text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more. The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that "Talk Radio" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out "JFK" or "Salvador." This is not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless. | 1 |
Apparently re-cut episodes from the Gangbusters TV show on the big screen. While this was frequently done in the 50's and 60's because people didn't have a TV or a color TV and producers wanted an increased return on their investment (big screen ticket sales or if it went to the small screen resale of a series that isn't in syndication), the results were usually less then the sum of their parts. The only time I've ever seen it work were where multi-part stories were put together (Ala Rocky Jones or Man From Uncle) or in the case of horror anthology (The Veil and 13 Demon Street). Here the effect is to have stories of American criminals in the 20's and 30's (Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, etc)inter-cut with each other as a narrator talks about how the FBI hunted them down. Its a weird concoction that doesn't quite work because its clear that there are things here that don't belong together. More than once I looked at the TV oddly because things didn't seem right. In fairness I won't describe the cheapness of the production since this was what early TV (and the series) was like. Its not bad, but its not very good either. To be perfectly honest the episodes of the series that I've seen work better a single episodes where we're not expecting as much. Given the choice I'd rent dvds of the show instead of this movie. | 0 |
We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.<br /><br />We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.<br /><br />IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is. | 0 |
Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.<br /><br />But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.<br /><br />Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility. | 0 |
I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!<br /><br />This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation. | 0 |
There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly.<br /><br />There are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching, it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed together.<br /><br />It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing up.<br /><br />The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may be saying. | 1 |
Why is there so much angst among the IMDb reviewers who hate this film? It isn't a masterpiece, but having viewed it twice it does come across as compelling drama set in the world of network TV. Robin Stone is the epitome of every Dan Rather, Phillip Stone, and Brian What's-his-name on NBC. A mannequin of a man incapable of love who succeeds professionally, but fails miserably in his personal life. I worked for eight (8) years in network news and Robin Stone's DO EXIST!<br /><br />The supporting cast works for me from Cannon (who can be annoying, but isn't in this film) to Greene (who plays pathos just right) to Wexler (who scores as the young model in love w/ the image of Prince Charming and can't reconcile that image w/ the true ugliness inside). Also of note is the ending which some IMDb reviewers claim is a cop-out. It's not! Listen to the song "He's Moving On" for clues as to the arc the Robin Stone character travels that brings him to finally face his issues. He realizes the answers don't lay w/ the life he's lived and the symbolic walk away from those he's associated himself with, at the end is perfect. | 1 |
Certainly the highlight of this film is it's cast.<br /><br />Diana Rigg, George C. Scott, Bernard Hughes to mention a few.<br /><br />I have accumulated more time in hospitals and with doctors over the years than I care to think about.<br /><br />This comedy attacks the pomp and pretension in all aspects of our society, through the setting of one of it's "Most Haughty" institutions... the Medical profession.<br /><br />The idea that such goings on could be possible, might be a shock to some, but is a delight to anyone with the perspective of experience.<br /><br />Dr Brock (Scott) undergoes a mid-life crisis of monumental proportions before our eyes as we, and he, become enamored with the prospect of his involvement with Miss Drummond (Rigg).<br /><br />The thread of the absurd is woven into this wonderful mix in the form of the irony that the Hospital appears to be killing it's own workers as they mismanage their affairs in it.<br /><br />The climax is unpredictable (unless you've seen it) and made even more hilarious if you happen to guess.<br /><br />It's not everyone's brand of humor, to be sure, and has uproariously funny "Dark Moments" if you're open to them.<br /><br />I loved every minute, and was delighted to see it out on DVD. | 1 |
Gary Busey's best performance in a nicely-flowing biography. Since had a musical background, he was able to do his own songs and it really works. It's always good to see that fine actor, Don Stroud (one of the crickets) and Charlie Martin Smith as well.<br /><br />An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Gary Busey. Thankfully, Mr. Busey was Oscar-nominated for this, losing to Jon Voight in COMING HOME. A fairly low-budget flick that doesn't disappoint, with GREAT SONGS by Mr. Holly. I hope this made plenty of dough. Busey was never this popular again for varying reasons, but thankfully he has this one great one on his resume. | 1 |
The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.<br /><br />Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.<br /><br />The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10. | 0 |
Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race). | 0 |
I saw the film at the Brooklyn International Film Festival (World Premiere).<br /><br />A haunting, intimate portrait of Loneliness, and the repercussions of letting it grow and turn into something darker.<br /><br />The acting of the two leads (Jessica Bohl & Richard Brundage) is excellent, and makes one wish you had met these characters before they became so damaged.<br /><br />Reminded me in theme of the works of Atom Egoyan (Exotica) and Raymond Carver (Where I'm Calling From).<br /><br />The Soundtrack (Tywanna Jo Baskette, Crooked Fingers) is excellent and reinforces moments in the film without drawing attention to itself.<br /><br />Highly recommend the Film and the Soundtrack. | 1 |
Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).<br /><br />Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad! <br /><br />We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense ("I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing").<br /><br />Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it! | 0 |
Whoever wrote the "nice" post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as "real" pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are "better" back yard videos out there. | 0 |
i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :( | 0 |
Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them! | 0 |
(This review does not necessarily expose the plot of the movie, however it may change one's expectations of the movie and thus make for a less enjoyable experience.) <br /><br />Ever rented a scary movie, expecting to be on the edge of your seat in fear, and instead ended up howling in laughter at each and every stupid turn of the plot? This movie had so many opportunities to impress and actually scare the viewer. It was cut poorly and jumped around too much; making references to the past seem more like excuses as to why the plot was heading in its particular direction. The writers must not have thought about how the potentially excellent plot should have been carried out, because the poor construction of time throughout the plot is discouraging to the viewer and makes the movie increasingly tiring to watch.<br /><br />Almost worse than the writers having abused what could have been an excellent and classic thriller was the fact that it gradually relied on cheap tactics for a scare. The acting didn't make it scary, and the situations hardly made it scary, therefore it needed a few dark scenes with things jumping out at you to make it worthwhile. Even those were predictable.<br /><br />Not even the gore could've saved the plot, and it rivals the gore of the successful thriller Se7en.<br /><br />Speaking of Se7en, I feel like Saw tried to follow Se7en's incredibly fascinating psychological theme, but failed miserably in doing so. I was terribly disappointed in the lack of analysis and plot structure surrounding the psychology of the killer. The beginning scenes tease the viewer into thinking that this is a psychological thriller; believe me, it is far from that.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention poor acting? At first, Cary Elwes seems makes a convincing performance; however, this completely deteriorates at the most crucial parts of the plot. I was left in tears of laughter at this performance, which is worthy of a Razzie. The performance of Leigh Whannell is also terrible and too played-out, although not as bad as the performance by Elwes, and the big red flag with this is that Whannell is also a writer for the movie.<br /><br />The end of Saw could never make up for having lost the entire middle of it, and that is what makes it a huge failure. It was an opportunity wasted, and I have no clue as to why Monica Potter and Danny Glover chose to take roles in this movie.<br /><br />I am mad at myself for wasting money on just renting it. It was definitely not worth the $4, and in the future I will definitely avoid seeing anything having to do with Elwes, Whannell or James Wan. The big tragedy in this is not that it lacked basis to its plot, it's that the great potential storyline was thrown away and poor acting added insult to injury. I'll avoid the poor puns involving the title and just conclude with this: don't watch this movie. | 0 |
