text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
this is a visual adaptation of manga with very little dialogue. what dialogue there is appears in word baloons as it would in the manga. the plot of this is existent but only vaguely accounted for. there is an issue of the manga on which this is based available in english in the blast books collection, 'comics underground japan', and it has actual captioned dialogue that explains the plot a bit more than here. i recommend checking that volume out if you liked this, as it explains some of the "plot" of the movie, which is otherwise inexplicable. animation wise this is pretty decent, good unintrusive use of computers and the images are for the most part realized well. it jumps in and out of episodes, as the characters, a cat and his brain-dead older sister cat wander in and out of a series of odd images: a boat, a circus, a desert. for a mere half hour they go through a number of semi-plots and settings, which leads me to believe that the director chose a number of issues of the long-running manga to adapt at random, but primarilly selected visually. knowing what's going on might somewhat increase appreciation. this reminds me mostly of the kind of stuff they used to play on the mtv show, cartoon sushi, in particular a short that features a cat chasing a man's severed butt-cheek around the house. only in this case the cats resemble hello kitty more and their adventure is expanded to include death and reincarnation and a number of other themes [though not all that easy to tell what's going on]. the dvd of this has director's commentary and a "making of" features, but i cant comment on those because i didnt get around to them. i'm giving this a 8/10 for now, here isnt much to compare it to in anime, and i hope for more like this. | 1 |
This movie was the worst i've ever seen.<br /><br />It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from "apocalypse now" and "the boon dock saints", would never agreed to such a script.<br /><br />Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.<br /><br />Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.<br /><br />Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist of time!!! | 0 |
I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look. <br /><br />The negatives are predictable. "The Merchant of Venice" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says "Hath not a Jew eyes?" he is a character; when he proclaims "I will have my bond!" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.<br /><br />Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.<br /><br />In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.<br /><br />Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it. | 0 |
The book was one of Stephen King's best. The movie was pure rubbish. It was painful to remain in the theater until the ending, which wasn't even the same as the book. I guess that this is the result when you try to cram 10 pages of story into every minute. There is no good reason to watch this movie. | 0 |
My mother is as Gone With The Wind as one can be. She has the collector's plates, the Rhett and Scarlett Madame Alexander dolls, GWTW Christmas ornaments, even a GWTW cookbook! My sister and I had only seen bits and pieces of GWTW but we knew the whole plot by heart. On a whim, my sister bought this miniseries thinking my mother would like it and we had taken an interest in it after leafing through the novel a bit.<br /><br />Yesterday we decided to watch both Gone With The Wind and Scarlett. We started GWTW at about 2:30 in the afternoon and ended it at 6:30. We started Scarlett right after. My mother usually goes to bed at about 10:00, she wound up staying up until 1:30 with us to finish it! We were riveted! I like how the movie starts off at Melanie's funeral, right where Scarlett left off saying, "I'll think about it tomorrow." Scarlett doesn't stay in Georgia for long, she runs off to Charleston in her quest to win him back. Rhett is not happy when he finds Scarlett in his home so he leaves for the family's plantation. Scarlett, being Scarlett, follows him and they finally agree to put aside their quarrels for a time in order to keep the gossip at bay. Rhett starts to enjoy her company again and takes her out on his boat. A storm comes up and they sink. He helps her swim to the shore of some island. Terrified that she has died, Rhett is anxious until she awakes. When she does they both get swept up in the moment and make love. Scarlett wakes up the next day back in Charleston but Rhett has gone and writes that he thinks it best if they never see each other again.<br /><br />Scarlett is heartbroken and when she is so she does some stupid things, in this case she is seen by Anne Hampton going up into a hotel room alone with Ashley. Nothing happens, but her reputation is stained so Scarlett goes to Savannah with her two spinster aunts. She soon discovers that she is pregnant and decides to wait for the right time to tell Rhett. While in Savannah she meets many of her O'Hara relatives and grows to like one cousin in particular a Father Colum. She soon gets her divorce notice from Rhett and then decides she will never tell him about her baby just to spite him. Typical Scarlett.<br /><br />She decides to go to Ireland to make sure Rhett can never discover her condition. She meets many more relatives and buys a beautiful ancestral home Ballyhara. Through out this time, Rhett is courting Anne. It is on Halloween when Scarlett gets the notice that Rhett has remarried, she goes into labor that night.<br /><br />The movie skips to a year later and Scarlett is very happy with her beautiful daughter Kat. She is being pursued by Lord Richard Fenton who is really an evil man, forcing a young girl named Mary Boyle to sleep with him. Scarlett meets Rhett and Anne again at a horse fair. After a riding accident, Scarlett has a conversation with Anne and learns that she and Rhett are to have a baby. Heartbroken again, Scarlett leaves and goes to Dublin with Fenton. There she cultivates a relationship with him, like I said, she does stupid things when she is heartbroken.<br /><br />Mary Boyle has discovered she is pregnant and goes to Colum for help. The priest urges Fenton to help the girl and Fenton murders him after Colum threatens to tell Scarlett. Fenton convinces Scarlett to go to London with him to escape her grief over Colum's death. Mary asks to go with her. Back in Charleston, Anne has died of Yellow Fever. It is made clear that she never bore Rhett a child.<br /><br />In London, Scarlett sees Fenton's true colors after he hurts her when she isn't in the mood the sleep with him. Fenton rapes her after she tells him she never wants to see him again. She falls unconscious after and when she wakes up Fenton has been stabbed to death. Scarlett is charged with his murder.<br /><br />Rhett hears about it and rushes off to England with Sally in tow. Fearful of the gallows, Scarlett has no choice but to tell Rhett about their daughter. Rhett is furious at her for keeping such a secret but stays to help her. Mary Boyle, the real killer, can't be found. Scarlett is found guilty but Mary finally arrives to declare her innocence. After promising to help Mary, Scarlett leaves with Rhett for Ireland because as he says, "It's time I became acquainted with my daughter." The scene where he sees Kat for the first time is absolutely beautiful. In Ireland, Rhett sees how much Scarlett has changed and the two finally reconcile completely and admit they still love each other deeply.<br /><br />After seeing GWTW, I will say that yes, Vivian Leigh was a better Scarlett, but I liked the character of Scarlett in this film than in the first. The reason being that in GWTW, you don't know why you like Scarlett. She's so cruel to Rhett and haughty and spoiled, but you like her lively spirit. In Scarlett, you see how much she has changed. Oh she is still in the lap of luxury, but she's not haughty anymore. You see how she becomes a true mother to Kat and a generous person to the poor people of Ireland. Joanne Whalley does and excellent job at playing this new side of Scarlett. Timothy Dalton is not Clark Gable, but at times you swear that you can see original Rhett in him.<br /><br />If you just sit back and not compare Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton with Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, you will most certainly enjoy this movie. It's a chance to compare the Scarlett of yesterday, the one she becomes after "tomorrow". | 1 |
The first movie of this series was well written and original. This show drags on, poorly written gags, boring flashbacks, not the comedy that I expected. Even the young folks found it boring. There are certainly bright moments, historical elements and some good acting, but overall I can only recommend this for DVD/tape at home. | 0 |
In the "goofs" section for this film there's a comment to the effect that there is a mistake in continuity where Auguste's car is seen to be parked in a different place from that seen in a previous shot in the same scene. This is incorrect. One of the views is from Auguste's flat, the other is from Valentiné's flat across the street. The whole purpose of this segment is to show how Valentiné and Auguste - who may be made for each other - almost cross paths (as happens several other times) but never quite do so, until circumstances throw them together on the ferry at the end of the film. (And here there is the implication that Joseph has manipulated things so that Auguste is on that ferry, having inspected Valentiné's ticket to see which sailing she is booked on.) | 1 |
Claudine was one of the very first movies that gave positive role models for both Black men and women. I appreciated this movie even more as I got older. This movie shows that men didn't always turn away from responsibility. An excellent movie I'd always recommend for anyone who appreciates a good inner city love story. | 1 |
Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.<br /><br />The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.<br /><br />Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.<br /><br />The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems strangely enough a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).<br /><br />Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.<br /><br />The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.<br /><br />I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen. | 0 |
This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)<br /><br />I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result. | 0 |
Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.<br /><br />Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.<br /><br />Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.<br /><br />The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.<br /><br />In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.<br /><br />It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.<br /><br />An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Kingdom County, Vermont, 1927. Noel Lord (Rip Torn) lives with his Indian mate, Bangor (Tantoo Cardinal) in the area where a large dam is to be built; Noel, however, is not willing to give up on his land, and he'll have to fight the dam company in order to prevent the County from any possible destruction.<br /><br />"Where the Rivers Flow North" is a gripping, contemplative story powered by the memorable performances of Rip Torn (recently seen in the small but juicy role of Louis XV in Sofia Coppola's underrated "Marie Antoinette") and Tantoo Cardinal ("Dances With Wolves", "Smoke Signals"). Director Jay Craven (who also co-wrote the script with Don Bredes, based on Howard Frank Mosher's novel) and cinematographer Paul Ryan crafted this powerful story with unique, contemplative pace/visuals, which remind me of Terrence Malick's and John Huston's best moments. It's an underrated independent period piece of the first (electric) half of the 90's, usually regarded as the rise of Quentin Tarantino's burlesque ("Pulp Fiction" is a masterpiece indeed, but the man suffers from Orson Welles' Syndrome), Todd Solondz's disturbing suburbia, Danny Boyle's dark vision of the UK (let's not mention that "Beach" flick with DiCaprio, though)... Jay Craven should be more regarded on the lists of great indie filmmakers as well. He's been leading a respectful, discreet career and it's always a pleasure to see a constant talent like his.<br /><br />My vote: 8/10. | 1 |
OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.<br /><br />I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.<br /><br />I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre. | 1 |
I went to see this movie twice within a week and can only sum it up in one word (which I normally don't use lightly): Wonderful! In my view, the best movie ever made. Who deserves Oscars and other awards if not this Swedish crew who have created cinematic perfection in the last scenes of the film, when everything that is said (and left unsaid) throughout the story is drawn together? Just as the character of Daniel Dareus evokes so many sentiments and long repressed feelings within the people around him, the movie does the same to its viewers: You walk out with your head abuzz and your heart feeling full. Great stuff! Next time you ask yourself "what is the meaning of life", perhaps think about how you feel after a sumptuous experience like As it is in Heaven: Happy, content, fulfilled. To say it with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway: "Such moments are enough". | 1 |
I have not managed to completely block out this film from memory even though it has been two years since I've seen it.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I have long forgotten the main story line - the relationship between Kidman and Law, that made no impression on me but it was the torture scenes in the film that really struck me. I cried for about two hours straight after wards. <br /><br />It had never previously occurred to me how people, in war time, could take advantage of something as pure as a mother's love. We see several examples of this here - in both the scenes with Natalie Portman and with the mother with her fingers in the fence for keeping her son hidden at home. I was shocked at these scenes and will probably never watch the film again as a consequence because the scenes even now are perfectly clear in my mind. However, I am glad I watched the film simply because it has made me more aware to the horrors of war and the horrible cruelty that mankind can inflict on it's own. <br /><br />The blonde albino character has been top of my list of most evil bad guy ever since I saw the film. His horrible sneer and lack of any human feeling for the people he tortured really hit a nerve with me. At one point I wanted to get up in the cinema and kill him myself (see the movie pushed me over the edge of reason,it only occurred to me afterward that I'd only be hitting a big screen - that shows the film's power and intensity at least). <br /><br />I recommend the film for it's sheer experience not for the entwined love story but for the manner in which it depicts war without needing a battlefield. | 1 |
I've read some terrible things about this film, so I was prepared for the worst. "Confusing. Muddled. Horribly structured." While there may be merit to some of these accusations, this film was nowhere near as horrific as your average DVD programmer. In fact, it actually had aspirations. It attempted something beyond the typical monster/slasher nonsense. And by god, there are some interesting things going on.<br /><br />Ms. Barbeau is a miracle to behold. She carries the film squarely on her shoulders.<br /><br />This is not to say that it's a masterpiece. UNHOLY ultimately collapses under the weight of its own ambition. There are just too many (unexplained) subplots trying to coexist. And the plot loopholes created by time travel are never really addressed: for example, if Hope knows that her mother is evil and that she will ultimately kill her brother, then why doesn't she just kill Ma in the film's very first sequence? Seems like it would have beat the hell out of traveling into the future to do it.<br /><br />Still, I give UNHOLY points for trying. A little ambition is not a bad thing. | 1 |
Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.<br /><br />The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it. | 0 |
Eytan Fox did it again : move the viewer's heart in a modest story taking place in an overwhelming mess. The movie also succeeds in describing so perfectly and subtly the atmosphere of the incredible city that is Tel Aviv.<br /><br />I was there a month ago and it is all there : the lifestyle, the relationships, the heart-beating city, the mess, the chock of utopian mindsets in the most light-hearted, blithe and oblivious megalopolis ever.<br /><br />Strongly recommend: it is a voyage for the heart and the mind, with an interesting perspective to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.<br /><br />Nota Bene: There is central gay plot in the movie. If you do not think you are too gay-friendly, be prepared to be challenged and finally see it as "just love". (and don't worry: the chick is hot too!) | 1 |
For me this is a story that starts with some funny jokes regarding Franks fanatasies when he is travelling with a staircase and when he is sitting in business meetings... The problem is that when you have been watching this movie for an hour you will see the same fantasies/funny situations again and again and again. It is to predictable. It is more done as a TV story where you can go away and come back without missing anything.<br /><br />I like Felix Herngren as Frank but that is not enough even when it is a comedy it has to have more variations and some kind of message to it's audience....<br /><br /> | 0 |
Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in "screaming teen" cliché horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.<br /><br />Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.<br /><br />As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.<br /><br />Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of cliché, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.<br /><br />Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.<br /><br />The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.<br /><br />Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.<br /><br />If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion. | 0 |
Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...<br /><br />But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...<br /><br />I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.<br /><br />Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...<br /><br />"Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!" | 0 |
This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C. Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a weak element in this film. | 1 |
