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Set to present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft had no place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seems completely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story with it's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seems completely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convert that part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps (which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left way too much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bring stretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I just waited for the real movie to begin again.<br /><br />A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Of all the British imperialist movies like Four Feathers, Charge of the Light Brigade for example, this movie stands out as the cream of the crop. It reflects a time when "the sun never set on the British Empire." Get over it. I won't go into why because so many others have expressed the many reasons that makes this film great. I have visited the Alabama Hills and have photographed the pass through which the British marched and it remains as it was, unchanged by time and encroachment by man and vandals. And even though I know it's coming, seeing Din lying dead on a stretcher and when these lines are read <br /><br />"Yes, Din! Din! Din!<br /><br />You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!<br /><br />Though I've belted you and flayed you,<br /><br />By the livin' Gawd that made you,<br /><br />You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" <br /><br />I still, at 54 years of age, get misty eyed and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The range of emotions within it is the mark of a great movie. Like the ending of another great film, Of Mice and Men. | 1 |
Paul Reiser did a spectacular job in writing this movie. Peter Falk gives the performance of his life. It is worthy of an Academy Award. This was one of the most poignant and funny movies of the year. Reiser's wit is fantastic and he is as good as it gets and as he was in his long running TV sitcom "Mad about You". Peter Falk did a masterful job as his dad, and Peter who is now 78 years young made us laugh and cry at the same time. The supporting cast was equal to the task especially the gorgeous gorgeous Elizabeth Perkins. It is a must see movie for 2005. We bet that everyone across all ages and religions will love this movie and somehow relate to it in one way or another. We have mothers and fathers and siblings like these in the movie. We have all had the good and bad times together and wish things were the same but different. | 1 |
"Jake Speed" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).<br /><br />But with all this going against it, "Jake Speed" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.<br /><br />Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me "Hey, why not try to be a good person."<br /><br />The story is essentially a "stranger in a strange land" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.<br /><br />It's because of this that "Jake Speed" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.<br /><br />Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as "Jake Speed" would get a chance. ("Due South," a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)<br /><br />Sure, "Jake Speed" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99 | 1 |
"Igor and the Lunatics" is a totally inept and amateurish attempt at a crazy-hippie-cult-killing-spree horror movie. Apparently even nearly twenty years later, Charles Manson was still inspiring overenthusiastic but incompetent trash-filmmakers. This is a typical Troma production, meaning in other words, there's a lot of boring and totally irrelevant padding footage to accompany the nonsensical plot. There's a bit of random gore and gratuitous nudity on display which isn't bad but it's all so very pointless and ugly that it becomes frustrating to look at. "Igor and the Lunatics" is so desperate that it's even using a lot of the footage twice, like the circle saw killing for example. The incoherent plot tries to tell the story of a hippie cult run by the drug-addicted and Charlie Manson wannabe Paul. One of Paul's lower ranked disciples, named Igor, becomes a little bit too obsessed with the Bible stories and drug orgies and gradually causes the entire cult to descent further into criminal insanity. Just to illustrate through a little example exactly how crazy Igor is: he tears the heart straight out of the chest of a really sexy black hitch-hiker girl! There's an annoying synthesizer soundtrack and some truly embarrassingly lame pseudo-artistic camera tricks, like slow-motion footage and lurid dream sequences. Maybe there's one sequence that more or less qualifies as worthwhile for trash fanatics and that' is when a poor girl is cut in half with a machete. For no particular reason, the camera holds the shot of the blade in the bloodied stomach for fifteen whole seconds. | 0 |
This movie is hilarious. The laughs never stop. Every scene is packed to the limit with hilarious comedy. Chris Farley is a comic genius, and Spade plays his character to a tee. Farley was one of the best slap stick comics ever, and in this movie(as with all his movies) we see how much time and energy he devoted to portraying his character the way he saw fit. "Tommy Boy" is an excellent example of a comedy, it always makes me laugh, no matter how many times I have seen it before. | 1 |
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional. | 0 |
I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.<br /><br />Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.<br /><br />This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.<br /><br />Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.<br /><br />The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other film. | 1 |
Wow! All I can say is that if Elizabeth Montgomery is the enemy (she speaks Russian), then I'm surrendering right now. In her short skirt, high-top boots, and pronounced bust line, she's a real babe, even if her zombie-like eye-shadow sort of comes and goes. This 30 minutes is no doubt the sexiest of the series. Note the realistic and revealing wrestling match with Bronson until he ungallantly slugs her on the chin, ruining all the fun. Okay, probably I should leave off my hormonal response.<br /><br />This is a very well produced half-hour by that underrated force behind the series's success, Buck Houghton. Naturally, the producers want to lead off the third season with an above average entry. It's post nuclear-holocaust America (we know because she's part of the invading force) and only American Bronson and Soviet Montgomery are left, along with about twenty tons of realistic wreckage. They wander among the destruction in alternating moods, while we wonder how long it will take for biology to trump politics, which of course it eventually does, (lucky Bronson). And that's about it. No real talk, except for what Bronson has to say which is pretty overblown. Nonetheless, the screenplay is still entertaining, and rather daring for its time, even suggesting that not all Russian women looked like truck drivers (a popular Cold War stereotype of the time).<br /><br />In passing-- it's rather curious that the very Slavic-looking Bronson (Buchinsky) would be cast as the American and the glossy-looking Montgomery as the Slav. Appearance-wise, it should be the reverse. My guess is that the producers did not want to cast the American in the physically weaker role of the female, regardless of appearances. However that may be, there is little of the usual TZ fright or atmosphere, still the episode remains a very, very watchable 30 minutes. | 1 |
Adam Jones has a brilliant sense of humor. There is nothing i didn't like about this film. Cross Eyed was beautifully shot. Adam does a great job of, not only developing the main characters, but also the minor characters. <br /><br />Cross Eyed gives hope to every low budget film out there. That you don't have to spend a lot to create something worth watching. There is something to like for everyone. If you've had a terrible roommate. if you've ever picked on a dork in high school. if you've ever parked anywhere in the city. if you have any type of sense of humor at all you will love this film. This is the type of film that will be around for a long time and ends up resurfacing again once Adam makes a bigger name for himself. I look forward to Adam's future projects. | 1 |
I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together. | 0 |
I have never observed four hours pass quite so quickly as when I saw this film. This film restores the power and art to Hamlet that it was always meant to have. Even those oh-so famous speeches are done in new and inventive ways. And the cast is incredible, Brannagh the brightest star. It is his charisma, power and command of the role that defines the movie. Making it a full and complete version fills so many holes and allows for new appreciation of the tragedy despite the length. Where one would expect the dark, gloomy cliched castle, we are treated to a sumptuous feast for the eyes. The only gloom comes from Hamlet himself, as it should. Well worth your time, all four hours of it. | 1 |
This was Barbra Streisand's first television special and is "must see" viewing for any Streisand fan. Even non-Streisand fans will enjoy this highly energetic and entertaining piece of entertainment history. Performers like this only come our way once in a lifetime. Brilliant! | 1 |
It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now a bit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it was very predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie that Welles is the nazi war criminal, and I'll give you one guess as to whether he is caught and appropriately punished in the end.<br /><br />Not worth watching. It's sad that Welles only made three movies worth seeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch of Evil. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.