For a low budget project, the Film was a success. The story is interesting, and the actors were convincing. Eva Longoria, who now stars on the TV Show "Dragnet," is sexier than ever. The locations were ideal for the ganster plot, and the director shows his talent by taking on many roles for his project. Of course this low budget film could use better editing transitions and more special effects for the gun scenes, but the music keeps this script moving. Although this film has it's share of problems, such as continuity, I must say that I would rent the director's next movie. If your a film student, you could learn a few things from the director's commentary. | 1 |
I had seen this movie just days before Halloween 2004. I noticed it around lunch-time and it was an interesting description in my menu box so I decided to watch it. Seriously only a movie only suitable for late night TV...you know, after Conan but before the infomercials sorta deal.<br /><br />Although this movie has very little to do with webs, it does have a lot to do with spiders, refer to my heading if you need a refresher.<br /><br />I found the idea behind the story absolutely fascinating. A hidden nuclear generator, a scientist and a believable portal...Would have been a good start to a cool fantasy but then it goes downhill after 15-20 minutes.<br /><br />The cast is poor with no memorable performances, poor quality queen who has had her breasts amplified...considering spiders don't carry breasts. As well as poor sound effects. An obvious low budget movie though the cast has tried.<br /><br />SPOILER:<br /><br />4 electricians stumble upon a hidden nuclear generator while on a job. They fiddle with the buttons and open a portal. 2 workers fall into the portal and it closes...scrambling to figure out what is going on, the party still in our world seeks help while the other party observers their surroundings.<br /><br />Help does not arrive so they open the portal and follow through meeting up in a parallel dimension. They encounter a race of human spiders dubbed soldiers. After a death and chase they are saved by survivors.<br /><br />Now it gets boring...they hide, talk a bit, try to build another portal then attack the hive. After losing 2 more electricians they open the portal and escape returning to our world...some 200 million years ago.<br /><br />Sounds interesting huh? | 0 |
This movie is about six men who are assigned to transport money from bank to businesses. Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) was in Iraq for the war serving his country and now just is being helped out making a living by his friend Mike Cochrone (Matt Dillon) making sure he does not loose his house. Mike tells him that this wasn't the life his parents were expecting for him and he should be living a better life than he is now with his brother Jimmy Hackett (Andre Kinney). Telling Ty that him and Jimmy have always been family to him and would do anything to help them out, Mike tells Ty about a plan to make a heist. The money would be around 43 million split six ways among the other transport men too, although Ty does not like the idea he tells his friend Mike as long as no one gets hurt he would be in. The last night Ty was forced to talk to a welfare lady about putting up his brother in foster care giving him a dilemma to lose what matters most in his life. Although the plan sounds safe at first, greed isn't everything when it comes to taking lives.<br /><br />When it comes to heists, your either in or your out, so when you don't go with a plan its hard to play the hero and stop greed driven people when it comes to having large sums of money. This movie comes with a star studded cast to keep you interested starring Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne, Amaury Nolasco, Fred Ward, Skeet Ulrich, and Milo Ventimiglia. Short I have recently only remembered him in "Stomp the Yard" which was about a kid who lost his brother and lives his dream to go to college. This was probably one of his best movies I have seen him in and this one he fits the character so well it's great to see him on the big screen again in action. | 1 |
In the Citadel film series book The Films of Gene Kelly, Anchors Aweigh is described as a kingpin of a musical. I sure can't do better than that. It's such an important film in both the careers of Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra. Kathryn Grayson didn't do too badly with this either.<br /><br />Louis B. Mayer had lent Gene Kelly out to Columbia where Harry Cohn had an inspiration to let Kelly choreograph his own numbers and because of it, Cover Girl became a classic. So if Mayer didn't learn a lesson, producer Joe Pasternak did and allowed Kelly artistic control. When Anchors Aweigh was finished, Fred Astaire at last had a dancing rival for monarch of cinema dance.<br /><br />The main number everyone talks about with Gene Kelly here is the dance with Jerry Mouse. Originally Kelly wanted to do the number with Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, but Disney wasn't lending Mickey out to nobody. Mickey would have to wait until Who Framed Roger Rabbit to do an outside film. Not to worry because MGM had it's own animated rodent one half the team of Tom and Jerry.<br /><br />Kelly as dancer always strived to do something new and different on screen as did Fred Astaire. For the next dozen years, these two were allowed all kinds of artistic control and were praised for their work even if the films themselves weren't up to snuff. It was like each inspired the other to bigger and better creativity, Kelly for MGM, Astaire for MGM and any number of other studios. In Anchors Aweigh, Kelly got Sinatra to dance a bit. In fact Frank Sinatra always gave credit to Gene Kelly for showing him how musicals should be done as he gave credit to both Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift for their help in earning him is Oscar for From Here to Eternity.<br /><br />When Frank Sinatra had half of his contract bought from RKO by MGM he insisted on a little artistic creativity on his own. He'd become friends with the songwriting team of Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn. In his autobiography Sammy Cahn tells about how Sinatra insisted that they write his songs for this film. Louis B. Mayer gave in and the team wrote some really fine ballads for him to sing. One of my favorite Sinatra numbers comes from Anchors Aweigh, I Fall in Love Too Easily. Frank sings it accompanying himself on the piano at an empty Hollywood Bowl. It's Sinatra at his best. <br /><br />With Jule Styne and later with Jimmy Van Heusen, Sammy Cahn richly earned the title of having put more song lyrics in Frank Sinatra's mouth than any other person. They were lifetime friends and Cahn always credited Sinatra with this milestone boost in his career.<br /><br />On a bet Styne and Cahn said they could write a song just using a chromatic scale. They proved it in Anchors Aweigh when Kathryn Grayson put her soprano to work on All of a Sudden My Heart Sings. She also did some classical numbers.<br /><br />Here singing in fact is the basis of the plot. Two sailors on leave through a combination of circumstances meet up with Kathryn Grayson and her orphaned nephew Dean Stockwell. Trying to fix her up with Sinatra, Kelly says he can get her an audition with Jose Iturbi. They spend the film trying to accomplish just that. <br /><br />My only disappointment in Anchors Aweigh was that Pamela Britton, who plays the waitress 'Brooklyn' never got a number herself. She had gotten rave reviews from her performance as Meg Brockie in Brigadoon on Broadway and that's what brought her to Hollywood. I have a suspicion she had a number that was cut and somewhere in MGM's vaults it might still be.<br /><br />Anchors Aweigh is a great example of why musicals just aren't made any more. All that creative talent was under contract to Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer. If you had to pay market value for it, the cost might retire some third world country's debt.<br /><br />But the film results would be extraordinary. | 1 |
OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years. This is not one of them. I won't even bother trying to get into the plot about a Bible shipment gone wrong. The "acting" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job! The synthesizer based soundtrack is even worse than the one in Deathstalker. Whereas traditionally low budget spooky movies are often trying to catch their audience by adding plenty of graphic violence, this one is trying to catch an audience by throwing religious mambo jumbo at the spectator. The plot boils down to different versions of the Bible. | 0 |
H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds by director David Michael Latt is a slightly less-than-average flick which isn't too bad if one considers the budget he had to work with - only $1 million. For this budget, the production value wasn't too bad - the best part of it is the visual effects (I was thoroughly impressed with the CGI considering the budget) and sound design. The less-then-stellar parts of this film are the story which is VERY prolonged at best (but again I think this is because of the budget they had - they had to prolong certain scenes to create the feature length 97 minutes), the acting (again it's because the actors had no story to work with), very few exceptional camera shots, and the music. However, again, I can let the negative parts go for the most part only because this film was made for a meager budget and still had good production value. Still you should,d see it for the sake of seeing how a low budget version of War of the Worlds CAN be made even with flaws. 4 out of 10. | 0 |
This was fun to watch, spookily atmospheric and effects were pretty good considering they were bang in the middle of World War Two. The plot did unravel pretty quickly at the end with the villains getting their comeuppance.<br /><br />It must have been a good one to watch at the local flea pit in the 1940's when they were facing the biggest threat to their liberty from the Nazis - well made with quite a serious message about the dangers to Britain from third columnists.<br /><br />But Arthur Askey was so annoying & unfunny you just wanted him to shut up - well at least I did ! I suppose different tastes in different times but the clowning around became tiresome. If he was playing an annoying little man as part of the script then he succeeded.<br /><br />A good watch and quite short at just over 80 minutes - a good background for older kids too so they have an idea of what train travel in austere times was like; uncomfortable slow, dirty trains, being thrown off for no reason, surly staff .... | 1 |