Disclaimer: During my ventures into foreign cinema, I have taken a liking to a wide variety of movies that span different genres that include horror, action, drama, comedy, and romance, to name a few. Thus, I have enjoyed the thoughtful, serious tone of dramas as well as the mindless, popcorn fun of action films. With a wide array of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean movies under my belt, I am confident in my ability to recognize bright spots in movies to appreciate and complement. Unfortunately, Ashes of Time has nothing to recognize. It is one of the worst Chinese movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />To start off, this overrated swordplay epic showcases the infamous "slideshow" action sequence throughout, which is nothing more than an ultra-cheap and pathetic form of action choreography. One simply needs to show a series of close-up pictures of grimising faces, swords, legs and/or arms, and then a dead body. Bravissimo! You now have an action sequence for Ashes of Time. The problem lies not only in its poor quality but also in the fact that the scenes are so chaotic and disjointed that the viewer has no idea what the hell is going on.<br /><br />The dramatic element of this film is nonexistent, as it relies on the characters telling the viewer that they love someone or hate someone instead of actually developing and showing such elements on screen, which renders all characters generic and colorless, leaving the viewer completely indifferent to their actions. In fact, the storyline itself is an absolute disaster, introducing way too many characters way too quickly with way too many plot devices. Plot complexities in films can be used very advantageously (i.e., A Tale of Two Sisters), but Ashes of Time becomes exploitative trash when it does nothing more than convolute a very simple plot for no apparently good reason.<br /><br />In fact, this entire movie acts like a series of smokescreens to cover up its deficiencies. Horrible action choreography is covered up by "slideshow" tricks and chaotic camera movements. Non-existent character development is covered up by the characters overtly saying how they feel. And a thoughtless storyline is covered up by confusing the viewer with convolution.<br /><br />As if this weren't bad enough, this movie was extremely boring, seeming more like 150 minutes instead of the actual 95.<br /><br />Rating = A rarely given 0/5 Stars. | 0 |
This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.<br /><br />There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be. | 1 |
I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.<br /><br />The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.<br /><br />The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.<br /><br />Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge? | 0 |
Think of it as an extreme form of detention without trial. Without commenting and taking a side on the US Foreign Policy, the process of Extraordinary Rendition involves taking persons suspected of terrorist activities to a foreign country, an opposite to an extradition if you wish, to a place where torture is not a crime but a means to illicit information. Instead of staining your soil with blood of potentially innocent parties, you do so on foreign land where such tactics are accepted interrogation techniques.<br /><br />Naturally, given the severity of the tactics and attempts at breaking down a person, sometimes you would get what you want once you pass the resistance, or get nothing, or worst of all, get a confession just because the mind has been broken to the point that the subject will agree to whatever you say. It's an ugly process, and what better way to do it when you're the champion human rights, giving the nod to use whatever means necessary in the name of protecting more lives, in an age where information is key to the battle against terror, and doing so in a country where probably the rights record is questionable.<br /><br />Rendition is this year's Syriana, though in the run up to the new year we do have a number of political thriller contenders to take that crown, with Rendition first of all, followed by the Robert Redford movie Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again, though now on the other side of the fence), and The Kingdom with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, though this one would probably turn out to be more action driven. Directed by Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi and will be helming the new Wolverine spin off, Rendition is a decent thriller with a top notch cast, in a narrative that has been proved quite popular these days - the split, which provides for some ample differential perspectives to be presented through an ensemble cast.<br /><br />Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), a chemical engineer, gets renditioned en route to going home under the orders of CIA top brass Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). At a detention facility outside the US, Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (oh so prophetic) embarks on his very first interrogation session, no doubt being thrust into a position that he didn't sign up for. Back home, a very pregnant Reese Whitherspoon searches frantically for answers to her husband's disappearance, and sought after an ex-flame Alan Smith's (Peter Sarsgaard) assistance, since he's working for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin). Throw in J.K. Sinmmons, a terrorist plot investigation and a budding forbidden love story between Fatima (Zineb Oukach) and Khalid (Moa Khouas), you have quite a bit going on in a busy picture.<br /><br />Given a number of casts, locations, timelines and the likes, Rendition wasn't confusing at all, and it plays out with deft handling of the material, never quick to judge, presenting ideas and thoughts from both sides of the equation. Every character has their own agenda, and the unveiling of this agenda engages enough not to bore nor to confuse you. And the best part of it all is how, very truly, they bow down to self-preservation in different forms, and ultimately, in various lose-lose situations unfortunately. It kept you guessing as well - did he or didn't he, and constantly played with your mind as to whether Anwar deserved what he's getting. It utilized one extremely smart sleight of hand which I didn't see coming until it's too late (so there goes the credit), though it did succumb to the usual stereotyping of terrorist militants, and without spending much time in depth to explore their motivations. <br /><br />Perhaps it didn't find a need to, given so many movies out there already touching base on this issue (Paradise Now, Day Night Day Night, Syriana even). While it turned out to be rather one-dimensional (personal tragedy to strapping of bombs to become a suicide bomber), I felt Rendition did right in not providing any saccharine sweet ending, that this fight against negative, destructive ideology, isn't something that can be addressed in a two hour movie, and I'm glad it steered clear such fairy tale implausibilities. <br /><br />What we have instead is a well crafted tale that sets its gun sights on the issue of Rendition, and probably capable enough to spark discussion once the lights come on, on which camp you belong to - do you support inflicting severe pain in interrogation? Yes or No? This is the quintessential question of our time. Yes or No? (OK, I'm already geared for Lions for Lambs)! | 1 |
The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.<br /><br />Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on. | 0 |
Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone. | 0 |
This is a refreshing, enjoyable movie. If you enjoyed, "Four Weddings and A Funeral", "Peter's Friends", etc., you will see a number of familiar and talented actors. Made me laugh, made me sad. I view movies for entertainment, and English-set movies generally fit that bill for me. Enjoy! | 1 |
We just saw this film previewed before release at the Norfolk (VA) Film Forum, and there was general agreement on two matters: There were excellent performances in a first rate drama by the two leads and by others: and secondly, the marketing for this movie will only bring disaster. We saw a lurid poster with chains and suggestive commentary implying some sort of wacko sexual relationship between Samuel Jackson and Cristina Ricci, whereas the movie has some real depth and some thoughtful ideas. What's sad is that people looking for near porn will be drawn in to see the film and will be disappointed because it will be too "heavy" for them, while the people who would really enjoy it wouldn't be caught dead walking into the theater showing it. Too bad. A good film wasted. | 1 |
This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....<br /><br />This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.<br /><br />This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!<br /><br />If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!! | 1 |
A by-the-numbers exorcism exercise with a disappointing non-allegiance and usage of the term 'blackwater.' The cinematography appears right out of basic cable MOW land which removes any semblance of swampy, murky atmosphere from the proceedings. In addition, there's not nearly enough gore, sex or attractive young things to satiate the majority of the film's targeted viewers. That being said, the lead actress who plays the possessed has a sexy olive-skinned presence. What else needs to be said about this non-winner? Don't rent unless you've got a thing for middle-aged adults bemoaning their past and rants with clichéd priests, shrinks, hispanic stablemen all regretting their past actions. | 0 |
This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.<br /><br />As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was "chosen" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.<br /><br />Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.<br /><br />This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor. | 1 |
I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion good, bad, or surprising don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western. | 0 |
I took this out arbitrarily from the library the other night, having no idea of the film's cult, influence, or that it is currently being staged as a musical.(!) Most of the comments here are on target, it's moving, funny, sad, and yes, a tad exploitive despite the best intentions of the filmmakers. The expanded Chriterion edition is a must for anyone who loved it when it came out. <br /><br />I think you can also see in little Edie the fall of a class that sort of disappeared, you can hear it in old films of Jackie O too; people just don't talk like that anymore. I think as a documentary, it would have been interesting to get more information about how the home fell into disrepute, Old Edie at least still seems aware of what's going on to a certain degree; couldn't She see the once spectacular home disintegrating? <br /><br />Yet the film's subject is the life the two women have constructed for themselves now, a real life Tennesse Williams one act. Well worth your time. | 1 |