Wizards of the Lost Kingdom is a movie about a young prince (Simon) who is banished from his kingdom due to his father (the king) being killed by the cliche "evil adviser". This movie's about Simon's adventures. The special effects, plot, acting, and generally everything about this movie is BAD. However, it's so bad that it's funny. You will keep watching this movie simply because it's so bad it's funny, and, like the other reviewer of the movie said, it's so bad it's good. | 1 |
Inglorious Basterds is a dark and violent comic fantasy, gloriously so. Built on the framework of The Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Basterds ditches the elongated training sequences of The Dirty Dozen to plunge into the action right away. In the process, Tarantino fixes one of The Dirty Dozen's major flaws by giving the bad guys screen time to remind us just how bad the Nazis were. The Nazis with the most screen time end up becoming the most completely human characters in the film, which ironically makes them even worse monsters.<br /><br />Bu ditching the training sequences, Tarantino is also able to give us a picture of the entire war, showing us not only British, American and German soldiers, but also giving us glimpses into the world of French and German civilians, both collaborators and Resistance.<br /><br />It goes without saying that any Tarantino film is going to have fantastic dialogue, but when Tarantino made the decision to have the French characters speak French and the Germans speak German, beyond adding a level of authenticity, Tarantino also somehow ensured that his dialogue in French was as sharp and funny and clever as his English dialogue.<br /><br />Case in point, during the opening sequence the Nazi "Jew Hunter" SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christian Waltz) is interrogating French dairy farmer Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). Landa suspects that LaPadite is hiding a family of Jews. While subtly pressuring LaPadite, Landa asks for a glass of milk. After greedily gulping it down, Landa compliments LaPadite on his daughters and his cows, "à votre famille et à vos vaches, je dis bravo." The thing of it is, in French "vache" means cow, but it is also a vulgar name for the vagina. If reprimanded for this vulgar pun, Landa could quite convincingly claim not to understand French well enough to have meant it that way, but Landa does mean it that way and he means it as a threat. And LaPadite understands his meaning all too well.<br /><br />That is a really subtle piece of acting and word-play that many audiences would never catch, or at least they might understand the subtext without knowing the exact nature of the threat. The film is rich with that kind of detail. All of the French and English dialogue is chosen with that same attention to detail and while I can't swear to the German, I would suspect that it shows a similar level of craft.<br /><br />Inglorious Basterds opens with the phrase, "Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France." Personally, this reminds me of the opening of every Asterix book and movie, another comic fantasy in a war-torn occupied France. Like Asterix, Inglorious Basterds is howlingly funny in places, although the film also turns darkly serious.<br /><br />In its more serious moments, Inglorious Basterds reminds us that the first casualties of war are compassion and the ability to relax, as in almost every elongated sequence of the film, Tarantino finds a new way to build cruel tension to almost unbearable levels.<br /><br />Tarantino also reminds us that film is dangerous, even inflammable and that its power deserves respect.<br /><br />If you can see this film as I did in a packed theatre filled with knowledgeable fans who get every joke, that you will see this masterful film the way that it was meant to be seen. If you are not that lucky, all that you will see is a great, great film that delivers a darkly funny punch. | 1 |
Well, i thought the movie was blah 1/10.<br /><br />anyways the best part is the first 5 minutes of the film with the nerd's or whatever girlfriend, this is the part u guys watch out for Tho she had big hooters, i thought is that really a random actor? Heck no, it wasn't it was actually a model by the name of Larissa McComas but u already knew that<br /><br />So, that made sense but that was about it rest of the film (that i saw anyway) didn't care 4, and didn't bother watching the rest of it That's<br /><br />all i needed to C to be satisfied so 2 those of u that just care for that well there u go enjoy | 0 |
This film is brilliant! It touches everyone who sees it in an extraordinary way. It really takes you back to your youth and puts a new perspective on how you view your childhood memories. There are so many layers to this film. It is innovative and absolutely fabulous! | 1 |
Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's character look weak. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't see the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work. | 0 |
This movie is gorgeous. It's real and down to heart, but at the same time totally crazy. The characters are easy to fall in love with, because they have so many different minds, but each of us could refer to at least on. In Canada, we don't have many movies from Eastern Europe, and for the few I have seen, Loners is one of the best. It's very funny, and magic. If you want to see something new and refreshing, go see Loners. | 1 |
This film had everything i need in a film: - Women, skateboarding, violence, music by H.I.M and Tony Hawk!!! the artwork and camera effects in this film is amazing. The music in this film is the best I've heard in any other film. Each track goes so well with its scene. I thought the acting was really good considering none of Bams crew have been in scripted films before. Although the whole concept of the film is the story of Ryan Dunn and his girlfriend (Glauren) who is sleeping with Hellboy behind his back is a predictable and age old story. They way its acted out is very unpredictable, for example: Falcone and the gas tank, Raab Himself, Dunn breaking bottles behind the wawa and all the Don Vito scenes. This films is a must see! | 1 |
Most of Kieslowski's films seem like puzzles to me, meant to expand mind and soul. The characters are not very believable, are idealized, are schematic. Nevertheless, the way Kieslowski presents their winding ways through life, their complicated interaction with others, with the universe, with chance or destiny, makes me understand faith, makes me (want to) believe in God. That at some point it all has a meaning, if not to me, then certainly to someone.<br /><br />Trois couleurs and especially "Rouge" comes closer to making me touch, feel, experience the "truth", the "meaning" than perhaps any other of his films. The only problem being the paths of the "puzzles" explored are a bit too similar to his other films and at some point they become somewhat predictable. There is still plenty of joy to be had here. It is like a familiar brand of wine - you know what to expect and it delivers, sometimes with a newly found bouquet which might come from aging - either the wine or yourself. | 1 |
Having read this story a while ago I was very excited to see the movie. I read the book again. It is one of my favorite Nicholas Sparks books. What I think what makes the story is the relationships. That was the down point for me in the movie because I think the relationships were poorly expressed in the movie. I have no idea what the point of changing main characters roles (Tim's and Alan's characters). The movie didn't at all capture John and Savannah's relationship. Maybe if you haven't read the book you might like this movie, but I thought it was so dull compared to the book. I thought Channing was a great pick for John,but I had a feeling he was going to bring all young adults out to watch it, so I think it was more geared towards them. The ending cuts the whole point of the book out so I was also unhappy with that. I was hoping the movie was more like the notebook or a walk to remember and the way they captured the books. I do feel like I wasted a Friday night out and 10 bucks on a sappy love story, not at all the story I was expecting to see. | 0 |
This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la "War of the Worlds"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a "Basic Instinct 3" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast. | 0 |
When I first saw this movie I was with my dad. He encouraged me to watch this movie because it was one of his favorites. After watching the movie it instantly became one of my favorites. <br /><br />A River Runs Through It is about two brothers who each take a different path in life. Norman Maclean (Craig Sheffer) is the older of the two brothers and he is set on the path of education. Paul Maclean (Brad Pitt) is the rebellious younger brother who travels on a path full of obstacles. The movie follows these characters as the each follow their own path.<br /><br />There is no downside to this movie. You will be entertained the whole way through. The acting, directing, and script is all perfect. The two things that are exceptional are the cinematography and the score. Both of which entrap you in the world Robert Redford creates for you. <br /><br />This is an all around great movie that is destined to be a classic. It sure is in my book. If you haven't seen this movie definitely watch it as soon as you can because it will stay with you forever. | 1 |
Are we serious??? I mean wow ... just, wow. I think I saw this flick in an old issue of War Journal. This is pathetic, originality is completely dead, instead of trying to formulate a new idea what we receive is a bland re-do of an old plot line and to "switch it up" we just change the gender or race of the original character it's moronic and everyone should be sick and tired of seeing it ... but I guess this is just a rant and will most likely fall on deaf ears to engrossed with the sound of another turd hitting the toilet water like the best western since 3:10 to Yuma ... (wait for it)... 3:10 to Yuma! Thank You Hollywood for killing film as an art form and turning it into a commercial barrage of neo-pop junk and blatant retardation ... wonderful!!! | 0 |