Based upon the novel The Dismissal by Ermanno Rea, in essence the story's about the slow friendship that develops between an Italian maintenance technician Vincenzo Buonavolonta (Sergio Castellitto, who can be seen as the villainous King in Prince Caspian, and was the lead in Bella Martha) and a Chinese translator Liu Hua (Ling Tai). They set off actually on the wrong foot, with the former chastising the latter for her inaccurate, and slow translations of what he wanted to tell a Chinese delegate who had bought equipment that is faulty. Vincenzo wants to do the right thing, which is rare in these days, and that is to tell the prospective buyers upfront the faults as well as the intricacies that their purchase would bring, and given that he's disturbed by the fact that the deal still went ahead, he takes time off to craft a component that would set things right.<br /><br />But that also means to travel to China in search of the elusive machine, which proves to be well hidden, and seemingly having vanished without a trace. With the initial reluctant help of Liu Hua, they set off in this treasure hunt from city to city, which brings us to lesser seen sights of China, away from the Beijings and the Shanghais, to cities like Wuhan, with industrial like backdrops such as steel mills and nuclear plants with their smoke stacks dotting the scenery. The mighty Yangtze River also makes an appearance. Along the way, the usual trappings of such travelogue styled movies come into play, such as the learning of culture, ideals, food, and basically, the understanding that the world is without strangers, if only one makes an effort to try and connect. While hints of some romance between the two leads are suggested, it rarely made itself to be a moot point, until perhaps late in the movie (hey, opposites attract, no?)<br /><br />Besides the major industrial plants and factories, We get to see various cottage industry, like seamstresses working in sweat shop like environments, and I believe Cotton too, along with noodle making. As a film, it provided me the travelling opportunity without leaving my seat to observe, and credit to it for not passing judgement from a moral high ground on exploitation and the likes. And kudos too for the movie to engage in dialogue based on the characters' native tongues, rather than (and I shall not name names here) some other movie / cross-cultural collaborations where dialogue is forced-dubbed and came off unnatural, and truly irksome. Some might deem the supporting characters to be too kind too, always opening their arms and doors to a foreigner, but I would like to imagine that maybe in the more rural areas, people in general tend to be more sincere, friendly and basically not get caught up in the rat race to trample on others, or be trampled upon.<br /><br />If there's a message to take away from the movie, besides the fact that I mentioned that the world is without strangers, is a reminder to myself that some of the stuff I deem important, may not be so to others. Importance is something one places upon something else, and its basis really depends on how we define the boundaries we set. So given our finite lifetime, I think I should lighten up a bit more, live and let live, and sometimes bask in the illusion that ignorance could be bliss. | 1 |
This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy.<br /><br />"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.<br /><br />Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.<br /><br />Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.<br /><br />3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again. | 0 |
CB4 was awful, but it may have given Cundieff the idea to it better. More like Spinal Tap than anything else, the film is clever from the start. Surprising anyone who saw it back in the mid nineties. The performances are played for laughs but not so much so that they are cartoon characters, more like Marx brothers. These guys are real and slightly diverse. They react to situations like any of us might. Well, we may not throw a tantrum when our performance hats are late to the gig, or pull guns and beat down a record company exec, but you get the picture. N(n***as) W(with) H(hats) takes itself seriously enough to reel you in, then you're hooked. rent or get this at all costs, even if you're not really into rap music, this will still leave you gassing out loud. Comparing this to CB4 is like comparing George Lucas' Star Wars to Gil Gerards'Buck Rogers' I think you see my point | 1 |
I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the "omg.. what an idiot " kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.<br /><br />Bottom line is.. please watch the show. | 1 |
The storyplot was okay by itself, but the film felt very bubbly and fake. It also had the worst ending. They were probably going for a surprise ending, but all it did was leave me the question of what the whole point of the story was. All other teen movies are better than this one. | 0 |
Rented the video for a slow Saturday night. First viewing I thought it was funny. Took a while to get used to the American caricatures (here we're more attuned to British grotesques) but very enjoyable. <br /><br />Watched it again next night and really warmed to it. The characters seemed more human - lovable, even. A film one could watch several times and get more out of it each time. However, my wife *hated* it. No accounting for tastes in humour I suppose. | 1 |
An Intelligent and well obtained film worth to export! <br /><br />In this exiting and really intelligent movie filmed entirely in Bogotá, you can feel the total meaning of the word "Bluff"(although is a Colombian film, the title is in presented in English); ! <br /><br />The story is about Nicolas Andrade (Federico Lorusso), a photographer who find his girlfriend Margarita (Catalina Aristizabal) having an affair with his boss Pablo Mallarino (Victor Mallarino), owner of a magazine; after this Nicolas is left without girlfriend and without any job. Nicolas revenge to Mallarino consists in following him and obtaining photographs of him with his new affair Alexandra (Carolina Gomez) to blackmail Mallarino in order to obtain money in change for not showing the photographs to Margarita.<br /><br />The story is really intelligent and well related, to the point that you'll understand fully the meaning of the title, the movie shows a thriller with a lot of a comic scenes and characters, resulting in a real pleasure to someone that enjoy the movies focused on a good script.<br /><br />I stand out here that this film is different from the typical Colombian movies that show's some dark and violent image of our beautiful country, which is something really refreshing. Some critics say that this story don't show Colombian typical way of living, so it could be held in any part of the world, i disagree with this: (1) the movie is totally filmed in Bogotá, so you can see streets, and images of the real Colombian capital (i hope that some American people and movie producers watch this so they stop showing Amazonic jungle, or Mexican little towns in Bogota as on some Hollywood movies), (2) the characters, dialogs, accent (with exception from Nicolas that is from Argentina) are totally from here, Rosemary (Veronica Orozco) has an accent typical from Cali, (3) you can also see social and cultural differences from the common people in Bogotá. I hope that all this, plus an English title move people from other countries to watch this masterpiece of Martinez<br /><br />Excellent acting of Veronica Orozco, Luis Eduardo Arango (detective Wilson Montes), Felipe Botero, outstanding as detective Ricardo Perez, and good acting of Mallarino, Catalina Aristizabal and Federico Lorusso.<br /><br />A movie worth to export, that people from around the globe will surely understand and enjoy!, Don't miss this movie 9/10! | 1 |
Why Panic never got a good theatrical release is easily seen: it's much too smart, and audiences would have probably had a difficult time with it, comparing it to American Beauty in its probing of a midlife crisis, and Sopranos and Analyze This in it's study of illegal goings-on amidst family life. Though Panic may seem to derive from unoriginal material, Brommel's lifelike characters coupled with deft dialogue and observant direction make the film a realistic look at the undoing of a middle aged man.<br /><br />William H. Macy stars as Alex, a hitman who works for his father's (Sutherland) contract-killing business. He leads a double life, with his wife (Ullman) and son unaware of his real trade. In his middle-age, he becomes increasingly disgusted with what he has done all his life. Under his calm, collected facade stirs repressed resentment for his father's controlling grasp on his life. When he meets a young woman(Campbell) he feels invigored and decides it's time to quit the family business.<br /><br />The fact that writer/director Henry Brommel decided to make the profession his main character was trying to break away from contract-killing is disposable. He could have easily substituted it with any undesirable profession; his characters are so well-developed and believable, scenes handled so smoothly and realisticly and dialogue written so insightfully and naturally that the focus falls on Macy's conflicted character rather than his job as a hitman. Brommel's script feels like a Shakespearean tragedy, with a definite theme of destiny running throughout.<br /><br />In Alex, Macy creates a tragic, easily sympathetic character, and turns in yet another brooding, great performance, as can always be expected. Donald Sutherland is also effectively abrasive and abusive as his overbearing father, and Ullman's dramatic turn as Macy's wife is a welcome change for the comedian. Consider a scene in a bicycle shop, where her mood subtly darkens and peaks in an affecting scene of emotional confusion.<br /><br />Henry Brommel's first feature, Panic is a film that is well-crafted in its sincerity. With a first-rate cast, a plausible script, terse dialogue, and nice direction, this character-study is hopefully just a taste of Brommel's aptness for creating characters that seem real. <br /><br />8 out of 10 | 1 |
Another good Stooge short!Christine McIntyre is so lovely and evil and the same time in this one!She is such a great actress!The Stooges are very good and especially Shemp and Larry!This to is a good one to watch around Autumn time! | 1 |
If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...<br /><br />Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.<br /><br />With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.<br /><br />Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia | 1 |
(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)<br /><br />People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.<br /><br />I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.<br /><br />"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.<br /><br />The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.<br /><br />Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.<br /><br />Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.<br /><br />After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? <br /><br />The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.<br /><br />For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/ | 0 |
This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.<br /><br />It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.<br /><br />Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed! | 1 |
Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film. | 1 |
My flatmate rented out this film the other night, so we watched it together.<br /><br />The first impression is actually a positive one, because the whole movie is shot in this colorful, grainy, post-MTV texture. Fast sequences, cool angles, sweeping camera moves - for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another "Snatch", for the moment....<br /><br />When the plot actually starts unfolding, one starts to feel as if one over-dosed amphetamine. things just don't make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes, but then again, the film is so bad that you are actually better off NOT watching it.<br /><br />First you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between Keira Knightley and Lucy Liu. WRONG. This conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. Rather on the contrary, Domino's lesbian come on on Lucy Liu's character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion.<br /><br />Then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. In any case, that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. But after that the question of Domino's character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. So in short, NO this is NOT a movie about Domino's character.<br /><br />Then i thought, it's probably a story of one robbery. A pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing, bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers, mafia kids are executed, hands are removed, Domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates, etc. But soon this impression is dispelled by another U-turn of the plot.<br /><br />This time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese Afro-American woman, who fakes driver's licenses at the local MVD and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. Lateesha stars on Jerry Springer show, tries to publicize some new, wacky racial theory, and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter.<br /><br />What does this have to do with the main plot? URgh, well, nobody knows. Except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors' fee of 300,000.<br /><br />Then at some point you start to think: "Oh, it is about our society and the way media distorts things". There is reality TV crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. The bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of Hollywood actors, who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. But NO, this is not a movie about media, they just appear sporadically throughout the movie.<br /><br />Plus there are numerous other sub-plots: the crazy Afghani guy bent on liberating Afghanistan, the love story between Domino and Chocco, the mescaline episode, the FBI surveillance operation...<br /><br />Can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie? Judge for yourself, but my conclusion is clear - it is a veritable mess! | 0 |
This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it. | 0 |
I really enjoyed this movie about a dog who becomes a Duke. It would have been very easy to mess this one up, but along with the humor, the script was filled with warmth and even some profundity about nobility and class. It's a feel good movie that the whole family can watch.. even the adults! | 1 |
Kevin Spacey is very talented, but unfortunately directing is not his forte. I had high expectations about the film before I rented it and maybe that is why I disliked it so much. I admire Spacey's attempt at making a film that takes place mostly in one small setting, but it's not the attempt that counts. I found the film dull, boring, and stretched out. The acting was nothing spectacular. Gary Sinise has done much better, especially since he is conscious in most of his other films. Skeet Ulrich was disappointing, but this was one of his first films (I did get a kick out of how young and chubby this Scream star looked). The only thing that impressed me about this film was the one shot of the car wreck from above. The center line of the road was perfectly centered and the camera moved on along the line and past the wreck. However, that shot was very "Usual Suspects"ish and my guess is Spacey got the idea from that earlier film of his (which is very good mind you). If you want to see a fabulous film that takes place in one small setting, watch Hitchcock's Lifeboat. Maybe Spacey should have watched it before filming this. | 0 |
All the right elements seemed to conspire here to make this a memorable thriller for years to come. You have the stellar cast - Michael Douglas in an uncharacteristic 'free-spirit' role that pretty much launched his movie career, Fonda playing her typical forthright female doing her bit for womens lib, and Jack Lemmon as assured as ever showing us a man with a crisis of confidence. Give them a hot-button topic about big business being duplicitous, and that's encouraging for a kickoff, but to have life imitating art so soon after is a marketing man's dream.<br /><br />The script is impressively taut, intelligent but mercifully keeping the jargon to a minimum, and there is a genuine sense of sustained tension brought in play by the director as our three protagonists race to beat the clock. If you like 'whistle blowing' dramas, then this is not quite as good as "The Insider", but the whole thing is more than nervy enough. | 1 |
Duncan Roy's writing and direction is really, and regularly, below par. Actually it sort of stinks. AKA is almost as bad as his recent (horrible, self-serving) remake of Dorian Gray - absurd, contorted dialogue among the 'upper class' characters, at once idiotic and pretentious, amateurish, stilted to its core. Characterisiation and script - and sometimes the acting - is creaky like a school play...but worse, there's a sort of peacock self-certainty about the direction which is just soul destroying when the director clearly hasn't grasped...he's just no good. Diana Quick must be cringing with embarrassment. DR you should just get out of film...seriously. | 0 |
I ran across this movie on the tv and could not turn it off. Peter Sellers plays an unlikable fellow who falls for an extremely warm and cute Goldie Hawn (who wouldn't?). The way that Goldie's character holds herself from the beginning of the movie to the end is untraditional even today. This movie gave me a different angle into human relations and also I found it very funny. Peter Sellers role was a difficult sell, but I think he pulls it off well. | 1 |
**SPOILERS** Redicules slasher film that makes no sense at all with a killer running around dressed in a black robe and wearing what looks like a pull-over Peter Lorre rubber mask. Were told early in the movie, almost the very first scene, that young Beth Morgan was in rehab due to heavy drug use after her boyfriend was murdered in Tennyson Collage about a year ago.<br /><br />It's also brought out that FBI Agent Sacker's (Jeff Conaway), who's obsessed in catching the killer,daughter was also murdered in Tennyson around the same time. By the time the movie "Do You Wanna Know A Secret" is over it's never explained just what those two killings back in Connecticute has to do with the slaughter in Florida of some half dozen collage students a year later? other that the killer, at least in the murder of Beth's boyfriend, wore the same silly Halloween outfit. <br /><br />At spring break in the Sunshine State the six students spend their vacation at a beach house and before you know it they start getting knocked off one at a time. Starting with computer geek Brad Clyton, Chad Allen, the killing even spill over into town with a number of people who have nothing to do with the targeted student including the police chief Gavin, Jack McGee, getting sliced open. <br /><br />The masked killer saves Beth for last in this weird ceremony at a deserted church, in what looks like the Florida Everglades. He then finally reveals who his is and what he intentions are which make as much sense as the movie does, none. Trying to scare it's audience all the movie does is confuse and bewilder it with a number of not-too convincing slasher scenes. The most effective ones having the victim Oz Washington, Tom Jay Jones, survive at least three attempts on his life and ending up, together with Agent Sacker, the hero in the film. <br /><br />Oz also had a vicious cut on is foot from a large splinter of glass that almost cut it in half and crippled him but later he miraculously recovered, after getting arrested for a murder he didn't commit, in fact he had it out two more time with the killer with him not as much as having a slight limp in his walk! It also made no sense at all why Oz and Beth went on their own to tack down and catch the killer instead of calling the police, with a cellphone that Oz had, instead? <br /><br />Beth's boyfriend, who loses his head over her, in the movie Hank Ford, Joseph Lawrence, is also very unconvincing as well as the two girls at the beach house.They together with with Beth Oz end up being the killers victims and then somehow disappearing from sight! for a moment you didn't know if they were really killed at all or if it was some kind of hallucination on Oz's or the local police part. Until the off-the-wall final scene where they popped up in the church.