I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.<br /><br />As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.<br /><br />While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.<br /><br />On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!<br /><br />On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!? | 0 |
Four stories about the drug trade in Europe become intertwined over the course of this 6 part miniseries. In Germany a businessman is arrested on drug smuggling charges, and his wife attempts to save her family by continuing her husband's illegal trade. Meanwhile the British Home Secretary travels to Pakistan to negotiate an aid package that he hopes will stop the drug flow from that country. Even as he does this however his own daughter succumbs to heroin addiction, tearing their family apart. This is the miniseries on which the American film and miniseries were based. The original is far superior to its two decendants. The poverty and desperation of the third world are portrayed very well. It is stark, uncompromising and brutal. | 1 |
Engaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.<br /><br />In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, "Sergeant Ryker" is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.<br /><br />This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many "name" actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.<br /><br />Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.<br /><br />However, despite its apparent obscurity, "Sergeant Ryker" still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. Highly recommended. | 1 |
The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...<br /><br />The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....<br /><br />And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.<br /><br />Let's just hope "Phone Booth" will be a better effort... | 0 |
How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish. | 0 |
Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse. | 0 |
Terrific, deeply moving crime thriller starring Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan.<br /><br />From the dizzying opening sequence to the extremely satisfying conclusion, this cat and mouser hardly misses a beat.<br /><br />Johnny To, again working with ace composer Arthur Wong, constructs another operatic actioner that grots in the face of its contemporaries.<br /><br />To's images are strong and moving. His cutting, combined with the extraordinary music cues, is exemplary. You are in the hands of a master cinematician.<br /><br />The two sequences in which Andy Lau "hides" from the cops on a bus by pretending to accompany a lithe beauty (Ruby Wong) are testament to To's unique directorial skills.<br /><br />Lau Ching Wan is strong and commanding as the harassed cop while Andy Lau is dynamic as a dying man avenging his father's death.<br /><br />This is superb movie-making, only mildly compromised by some bad English dubbing in one scene with criminal Waise Lee. | 1 |
This film is a third rate attempt at a compelling, moody thriller and fails miserably on all three counts. It just about managed to keep my attention as the protagonist was seen slowly and predictably breaking all the life rules he had conveniently set himself at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />But it's in the last 25 minutes or so that things really start to spiral. A vaguely plausible plotline (and that's being generous)becomes completely rediculous as suddenly new characters appear from nowhere and random and bizzarre events are never explained.<br /><br />This wouldn't be quite so bad if the scripting wasn't so cheesy, the acting so wooden (despite a strong British cast) and the direction so uninspiring. This is not an example of good British film making nor indeed should it make Tarantino bat an eyelid, at least not in comparison to his earlier work.<br /><br />My advice in this case, if it's hard to get hold of, don't waste the effort. If you're a Brit like me and it's in your local video shop, steer well clear. Perhaps head to the video entitled "American Beauty" - now that's an example of great British direction. | 0 |
In what could have been seen as a coup towards the sexual "revolution" (purposefully I use quotations for that word), Jean Eustache wrote and directed The Mother and the Whore as a poetic, damning critique of those who can't seem to get enough love. If there is a message to this film- and I'd hope that the message would come only after the fact of what else this Ben-Hur length feature has to offer- it's that in order to love, honestly, there has to be some level of happiness, of real truth. Is it possible to have two lovers? Some can try, but what is the outcome if no one can really have what they really want, or feel they can even express to say what they want? <br /><br />What is the truth in the relationships that Alexandre (Jean-Pierre Leaud) has with the women around him? He's a twenty-something pseudo-intellectual, not with any seeming job and he lives off of a woman, Marie (Bernadette Lafont) slightly older than him and is usually, if not always, his lover, his last possible love-of-his-life left him, and then right away he picks up a woman he sees on the street, Veronika (Françoise Lebrun), who perhaps reminds him of her. Soon what unfolds is the most subtly torrid love triangle ever put on film, where the psychological strings are pulled with the cruelest words and the slightest of gestures. At first we think it might be all about what will happen to Alexandre, but we're mistaken. The women are so essential to this question of love and sex that they have to be around, talking on and on, for something to sink in.<br /><br />We're told that part of the sexual revolution, in theory if not entirely in practice (perhaps it was, I can't say having not been alive in the period to see it first-hand), was that freedom led to a lack of inhibitions. But Eustache's point, if not entirely message, is that it's practically impossible to have it both ways: you can't have people love you and expect to get the satisfaction of ultimate companionship that arrives with "f***ing", as the characters refer over and over again. <br /><br />The Mother and the Whore's strengths as far as having the theme is expressing this dread beneath the promiscuity, the lack of monogamy, while also stimulating the intellect in the talkiest talk you've ever seen in a movie. At the same time we see a character like Alexandre, who probably loves to hear himself talk whether it's about some movie he saw or something bad from his past, Eustache makes it so that the film itself isn't pretentious- though it could appear to be- but that it's about pretentiousness, what lies beneath those who are covering up for their internal flaws, what they need to use when they're ultimately alone in the morning. <br /><br />If you thought films like Before Sunrise/Sunset were talky relationship flicks, you haven't met this. But as Eustache revels in the dialogs these characters have, sometimes trivial, or 'deep', or sexual, or frank, or occasionally extremely (or in a subdued manner) emotional, it's never, ever uninteresting or boring. On the contrary, for those who can't get enough of a *good* talky film, it's exceptional. While his style doesn't call out to the audaciousness that came with his forerunners in the nouvelle vague a dozen years beforehand, Eustache's new-wave touch is with the characters, and then reverberating on them.<br /><br />This is realism with a spike of attitude, with things at time scathing and sarcastic, crude and without shame in expression. All three of the actors are so glued to their characters that we can't ever perceive them as 'faking' an emotion or going at all into melodrama. It's almost TOO good in naturalistic/realism terms, but for Eustache's material there is no other way around it. Luckily Leaud delivers the crowning chip of his career of the period, and both ladies, particularly Labrun as the "whore" Veronika (a claim she staggeringly refutes in the film's climax of sorts in one unbroken shot). And, as another touch, every so often, the director will dip into a quiet moment of thought, of a character sitting by themselves, listening to a record, and in contemplation or quiet agony. This is probably the biggest influence on Jim Jarmusch, who dedicated his film Broken Flowers to Eustache and has one scene in particular that is lifted completely (and lovingly) in approach from the late Parisian.<br /><br />Sad to say, before I saw Broken Flowers, I never heard of Eustache or this film, and procuring it has become quite a challenge (not available on US DVD, and on VHS so rare it took many months of tracking at various libraries). Not a minute of that time was wasted; the Mother and the Whore is truly beautiful work, one of the best of French relationship dramas, maybe even just one of the most staggeringly lucid I've seen from the country in general. It's complex, it's sweet, it's cold, it's absorbing, and it's very long, perhaps too long. It's also satisfying on the kind of level that I'd compare to Scenes from a Marriage; true revelations about the human condition continue to arise 35 years after each film's release. | 1 |
This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call "The Scottish Play," as a reference to the word "Macbeth" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known "pretty face" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well. | 1 |
Action. Comedy. Suspense. This movie has it all.<br /><br />The Plot goes that 4 would be professional thieves are invited to take part in a heist in a small town in Montana. every type of crime movie archetype character is here. Frank, the master mind. Carlos, the weapons expert. Max, the explosives expert. Nick, the safe cracker and Ray, the car man. Unfortunately for Frank, he is apprehended by 2 bumbling detectives ( portrayed very well by Ed O'Niel and Daniel Roebuck ) that have been chasing him from New Jersey write after he sends out the letters to the other 4.<br /><br />Our 4 characters meet up at the train station and from the beginning none of them like or trust one another. Added to the mix is the fact that Frank is gone and they are not sure why they have called together.<br /><br />Now Frank is being taken back to New Jersey by the 2 detectives but soon escapes on foot and tries to make his way back to the guys who are having all sorts of problems of their own.<br /><br />Truly a great film loaded with laughs and great acting. Just an overall good movie for anyone looking for a laugh or something a little different | 1 |
Thank you Mario Van Peebles for informing us of not only the existence of black cowboys, but providing a compelling story that was easy to follow.<br /><br />The plot, backdrop, music and talent were all top notch. It was great that you used so many African-American artists to tell the tale of the black cowboy. It was also good to see Billy Zane in this movie. Does he ever play a good guy?<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film to anyone who wants to broaden their way of thinking. This is an excellent movie and I feel privileged to have seen it. Hopefully, you'll feel the same. | 1 |
So-so thriller starring Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis, who join David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes on a road trip out west. The latter couple are researching notorious murder sites for an upcoming book; Pitt's a serial killer on the lam (unbeknownst to Dave) and Juliette is his poor, not-all-there companion. This is a good cast and the story moves along, but Pitt isn't belivably scary as a serial killer, although it is one of his better earlier roles. The best thing is here is Michelle Forbes, who always manages to shine, whether in her roles on `Homicide: Life on the Street' or in the brief series `Wonderland.'<br /><br />Vote: 6 | 1 |
OK, the portrayal of the stereotyped 'indians' in this story is just plain WRONG. I do agree that Elvis looks rather good here, but yeah, his skin color does seem to change during the movie. I was thinking, OK,...he was never THAT tan in real life. It's some of the most obvious brown 'indian' makeup that I have ever seen. It's as bad as the 'indians' on 'F-Troop' and the old Hollywood westerns who were played by Jewish and Italian American actors and not real Native Americans!<br /><br />This movie is o.k., but typically lame story and mediocre songs, like in all of Elvis' later films. He just did them because Colonel Parker had him tied down to long term movie contacts to squeeze as much money out of Elvis as possible! I keep thinking 'thank God' that Elvis stopped making movies forever not long after this movie came out. It is cool to see character actors Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, L.Q. Jones, Henry Jones and Burgess Meredith in this movie, though.<br /><br />Burgess Meredith's 'indian' makeup is absolutely AWFUL. It's The worst of the bunch for sure. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was Mr. Meredith doing this one just for the money or what? I do love certain Elvis movies, though. For example: 'Love Me Tender', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas'. I can even stand to watch his movie with future TV co-stars Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner,'Change Of Habit' in which Elvis plays an inner-city doctor.<br /><br />Oh well, at least Elvis made a FEW good films, but the mediocre and bad ones overwhelm the decent and good ones.<br /><br />I'll always love ELVIS! Thank you, Thank you very much! | 0 |
I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point "I'm gay, not corny." And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian. | 0 |
The theme song often goes through my head after all these years. I was never much of a TV watcher, probably because I was just entering my busy teen years when my family bought our first set in 1948 and it never became part of my life. But from the first episode of Lawman I was hooked, and it is the only TV show I've ever scheduled my week around.<br /><br />Intelligent, believable, well-written and well-acted, and John Russell is still to me the most beautiful man I ever saw. (Peter Brown was no dog, either :o) <br /><br />I agree that it is one of the most underrated TV series of all time. I hope I can find some episodes for my grandchildren to watch. | 1 |
This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, "How did they get from here to there???" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.<br /><br />Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime. | 0 |
If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, "no, don't do that!", "why are you so stupid", "look out!", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well. | 0 |
Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.<br /><br />Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.<br /><br />The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like "We had a limited budget" and "with our limited timeline" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent "Droid Runner" (Fred Olen Ray) or "The Dead Hate the Living" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing "Killer Eye")<br /><br />Grade: D- | 0 |
My name is John Mourby and this is my story about Paperhouse: In May 2003 I saw Alfred Hitchcock's psycho, I was very scared and deeply disturbed. I began a frantic search for a film that was frightening in the same way. But none where satisfactory. Amongst those tried and failed were The Birds, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Ring, The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Near Dark, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Cell, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, Witchfinder General, Friday the 13th and The Omen. That should confirm I was desperate! Long after I had stopped searching I found out about Paperhouse
.<br /><br />Paperhouse is based on a favourite book that I own, called Marianne Dreams. Paperhouse had also come up in some of the books I had found on horror films, but they didn't tell me about the link between book and film. I discovered the truth while on the Internet, I bought the film later that day.<br /><br />I thought Paperhouse would not be faithful to the book and dull. Unfaithal it certainly was but dull certainly not. It was the answer to my prayers Marianne is renamed Anna in the film but most of the original story is the same. One day in school Anna draws a house in her scrap book (nothing remarkable about that) then she becomes ill and every time she faints or falls asleep she finds herself outside a creepy old house (and I mean genuinely unnerving). More she also finds that every time she puts something new in the drawing it appears in the dreamworld, EG an apple tree. Anna draws into the dreamworld a rather sad boy named mark who apparently is a person in the real world. Mark is a cripple but wants to leave the house, obligingly Anna draws in a lighthouse (a place to go to) but still the problem remains mark can't walk. So Anna decides to draw her father in. she gets her pencil out and gets too work, but the outcome is deformed and unsettling Anna particularly dislikes his eyes. Quote "he looks like madman". So Anna tries to rub him out and start again, but the pencil proves indelible (that means nothing can be rubbed out). Then Anna loses her temper and crosses out her father's eyes! I leave you too find out for you self the terrible consequences of the rash action.<br /><br />Paperhouse truly is the British answer to A Nightmare on elm Street! The viewing of this film left me shocked and upset. But I have found what I was looking for after 2 years. The question is how dose the compare with Psycho? Answer, 1 the old dark house, 2 psychological parental fears, 3 a genuine shock, 4 and very scary music. | 1 |
Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.<br /><br />Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.<br /><br />Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically "kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door" over and over until the level is done.There are fun mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.<br /><br />Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.<br /><br />Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.<br /><br />Family fun for everyone. | 1 |
Streetfight (aka Coonskin) is a very unique film directed by animation pioneer Ralph Bakshi. It is an oddity of the cinema, and is very much worth seeing. It is live action mixed with animation, seemingly influenced on Disney's legendary Song of the South, almost as if it is a response to that flick. Philip Michael Thomas, later to become Don Johnson's sidekick on Miami Vice, and Scatman Crothers, most famous for his role in Kubrick's The Shining, are prison escapees. Charles Gordone and Barry White (yes, that Barry White) are Thomas' friends and plan to help him escape prison. They are stuck at a police roadblock, and Crothers tells Thomas a story about a black rabbit, a bear, and a fox who move from the South to Harlem in order to find a more peaceful existence. The story is animated, and provides a lot of wonderous things to see. Like all of Bakshi's films, most will be annoyed and will dislike the animation. True animation lovers will forgive its clunkiness and fall in love with its inventiveness. The movie is very violent, very sexual, and it is mostly about battles between the races. For a long time, I thought I was watching something extremely important, but after a while, especially after I got done watching it, it started to seem more like a run-of-the-mill blacksploitation flick, along the lines of Superfly. It's very sloppy and doesn't really say anything. Besides, isn't Bakshi white? Whatever the answer to that, Coonskin/Streetfight is still very much worth watching for animation aficionados as well as cult movie fans. 7/10. | 1 |
As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the "charming" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done. | 1 |
This is the story of a news investigator who hates his job - which prove why actors - even as weak as Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington - are on the big screen and your neighbors are not!<br /><br />I'll say this though - the better moments show some basis for being really funny (not just wacky), to keep trying, maybe taking some classes, and using the time to keep learning how to make a good movie. ("Dude, Where's My Car" and the "Scary Movie" sequence have it all over this ... college attempt.)<br /><br />The lighting wasn't; the production wasn't; and the script had moments (the conversation from space - very nice try unconvincingly executed). (This reminded me of "Dark Star" - which is about being "lost in space" - but this movie is just lost.)<br /><br />The talent was the bartender (he said 'dog' so annoyingly that I knew he had to be acting... wasn't he? ... now THAT's acting!), the Mark Hammond guy, and Marty. I guess I gave the movie a point for each one of them... 3/10.<br /><br />-LD<br /><br />______________________________________________<br /><br />my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/ | 0 |
I generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved the series. | 0 |
When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards
let's give it a chance
" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere
It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction
The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's
The acting should have been better too
Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production
I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it! | 0 |
I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.<br /><br />Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.<br /><br />Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...<br /><br />(9/10) | 1 |
Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.<br /><br />It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.<br /><br />As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.<br /><br />With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).<br /><br />So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier. | 0 |
For a Norris movie this is pretty tame. For an action movie it is kind of dull, and as far as predictability goes my friend and I almost had every turn of this movie nailed. It was nice that the killer's every moves were not telegraphed by the cliche's of 80's action movies, but come on, the only non-predictable move defies the plot and the set-up of the editing. Mainly, it is said rather early on that the killer (Jack O'Halloran, whom is one of the few slightly known actors) only kills women. YET, he all of a sudden stops his M.O. and kills men, huh?. I guess it can be construed and rationalized some way, but why is the movie edited to show that he is going to kill women?? <br /><br />Yet again, I'm sure that there is a reason (i.e. to build suspense), but why spend the time watching it when many other suspense movies are vastly superior.<br /><br />Fans of "Renegade" may enjoy the small cameo by Branscombe Richmond as Victor, but his brief appearence cannot save the movie and even a vote of 4 seems generous.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Dog days is one of most accurate films i've ever seen describing life in modern cities. It's very harsh and cruel at some points and sadly it's very close to reality. Isolation, desperation, deep emotional dead ends, problematic affairs, perversion, complexes, madness. All the things that are present in the big advanced cities of today. It makes you realize once again the pityful state in which people have lead society. <br /><br />The negative side of life in the city was never pictured on screen so properly. I only wish it was a lie. Unfortunately, it isn't. Therefore...10/10. | 1 |
Excellent story of lives that need repair....one of those rare films that I could watch with my 7 and 8 year old daughters... Glenn Close was excellent in the title role. It was also nice to see Christopher Walken in a more normal role. | 1 |
Let me begin by saying I am a big fantasy fan. However, this film is not for me. Many far-fetched arguments are trying to support this film's claim that dragons possibly ever existed. The film mentions connections in different stories from different countries, but fails to investigate them more thoroughly, which could have given the film some credibility. The film uses (nice!) CGI to tell us a narrated fantasy story on a young dragon's life. This is combined with popular-TV-show-CSI-style flash-forwards to make it look like something scientific, which it is definitely not. In many cases the arguments/clues are far-fetched. In some cases, clues used to show dragons possibly existed, or flew, or spit fire are simply invalid. To see this just makes me get cramp in my toes. Even a fantasy film needs some degree of reality in it, but this one just doesn't have it. Bottom line: it's a pretentious fantasy-CSI documentary, not worth watching. | 0 |
First off there is nothing wrong with studying Daniel, Revelation, Matthew 24, Isaiah and other prophetic scriptures. There is also nothing wrong with making a film such as this to attempt to present the gospel message. So my qualms with this movie are not in either its sincerity or aspirations. As a Christian, though an amillenialist, I believe there will be a great tribulation and I believe Christ will return as he said as much. So even though I have disagreement with this film about the rapture that is not why I rate this movie so low.<br /><br />No, what makes me rate this movie so low is not its sincerity or its message, but rather its lack of production values, awful script, mediocre acting, and pitiful FX. This movie ranks down there with some of the cheesiest scifi fodder of the 1950s. No, this movie ranks down there with Plan 9 From Outerspace. This movie failed to age well and was probably dated by the time they made a sequel.<br /><br />The apocalypse genre film producers could have learned how not to make an end times film from this, but they failed. The Left Behind Series, The Apocalypse series, and the Omega Code series all failed to learn from this because they addressed the FX problems and the dated look problem, but their scripts are still poor, and their acting is wooden.<br /><br />There are great Christian films, with extremely low budgets, but this film is not one of them. I'm surprised the MST3K crew never lampooned this one. | 0 |
It's funny. It's not Arthur Miller or T.S. Elliot, but man this is funny. Kline and Fields are great. (Her toss-off line "God, you are so disGUSting" as she climbs in his window - great! Kline's running into the door after scoping out Teri Hatcher - great too!) Robert Downey Jr. and Kathy Moriarty work together flawlessly - until he finds out who she really is... a soap opera turn if there every was one!<br /><br />The scene near the end in the chinese dining area had my kids and I rolling on the floor - that scene alone is worth the rental price.<br /><br />Doesn't solve any world problems or show the seemy underbelly of daytime T.V. (I hope). Just a lot of fun. | 1 |
There are some wonderful things about this movie. Marion Davies could act, given the right property; she is wonderful in comedic roles. William Haines could act, and you can see why he was one of the screen's most popular leading men. (Until a potential scandal forced him from the business).<br /><br />The story is a bit trite, but handled so beautifully that you don't notice. King Vidor's direction is one of the principle reasons for this. The producer? The boy genius, Irving Thalberg.<br /><br />It's about movie making, and you get to see the process as it was done in 1928, the cameras, sets, directors directing and actors emoting. You get to see (briefly) some of the major stars of the day; even Charlie Chaplin does a turn as himself, seeking an autograph. You also catch glimpses of Eleanor Boardman, Elinor Glyn, Claire Windsor, King Vidor, and many others who are otherwise just names and old photographs.<br /><br />Please, even if you're not a fan of the silents, take the time to catch this film when you can. It's really a terrific trip back in time. | 1 |
Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying "It's so bad that it's good?" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something. | 0 |
Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite "trip" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red "eye" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience. | 1 |
This movie is absurd. Absolutely terrible. Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia must really have needed the work to do this movie. The plot is totally not believable! Michael Keaton agrees to donate bone marrow to the dying son of a detective, but then escapes. He manages to elude the police throughout the hospital - not believable that he would have so much knowledge of the hospital. He takes an extremely convoluted route to get out of the hospital, blowing up the power generators and a pedestrial bridge (why?). And to top that Andy Garcia (father of the dying boy) and a doctor help the criminal so as to get the bone marrow. The plot is such baloney! Maybe the worse movie I have ever see. | 0 |
Don't tell me this film was funny or a little funny. It was a complete disaster, and one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ali G is only funny on Channel 4's Ali G Show. After watching his performance, all i can say is He is not made for Movies. With a Daft script, or more like no storyline, there's nothing to keep you entertained. Full of annoying, unrealistic character's this movie is a complete garbage all the way. At the end of the film, Ali G gives a speech. He mentions, if you hated this film, tell people it was good. Not even the speech could save the movie, He probably knew its gonna be a stinker. I would of given this a 0/10, but the minimum start is 1. Overall, Don't even waste your time on this rubbish. | 0 |
Normally, I do not review online, but it's Saturday and I'm trapped in my room, on a rainy day with nothing to do but watch sci-fi movies and Xena: Warrior Princess (I can't get the damned 'Joxer the Mighty' song out of my head, it's been there for the past ten years or so, just pops up randomly when someone(me) does something idiotic). If you have any complaints about this movie, and actually post them on the internet, do you have ANY idea how much of an idiot you look like? If you expect more out of Bruce Campbell than what he puts out (in the most literal sense) than why in G-d's holy name do you watch his movies? No one watches a Bruce Campbell movie when they want to see something genius and intelligible, we watch them so we feel better about ourselves (like those people who watch Jerry Springer and eat Chunky Monkey), and to be easily entertained by mindless psycho-babble. I, personally, love Bruce Campbell movies. I'm not a complete idiot, in fact, I see myself as an intellectual and a scholar(haha, shut up, Ally). His movies reflect insane, random, quirky, ridiculous ideals which anyone with a brain, screaming or no, can enjoy. That, and he was kind of sexy on Xena: Warrior Princess, even with the facial hair. I rate this movie an excellent 10, just because I can. If you can't take simplistic plot-schemes (if any), hot babes in sci-fi splendor(leather, spandex), and familiar if not exhausted views of insanity, then fer cryin' out loud, don't watch the movie(or any that so much as mention the name Bruce Campbell). Oh yeah, Ted Raimi was awesome in this movie! Way to go Ted! You did the best with what you had. ;| | 1 |