<br /><br />We also get an insight on a previous relationship between Tina and Hank with her, drunk and acting obnoxious, trying to get it on with Hank as Beth walks in without Hank and Tina even noticing her. That seemed to have upset Beth even more then her boyfriend being murdered at the beginning of the movie! | 0 |
Remember Greg the Bunny? It was this show that started on the Independent Film Channel, but got turned into a full blown sitcom on Fox. My cousin and I thought it was pretty funny, beyond the precocious idea of puppets taking on TV-PG material. Puppets Who Kill occurs in a similar universe, where puppets live in the same world as people, and like us, take on jobs and lives of their own. Let's just say if you couldn't handle that, then don't bother watching PWK, as this show is a profile of 4 puppets who fell out of society's good graces through drug abuse, hedonism and violent felonies only to end up in a half-way house. There's plenty of violence, sex, and bad language (so it would never make its way to U.S. Network TV). As if sociopathic puppets weren't enough, the fact that this takes place in Canada makes it even more disturbing (btw, the government pays for this), and I think any American television viewer would demand more demented cable TV fodder like this. I don't know where you can get it in the U.S., beyond extra satellite Tv, but I'd advise you give it a try. Really funny stuff. (It airs on the Comedy Network in Canada) | 1 |
At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in. <br /><br />long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.<br /><br />i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....<br /><br />it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....<br /><br />what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.<br /><br />well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try? <br /><br />i would | 1 |
This is the underrated Kellie Martin's best role. Based on a true story, it tells the story of Fusia's attempt to save the members of the Diamant family and other Jews she meets over time. One of my all-time favorite movie scenes involves an heroic act by Fusia's little sister. All children should see this scene-role models like this are very few and far between. The movie is well written and acted. I am a movie lover and this movie I rate a 10 on imbd's rating system. It is on my top 25 movies of all time and should be put out on video.<br /><br />Mike Porter | 1 |
Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little. | 1 |
This was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.<br /><br />I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.<br /><br />Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs! | 0 |
Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far. <br /><br />The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!<br /><br />Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't. <br /><br />Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.<br /><br />There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie. | 0 |
I watched the movie while recovering from major surgery. While I knew it was only a "B" film, a space western, I loved it. It may have lacked the flash of high dollar productions it non-the-less held my imagination and provided great escapism. Sadly our society has so much available, discounting small attempts is too easy. In the same way that I can enjoy a even a grade school performance of Shakespeare, I can appreciate many levels of achievement for the art sake. I am a cop and found affinity with the retired LAPD. Dreams like his haunt me that I will be unable in the moment of crisis be able to respond to save another's life (or my own). while it was a romantic ending where Farnsworth did take out the bad guy (predictable) I needed a little happy romance where good can triumph. My world is really too cynical. | 1 |
Absolutely dreadful Mexican film supposedly based on a short story by Edgar Allan Poe about a newsman wanting to go into the confines of an asylum hidden in the woods to write a story about how it works, etc... When our hero, Gaston, is given the grand show by Dr. Maillard, head of the asylum, we see all kinds of things which are suppose to be horrific, such as men hanging around long in a dungeon, and comedic, such as our hero being joked upon by soldiers as he climbs down a ladder hanging over the side of a building. Then there is one sight which might have been meant to be both: a human man dressed as a chicken, yes, that's right a chicken, that pecks around the ground for chicken feed. The scene was to be a comedic highlight of the film, but, at least for me, it was the film's low point and really most revolting when you considered that grown men and women thought this might even be remotely entertaining. Ah! That is indeed the real horror that is Dr. Tarr and his Legion of Name Changes. And that brings me to this salient fact about the film which is most films that undergo multiple title changes usually have some kind of serious problem. Yes, this is obvious, but some have distribution problems and others, of which this is one, have numerous title changes so that someone might unsuspectingly buy the same garbage more than once. This is definitely garbage. It has very little going for it. The only performer worth having a look at is Claudio Brook as the head of the asylum. He is one huge slab of ham as he laughs maniacally, bellows orders, sashays with sword in hand, and praises the chicken. I got so tired of hearing him talk about the "soothing system" as his means to cure the mentally sick. What a bunch of ludicrosity(Hey, a film like this with a script like this deserves this kind of word). It won't take you long to figure out what is going on in the asylum nor will it be any more interesting. Cinematic chicken scratch! | 0 |
In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out. | 0 |
By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ? <br /><br />The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie <br /><br />I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this | 0 |
I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre. | 1 |
It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm at the time it was. I'm examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift. | 1 |
Being a bit of a connoisseur of garbage, I have stumbled across this little treasure. Action, romance, crooked cops, violence. Its all here and not a single one has been pulled of right. I was in love immediately. Then, a funny thing happened about the second time around. I became addicted. I thought it was going to be a one rent and chuckle kind-of-movie.<br /><br />Rudy Ray Moore knew what he wanted to see in a movie. He didn't have the money to make it look good, but he did it anyway. That's very commendable. It also shows he was making the movie for his self. I don't know how many of you have heard Rudy Ray's music, but if you haven't he has a whole slew of albums reaching into the fifties. | 1 |
"I fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything." This Shakespearean line from The Merchant of Venice is echoed again in the new film Rendition which introduces the viewer to the "enhanced methods of interrogation", renditions, which began in the Clinton Administration and have become more commonplace since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.<br /><br />The film features an all-star cast, with Oscar winners Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and Reese Witherspoon, as well as Peter Sarsgaard, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Omar Metwally. Supporting roles filled by unfamiliar actors deliver as well, sucking the audience into the plot, and showing how many people can be affected by overseas terror attacks, and our means of investigating them.<br /><br />Rendition follows an Egyptian born terrorism suspect (Metwally) who is taken by U.S. officials following his flight from South Africa to Washington DC to an undisclosed prison overseas. His pregnant wife (Witherspoon) ventures to Washington DC to find out about his disappearance through a family friend and Senator's employee (Sarsgaard). Gyllenhaal plays a young CIA analyst at the overseas detention facility who monitors the violent interrogation.<br /><br />This film follows the emotional plights of the torture victim (Metwally), and those involved in obtaining the supposed information from him. Some, like the CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal), are visibly shaken and horrified by the methods exercised, while others, the stern Senator (Streep) and foreign interrogator (Yigal Naor), see it as necessary and effective.<br /><br />The film may be described by some as a political piece, but is ultimately an emotional one. Metwally's performance as the tortured prisoner is Oscar-worthy. The film does not intend to preach, but rather to question and inform the audience on a topic that does not often have a human face put on it. Renditions have been known to work, but have also been known to produce false information from innocent prisoners. The film simply depicts the emotional struggles of those involved in such grave business, and does so in a way that will affect every viewer differently. The film will keep your interest, and have you engaged in each of the character's plights. | 1 |