First, let's get the "hoopla" out of the way.Hedy Lamarr was regarded as one of the most beautiful of women and the movies were a perfect medium for the many to see her beauty on screen.Here we have Hedy as a young fresh-faced 20 year old speaking in her native Austrian.I recently bought a 1990 uncensored version of this 1932/3 classic.Yes we see a brief close up of Hedy bare from the waist up but although she filmed the swimming & runaway horse scenes naked, the director Gustav Machaty uses the cover of branches, reflections in puddles, medium and long shots to show her thus in this famous scene; so don't go imagining there are any lascivious close ups or clinches.Her boyfriend , Pierre Nay keeps his clothes on at all times.Yes, fairly daring for its day but how innocous it looks now through 2003 eyes.<br /><br />As other learned reviews have stated this film should be looked at for the imagary, expressionism, and allegorical statements it makes with pictures of drops of water forming a ripple on the surface of a pale of water, farm machinery, landscapes etc.Sweet sounding strings run for most of "Extase's" length and the film has a "feel" of a transition between silent and sound in its direction and concept.The script is highly minimalist and economical the story being mainly imparted through the medium of facial and bodily gestures with just a few words of German spoken by the actors with English subtitles beneath.Even these few words seem almost superflous in the general lyrical vein which runs through the film.<br /><br />Put very simply this is the story of a young girl who marries a much older man (why we are never told and what did Eva see in him anyway?Money?), who is then trapped in an unconsumated and loveless marriage.She then returns to her father having left her husband and her father has to lie to his son in law.After a ride on her horse Eva decides to take a swim in the buff and loads up her clothes onto her horse's saddle.However her horse gets romantic notions itself and gallops off to greet its stablemate.Hedy rushes out of the lake naked and tries to recover her mount but an engineer at work sees and retrieves the horse then looks around for its owner.And so the romance is born.Her husband seeing that his rival must win Eva, later decides to shoot himself but I thought this was rather illogical and its main weakness bearing in mind his previous loveless relationship with Eva.<br /><br />Despite being a 1990 reissue title on VHS, the sound being 70 years old, is a bit soft and with background crackles, in line with films of its age.After a period of mourning our handsome boyfriend obviously is so in love with Eva he imagines her as a mother with an infant so we have to assume they live happily ever after.Just let the imagary wash over you and disabuse your mind of the style of films even of late 1930's vintage.This is a lyrical piece that can be enyoyed for its own sake and not just for its eye catching title.I gave it 7/10. | 1 |
I've been intending to write a review of this film for some time, but only now have I actually managed to get my thoughts down for the perusal of others.<br /><br />I never had the pleasure of seeing this film on the `big screen' which is a shame, as it is often visually stunning, but I have revisited it on video numerous times over the years, enjoying it immensely every time. It definitely is on my personal list of favorite movies, and for more than just starring Kiefer Sutherland and Kevin Bacon, two of my `actors to watch.'<br /><br />Perhaps I appreciate this film so much because it appeals to my slightly off-kilter taste in entertainment. I like my movies a bit left of center - unpredictable and fresh. And whether or not you `believe' the story line of the film, you have to admit, it is different!<br /><br />Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but my impression of some of the negative reviews of this movie is that the viewers never really saw past the surface level of this film. They got caught up in technicalities, `Why would there be green lighting in a subway?' or `Why would medical students pull such a stupid stunt?' and failed to see the artistry and psychological depth of the piece.<br /><br />Yes, there are some medical and technical aspects that do not make logical sense, but if you are willing to suspend disbelief just a tad, this can be a very engaging film.<br /><br />First, a note about the artistic quality of the movie. Some have complained about the murky lighting, and the illogical nature of the sets - but for me, the use of innovating lighting techniques, the plastic and sheet draped sets, the unusual settings in old buildings and dank, dripping tunnels, the use of statuary, rain and billowing curtains - all add a poetic flavor to this film, a haunting beauty that suits the dark nature of the questions being asked about life, death and forgiveness.<br /><br />I will focus on just two examples; in an alley scene, a change in lighting allows for certain elements of the set to come dramatically into focus, then to fade away once lighting returns to normal. It is an innovative means of conveying a shift in the `reality' of the moment, and works beautifully. We are also allowed to see the interior of the character's apartments - contrast the warm wood, bright colors, golden lighting and cluttered comfort of Labraccio's rooms with the stark, white void of Nelson's. Both are reflective of the characters themselves. Nelson's lack of `objects' reflect our lack of knowledge about his past. and his carefully constructed mask that keeps his companions at a distance. His past, we come to learn, is one of chaos and conflict. He has determined to leave that behind in favor of an uncluttered emptiness. unfortunately, the emptiness is also reflective of his relationships with others, a realization he comes to along his personal journey of self-discovery in this film.<br /><br />Flatliners is not your typical horror film. Nor is a typical drama or suspense movie.it is rather more of an amalgamation of all, having the best elements of all genres intertwined in a complex, suspenseful plot.<br /><br />This is an ensemble piece, and the cast does an excellent job of breathing life into their individual characters. Your immediate impression is that the characters are each representative of a well-established `stereotype': The female ice queen, the slightly neurotic 'physician', the playboy and the socially conscious `nice guy' etc. However, as the film progresses and the characters are further fleshed out, they take on multiple dimensions and depth.<br /><br />Most interesting of all is Sutherland's character of Nelson. Nelson is not a character that is easy to like - indeed he is a bit of a b**tard, a master manipulator who definitely places self-interest above all else. Yet, Sutherland plays him with a hint of insecurity that lends him a certain appeal. As events unfold, you come to realize that much of Nelson's unpleasant personality is a smokescreen, a protective mask behind which hides a very uncertain and vulnerable young man burdened by a terrible secret.<br /><br />By revealing bits and pieces of Nelson's complex personality throughout the film, the writers, directors and cast gradually lead you towards a greater understanding of and sympathy for him. The character who started out as a `jerk' becomes important and valued in his own right - as you learn to `forgive' his previous behavior in light of new information. Your journey of discovery with Nelson reflects the characters own journeys towards self-understanding, as they too come to realize that everyone has value, and `everything we do matters.'<br /><br />Which leads to my final comment. Although many of the posters here have picked up upon the theme of defying death.. few seem to have touched upon what I see as the main premise of the movie - the importance of forgiveness, and the need to be cognizant of all you do, because it does `matter.'<br /><br /> | 1 |
This was one of the first CREEPY movies I ever saw...I was about 5 at the time. It scared me GOOD! But that night I put chewing gum in one eye to be like the monster...and my mom got very upset. She had to clean my eye with alcohol and the next day my eye smelled like DOUBLE MINT! NOW THAT'S A MOVIE! Hey for it's time it was a great movie. That Head sitting on the lab counter top was as real as it got back then. And IF your 5 it is VERY SCARY! Kids now a days are spoiled by special effects that show too much and leave NOTHING for your minds imagination. Your mind can imagine things more scarier than special effects! (IMO) | 1 |
After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of "bathing in the creek" scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, "sorority girls" no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown. | 0 |
You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.<br /><br />The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour "schoolgirl" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.<br /><br />Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.<br /><br />Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.<br /><br />After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.<br /><br />Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the "things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about perhaps argue about afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.<br /><br />I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.<br /><br />To everyone involved: bravo. | 1 |
This movie is a little slow in the the beginning, for about the first 10 minutes or so. But once it kicks in you can't turn it off. Adam Beach and Rose McGowan play the best parts and are great at their acting job. You would never be able to guess who the killer is. I gave this movie a 9, because at some parts Adam Beach needs to speak up a little so you can hear what he's saying.<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film... | 0 |
in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...<br /><br />and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.<br /><br />pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.<br /><br />anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).<br /><br />stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better. | 0 |
This movie was the worst movie I've ever seen. No story, no point, it wasn't even funny at all, not sure why people say this movie is hilarious because it sucked SO much!! Felix Bean the main character sucked. Susanna sucked. This movie was made in 1996 and it really was set in the 80s. What else, I'm never letting my friend pick movies ever again. Hmm, the movie cover said it was from the producers from super troopers, who kidnapped them and stole their identities. Wow, what a waste of time. The only minute thing that was funny was Freaky Ricky, he was funny, especially when he and Emily ended up together. That was funny. All and all, it sucked, waste of time and sleep. Wow, never thought a movie like this could be made, so dumb for watching for watching it to the end. | 0 |
This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can. | 0 |
Have you ever in your life, gone out for a sport's activity, tried your best, and then found yourself in an important segment of it, where for a brief moment, you were given a chance to be a hero and a champion and . . . failed? I believe many of us have had that moment in our lives. This is the premise of the movie, "The Best of Times." In this story a middle age banker, named Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) suffers from the deep melancholy of a football mistake, which happened years ago, is inspired to re-play the game . . again. In order to accomplish this he must convince the once great football quarterback, Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) to make a comeback. For Reno, who is satisfied with his present lot in life, see's no need to change the past record, which get's better as he ages. Added to both their problem is the fact years have passed and in addition, both their marriages are floundering and in need of re-vamping. Not easy when his Father-in-law (Donald Moffat) habitually reminds him of the biggest drop. Nevertheless, Dundee is persistent and will do anything to try and correct the greatest blunder of his life. Great fun for anyone wishing to enjoy their youth again. *** | 1 |
"El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.<br /><br />We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.<br /><br />When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.<br /><br />Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.<br /><br />"El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer. | 1 |
Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.<br /><br />It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though. | 0 |
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there. | 0 |
A film with very little positive to say for it.<br /><br />Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.<br /><br />Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.<br /><br />It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.<br /><br />And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.<br /><br />There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".<br /><br />With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.<br /><br />Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad. | 0 |
I'd love to see some tie-in between NightBreed, The Fury, and the X-Men Series, sort of the way the second Outer Limit's Series would tie-in particular stories and plot-lines after the fact, to create a Story Arc although one was never intended. I'd also like know if some more information - anecdotal or otherwise, exists anywhere about the relationship and/or collaboration between Clive Barker and David Cronenberg. I simply can't get my mind around the fact that David Cronenberg appeared as a mere actor in a Clive Barker film. Does any additional information on the subject actually exist? Finally, it's been 17 years since the film was released, and I had hoped there would've been a sequel by now. Does anyone out there know if there were any plans in the making that never came to fruition, or if in fact there are plans even now for a sequel? | 1 |
Take away all parts of the movie that were "present" day and stick to the flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great. Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much, but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful! | 1 |
Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.<br /><br />[warning: may be considered a "spoiler"]<br /><br />While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run" I was really disappointed in Disney's "The Kid."<br /><br />Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor "Quantum Leap" episode and a bad time traveling flick.<br /><br />Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.<br /><br />Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that "the Kid" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television. | 0 |
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.<br /><br />Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.<br /><br />Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit. | 0 |
How do you spell washed up fat Italian who can barely pull off a martial arts move without needing some heart medication? In this movie we see Steven Seagal at his lowest level of accomplishment- since his career started it has been a steady decline into pathetic over indulgent behavior that has scuttled his career. In this movie it looks like most of his training consisted of ordering the fetuccini alfredo at his restaurant every day.<br /><br />He is fat, slow and very old looking in this movie, hardly a martial arts action hero, more like a laughing stock clown.<br /><br />It's time for Steven Seagal to retire- this movie is about 2 hours of reasons why.<br /><br />Plot: fat Italian guy with a big reputation on the force gets wind that a crime group may be playing around with a drug designed by the military to create the ultimate warrior response. This pretense, although pathetic and laughable, gives opportunity for some over the top fight scenes that include blasting through walls like a comic book.<br /><br />Did I mention this movie totally sucks and Steven Seagal is a complete joke? yeah. I did. | 0 |
My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.<br /><br />I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.<br /><br />Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).<br /><br />What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.<br /><br />People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).<br /><br />One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.<br /><br />Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.<br /><br />If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it. | 0 |
I would just like to point out (in addition to pleading for the series to be released on DVD) that a show does not have to be realistic to be entertaining. These days, with all the blood and gore in the news and in crime dramas, reality shows, etc. it's nice to get lost in a good, cheesy show with entertaining characters. PWOG fits the bill. Was it Emmy material? No, but it was awesome just the same.<br /><br />I also have to put a vote in for the second cast - they were more charismatic than the cast of season one. I would definitely agree that the first season had a more serious vibe than the second two, but I was definitely more sucked in by the latter cast. Even though the series has been off the air for years, I'll never stop hoping that it be released for purchase. | 1 |
As a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of "flashbacks" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their "bottle shows" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended "not with a bang" but with "a whimper." | 0 |
Polanski returns to the themes of solitude and madness which he explored to such tremendous effect in Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, in The Tenant.<br /><br />The atmosphere is trademark Polanski - dark, brooding, unnerving - but there is something awkward about this movie and I am not sure whether or not it is deliberate.<br /><br />Sven Nykvist, who was responsible for some of Bergman's most beautiful films, doesn't quite do himself justice here. As his name was one of the things which really attracted me to this movie, I was a little disappointed in how few instances of truly impressive cinematography are in the film.<br /><br />The only thing that really lets the movie down is the acting. Polanski is certainly not a bad actor, but he seems to have bitten off more than he can chew with the difficult role of Trelkovsky. Some of the supporting cast are great, notably Melvyn Douglas as the landlord and Shelley Winters as the concierge, but others are weak and miscast. It is also hard to get past the fact that all these supposed Parisians have American accents.<br /><br />Quite unexpectedly, there are some fine moments of dark comedy in the film. Anyone who has seen The Fearless Vampire Killers knows that Polanski is certainly a good comedic actor. However, there are moments when it slips dangerously close to being a parody of itself. Trelkovsky's sudden (and somewhat unexplained) 'transformation' is more likely to raise giggles than eyebrows, which detracts from what should have been a powerful moment in his psycho-dramatic journey.<br /><br />All in all, The Tenant is an enjoyable and intriguing experience, if a little too languorous for its own good. There's a handful of exceptionally chilling moments and a consistently uncomfortable and foreboding atmosphere but this film, while being very good, does not quite hit the mark as successfully as it could have.<br /><br />Alas, at the end of the day, an 'okay' Polanski movie is still better than most other 'good' movies. Definitely worth a watch, just don't expect to be blown away. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.