When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.<br /><br />I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a "1.1" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.<br /><br />I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.<br /><br />I liked it. | 0 |
My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines. | 0 |
I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so | 0 |
A beautiful film, touching profoundly up the simple, yet divine aspects of humanity. <br /><br />This movie was almost perfect, and seeing as nothing in this world can be truly perfect, that is pretty good. The only minor thing I subjectively object to, is the pacing at some points in the middle of the story. The acting is also very good, and all the actors easily top actors in high-profile films. The actual directing seems to have been well thought through, and the script must have been amazing. There are some truly breathtaking moments of foreshadowing, and a quite gorgeous continuing circular composition of the story.<br /><br />The moment in the movie, when the main character achieves that feeling of being in heaven is the perfect ending to a truly brilliant yarn. | 1 |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. If I wasn't watching it for free, I would have never finished it. The creators of this film should be ashamed of themselves. It seems like this is supposed to be a film in the vein of Scary Movie and Date Movie (a terrible movie, but 10x better than this one), but failed miserably. The only jokes in this movie seem to be based on slapstick. A guy falls down, someone gets hit by a bus, etc. None of the ideas are clever, basically the worst premise for a movie ever. The plot (or lack thereof) is completely retarded. The plot seems to center around the coach and his family, however there are so many other things going on in the movie it is completely ridiculous. Terrible, terrible movie. | 0 |
Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!! | 0 |
This was probably intended as an "arty" crime thriller, but it fails on both counts - there are few thrills and not enough substance. The plodding pacing makes it hard to sit through, and the occasional action scenes are too sloppily edited and confusingly staged to offer much compensation. At least the level of acting is high. (**) | 0 |
I could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible movie. | 0 |
Sideshow is a good example of a basically interesting idea gone very, very wrong. As far as horror movies go, and especially with the influx of teen movies at the moment, a film based around a bunch of teens attending a mysterious freak show is something you could have a lot of fun with.<br /><br />However, the writer decided to make a very straight, very boring, very plain tale about five teens who become part of the show when enraged midget Abbot Graves transforms them into freaks using some pathetic machine that mutates them into beasts.<br /><br />The five teens are picked off one by one until the last guy is left, his 'punishment' being that he is unable to join his friends and thus 'be alone'. What a load of rubbish! <br /><br />The 'actors' are really poor, this film has no comedy (and it could have been so funny!), no gore (and it could have been so gory!), no action and no horror (and it could have had so much of both!) <br /><br />The director has failed in his duty to even try to make this a little interesting to watch. His experience in soft-core has obviously disabled any creativity he may ever have had, as all the shots are the same, with very few edits and little movement. The quality overall is poor.<br /><br />I'm not usually swayed by nudity in movies, but believe me the only high point in this film was a pair of breasts. | 0 |
The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.<br /><br />Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!! <br /><br />The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.<br /><br />Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme! | 0 |
Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.<br /><br />But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.<br /><br />The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.<br /><br />But not for more than 99¢, OK? | 0 |
Normally I'm not motivated to write reviews. But this movie was so excruciatingly painful I feel I must. I cringed at the appallingly predictable plot, the lame acting and laughed at moments which were supposed to be tense. Indeed most of the audience seemed pretty bored and chatty even at the "most tense" moment of the movie. Molly Ringwald stood out as the only performance of any merit in a tortured production. Even the "twist" at the end wasn't. I've heard it said that the movie didn't take itself seriously; but I could find little evidence of that in the movie.<br /><br />Cut should have been left on the cutting room floor. Do yourself a favour and spend your time and money on something else! | 0 |
With the death of GEORGE NADER, on 4 February 2002, I thought of this most interesting program, which even though it had only a short run, was a tremendous idea with good story lines throughout. Generally unseen for over 40+ years it would be worth viewing again. The opening credits showed many differing images, one of which was a snippit of COLONEL JOHN PAUL STAPP, riding his famed rocket sled, at the point where he was often referred to as "The Fastest Man Alive". | 1 |
A must see by all - if you have to borrow your neighbors kid to see this one. Easily one of the best animation/cartoons released in a long-time. It took the the movies Antz to a whole new level. Do not mistake the two as being the same movie - although in principle the movies plot is similiar. Just go and enjoy. | 1 |
I probably give this more credit than it deserves because it's Halloween, I was just at "Knott's Scary Farm" and I was in a mood to watch a really cheesy Halloween movie.<br /><br />Oh, and it only cost me one dollar.<br /><br />Usually I'll ffwd through a movie like this to get to "the good stuff," but I resisted the urge here and I'm still not sure why. It was obvious from the opening shots this wasn't a "real" movie, not even a B-movie. It's more in the category of the DeCoteau "horror" movies like "The Brotherhood" that are shot on film-look video for about 50 cents (in fact, I was half afraid any minute one of his beefy college boys would stagger out rubbing himself in his underpants or something). There were no cutaway shots (too expensive to do multiple camera setups) and flat lighting but...it's hard to pinpoint. There's something refreshing about watching a director with no money pull off a half-decent movie. The fact that he's doing even a half-decent job is commendable, and this movie has it's share of merits--the acting isn't bad, the photography is pretty good (if too bright to be scary), there are some surprises, and the whole thing is sort of...different somehow.<br /><br />A bunch of college kids are (for some unknown reason) stuck in the warehouse where they are decorating the annual haunted house. A creepy old man gives them a satanic book and they accidentally summon up the powers of hell. This results in the costumed people in the haunted house becoming who they are made up to be, and causing a lot of mayhem and human suffering. Along the way we are treated to an oddly complex and thoughtful lesbian relationship subplot--it's interesting that this couple seems to be the most well-rounded in the movie. Yes, there's a sex scene but it isn't salacious--or at least no more so than you'd find in any legit movie about lesbians that shows them having sex. It's rather unusual for a horror film to take the time and effort to do this without resorting to cheap exploitation. <br /><br />The other thing about this that held my interest was how it was clearly trying to emulate the "stupid kids have sex and get killed" vibe of the 80's slashers. It's hard to take that on because there are so many of those films that already exist, the genre has been done to death. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that these filmmakers simply tried to make another entry in that genre, without irony, as if it was still a LIVING genre, but I appreciated the attempt.<br /><br />Which is why I sat through it; sometimes you just want to watch a mindless, no-budget, "A-for-effort" horror film. There really was too much set up, not enough gore, endless plot-holes, dead-ends and clichés and the unfortunate overall feel of a movie that simply did not have enough money behind it to be the film the producers envisioned...but at the very least the haunted house scenes were pretty cool. I'd pay to go to that haunted house if it existed, and didn't mind paying a dollar to see it on DVD even if I'll never watch this again.<br /><br />Oh, and **possible spoiler**, but there was great, brief business with the vampire girl in the coffin: "I used to be claustrophobic. But I've changed." Ha ha, good one. | 0 |
"Lifeforce" is a truly bizarre adaptation of the novel "The Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson, scripted by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby. A joint American-British space exploration team makes a mind-boggling discovery: an alien spacecraft resting inside Halleys' Comet, containing three entities that look like people, one of them a female beauty (the oh-so-alluring Mathilda May).<br /><br />They take these discoveries back on board their own spacecraft. Big mistake.<br /><br />It turns out that these creatures drain the life out of human beings, and as American colonel Carlsen (an intense, edgy, and committed Steve Railsback) and British S.A.S. colonel Caine (a solid Peter Firth) watch in horror, an infestation of vampirism overtakes London, with the fate of Earth in the balance.<br /><br />This picture certainly is not lacking in imagination. It moves a little slowly at times but offers so many strange and fanciful ideas and eye-popping visuals that it's hard not to be amused. The first of director Tobe Hoopers' three-picture deal with Cannon Films (he followed it up with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" and the "Invaders from Mars" remake), he makes it something truly unique. Incorporating elements of sci-fi, vampire films, zombie films, and end-of-the-world sagas, it's like nothing that I've seen before.<br /><br />Railsback and Firth are ably supported by such strong Brit actors as Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart, Michael Gothard, Aubrey Morris, and John Hallam. Mathilda May is very memorable as the bewitching, enigmatic villainess; it certainly doesn't hurt that she performs a great deal of her scenes in the nude. Also worth noting is a stirring music score from none other than "Pink Panther" composer Henry Mancini.<br /><br />Ridiculous it may be, but I found it to be fun as well. It's flamboyant and spirited entertainment.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud. | 0 |
The only pure life, is one that ends with a signature in blood.<br /><br />So says Mishima anyway, a young sheltered boy who becomes a celebrity author. The life of one of Japans most celebrated literary voices, is told from three perspectives, his life just before he and four members of his private army take over a Japanese military base and commit ritual suicide(shown in color), flashbacks(shown in black and white), and scenes from his novels(shown in a kind of dreamy Technicolor set design somewhere between traditional Noh Theater and "the Wizard Of Oz". These stories are often told at the same time, but are edited to reinforce, the slow fusing of Mishima's life with his fictions, until the end(or the beginning) when like the ancient samurai he so admires, he will be at a balance of pen and sword (when his words and actions are the same, and he is a full and "pure" being).<br /><br />Paul Schrader wrote the screen play for "Taxi Driver", and directed "Cat People"(a bizarre erotic horror film, which left strange impressions on me as a boy), and in Mishima, he comes closest to making a really excellent film.<br /><br />Whats interesting is to watch the poet, the homosexual, the shy and awkward man with a low body image who overstates his Tuberculosis to get of of WW2 (of which he seems forever ashamed), become a body building, samurai obsessed, a-sexual, media phenomena, all the while still writing prolific amounts of novels, plays, and short stories.<br /><br />A short and sweet version is to say Mishima has no father, and becomes obsessed with masculinity, beauty, sex and self destruction, in some tragic attempt to feel connected to something bigger than himself, that he was always missing. Watching him with his fellow suicidal cadets, you see him happy, delivering his big paternal speech, giving orders, and loving the control...until the speech itself, the point where pen and sword meet? Of course, this ignores the subtlety of the story telling craft here which makes this transformation so natural and remarkable. <br /><br />Though the story, fascinating at times, really isn't this movies greatest success. The cinematography, performances, editing,music(by Philip Glass), and set designs, are really what make this worth seeing, and more than a traditional bio-pic.<br /><br />One day I will pick, up a Mishima book, he does seem to have an ear for prose, and for staging ideas, but for now I'm satisfied with the film.<br /><br />Those interested in Japanese Literature, and post-war culture, should check out. Fans of inventive combinations of facts and fictions, should enjoy as well. | 1 |
This movie has to be the worst film of 2007, it was just really bad and i don't think i have ever seen a film that is just so bad, i mean the don't make really bad Hollywood films do they?? Hamish really should stick to singing instead of acting cause he just can't act at all, god he was just so bad, i mean he was that bad in the film that he made Mallika Sherawat look like a better actress than him, as for her performance, she plays the same role in every movie, god it is just so boring watching her, i mean what do men see in this woman?, yeah she has a god body but where is that talent???? i have not seen it yet and at this rate i don't think that i ever will.<br /><br />Anyway Hamish falls in love with Ria now this 15 year old girl can act, my god she was the best actor in the film and she does not look 15 at all, to me she looks about 21, but her performance was brilliant in the film. bless her she was really good, i hope to see more of her in the future. So Ria falls in love with Himash, but her father wants her to marry someone else, a typical bollywood film anyways there is a hiccup (can only happen in a bollywood film) and the both get married in the end.<br /><br />Well i would give th music 10/10 it was superb, that made the movie a hit, the songs were truly amazing and brilliant. anyways the only thing that i can say is to go and buy the music and not watch the film. | 0 |
The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.<br /><br />If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie <br /><br />Eric 2007 | 0 |
I saw Insomniac's Nightmare not to long ago for the first time and I have to say, I really found it to be quite good. If you are a fan of Dominic Monaghan you will love it. The hole movie takes place inside his mind -or does it? The acting from everyone else is a little rushed and shaky and some of the scenes could be cut down but it works out in the end. The extras on the DVD are just as great as the film, if not greater for those Dom fans. It has tons of candid moments from the set, outtakes and a great interview with the director. Anyone who has gone through making an independent film will love to watch Tess (the director), Dom and everyone else on the very small close personal set try to bang out this little trippy creepy film. It was pretty enjoyable and I'm glad to have it in my collection. | 1 |
I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY. | 0 |
In Mexico City, the former CIA assassin and presently an alcoholic decadent man John Creasy (Denzel Washington) is hired by the industrialist Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony), with the recommendation of his old friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken), to be the bodyguard of his young daughter Pita (Dakota Fanning) and his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell). Pita changes the behavior of the cold Creasy, making him live and smile again, and he feels a great affection for her. When the girl is kidnapped and Creasy is informed that she was murdered by the criminals, he swears to kill each one responsible for the abduction.<br /><br />"Man on Fire" is almost a masterpiece, and will become certainly a classic in the future. The story is excellent, never corny and although having 146 minutes running time, the viewer does not feel time passing. The cast is composed by excellent actors and actresses, their performances are outstanding, highlighting Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning and Radha Mitchell. The cinematography has wonderful moments, and the screenplay has stunning lines. I personally loved when the character of Christopher Walken explains to Manzano (Giancarlo Giannini) that Creasey's specialty is death, and he is preparing his masterpiece. I agree with the user that commented that "Man on Fire" is one of the best, if not the best, film of the year in this genre. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Chamas da Vingança" ("Flames of the Revenge") | 1 |
The plot of "Open Graves" is very simple:it's about a board game called Mamba,where the players die in real life the same way they die in the game.Laughable death scenes include killings via computer generated crabs and snakes.The characters are cardboard and deliberately annoying and there isn't even a tiny bit of suspense.I liked Eliza Dushku in "Wrong Turn",but she is completely wasted and unmemorable here.The climax with CGI-witch coming from the sea is utterly laughable and stupid.The only reason to see "Open Graves" are some interesting camera angles plus sexy Eliza Dushku.If such movies are the future of horror then I seriously give up.Give me any 70's or 80's low-budget horror flick over this modern piece of crap.A generous 3 out of 10. | 0 |
I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one. | 0 |
I enjoyed the film, and the fact that it aimed rather high in dealing with some sophisticated material. I saw the film in a preview screening, and it wasn't ruined by any silly video boxes that spoiled the ending. The performances were quite good, especially Andrew McCarthy in a more mature roll. I also enjoyed the look of the film which gave it a mysterious, forboding air. I also enjoyed some of the "twists" in the plot, and don't want to give too much away in case other countries' video boxes don't give it all away! The script was a little over the top at times, but I appreciated the fact that the film-makers weren't afraid to challenge the audiences with interesting and puzzling questisons regarding the roll of faith in our world. And, while some might find the ending a little too open-ended, I appreciated the fact that the movie refused to tie everything up neatly with a bow. That's not how life works. | 1 |
By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later. | 0 |
Not your ordinary movie, but a good one. Billy Bob is very funny in this movie, the way he talks, what he says etc. I was kind of surprised when i saw it, cause i just thought it was a normal comedy, but it was more than that. It had a very good story, great characters and a good balance.<br /><br />Favorite part: Probably when Billy Bob is running around in his robe shooting at the rippers | 1 |
I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another "Biblical" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.