text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I would purchase this and "Thirty Seconds Over Toyko" today if available. I also saw this movie after seeing large billboards of Jack Webb in his Dress Blues on the highway at the age of 12.Always admired Jack Weeb as a John Wayne type and American all the way. Almost became a Marine just because of this movie but served instead in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve for 32 years. Have not seen this movie on TV at all and would love to own it on DVD. At least if it was on TV I would copy it to VHS and use it until available on DVD. I also have a large collection of WWII and Korean War movies and always look for new releases on DVD. | 1 |
The cast of "All That" returns for good humor in the "Good Burger" a place similar to an old fashioned fast food restaurant. The comedy is terrific, the fun is non-stop, and though cliché, is a passer for kid and family comedy.<br /><br />A movie for all ages, this movie is meant to enjoy, laugh, and pretty much a lazy movie for a rainy day, as that's what I'd save this movie for, a rainy day. USA aired it today, and since I know that the cast of "All That" is in it, I thought that it might be a bit of a chuckle burner, but in good fun, as Keenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell (probably one of the best young duos of that time) were terrific together, the pieces came together, and everything worked out, and it made it into good family fun together with some lazy day work to get off the bad day.<br /><br />May I take your order? | 0 |
I have no read the novel on which "The Kite Runner" is based. My wife and daughter, who did, thought the movie fell a long way short of the book, and I'm prepared to take their word for it. But, on its own, the movie is good -- not great but good. How accurately does it portray the havoc created by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? How convincingly does it show the intolerant Taliban regime that followed? I'd rate it C+ on the first and B+ on the second. The human story, the Afghan-American who returned to the country to rescue the son of his childhood playmate, is well done but it is on this count particularly that I'm told the book was far more convincing than the movie. The most exciting part of the film, however -- the kite contests in Kabul and, later, a mini-contest in California -- cannot have been equaled by the book. I'd wager money on that. | 1 |
This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.<br /><br />Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).<br /><br />Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.<br /><br />Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.<br /><br />It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion. | 0 |
A group of cats look to find their way home after being kidnapped by a greedy butler.<br /><br />The Aristocats is regarded as one of Walt Disney's finest 2D animations with its charming script and cool characters, but it doesn't quite have the magic that created Snow White or the Jungle Book.<br /><br />The slow opening will have younger viewers raising their eyebrows but once the cats become established into the story does the fun and entertainment begin.<br /><br />The young cats create the most enjoyment with a charming young hearted rivalry, the special kind of bonding any brother or sister of any age can associate with.<br /><br />Not the funniest Disney picture out there but there are some great comic moments, especially involving the Cats and the Dogs. The representation of the gangster cats is very impressive and equally amusing.<br /><br />The story, after the boring beginning, is consistently entertaining and exactly what a family film should be. There are hardly any lapses and no dull moments. The journey to find home is interesting and you get a sense of exploring, not to mention two very strange British swans.<br /><br />With Disney, you always get a strong meaningful message. With the Jungle Book it is where you belong, with Beauty and the Beast you explore the importance of inner beauty. However with this 1970 picture there seems to be something missing. The film has the importance and relevance of home but is not cemented enough; it seems very far fetched and irrelevant.<br /><br />My sister and I found it very strange watching this as some of the central characters were voiced by the Jungle Book cast.<br /><br />Despite the bad beginning and the confusion of its preaching message, this is a consistently fun family film with a good music score and some cool crazy characters that viewers of any age can relate to. | 1 |
During my teens or should I say prime time I was "eating up" all kinds of SF novels every day of the week. It was in the Sixties and Seventies when TV was not such a important leisure time killer like today, one night in the mid seventies I watched the movie on TV I think it was ARD and I was stunned. I was impressed in a way that I can almost remember each scene even today.<br /><br />Nowadays I observe my kids playing the SIMS or something like that and I think we are close to what that Fassbender Movie expressed. I also would highly appreciate if I could buy this movie on a DVD. But in vain I tried almost everything to get a hint where. The movie MATRIX cannot touch by far the quality and the state of art of this movie. And by the way by now we do not have a glue if we were a superior reality or just one of a couple simulation models. Probably after our death we definitely will know... | 1 |
The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). <br /><br />As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. <br /><br />The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. <br /><br />Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***<br /><br />So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema. | 0 |
Gentle and genial film seems to have been overlooked as a triviality...and to be fair the narrative is a bit tenuous and lightweight as drama....but I feel the simple wonder and joy of the scenes depicting the first impact of a new art on an alien and sceptical society have a radiance and naturalness which capture the century long romance between cinema and audience better than any film in years. Immensely sympathetic performance from Jared Harriss (who seems to have inherited all of his fathers charisma...hopefully without poor Richards penchant for hellraising and haminess)....and charming offbeat cuteness from costar Yu Xia combine to make this a real heartwarmer. Radiant location photography (including glowingly beautiful scenes at the great wall) and sensitive direction by Ann Hu give film added impact. In short a must for anyone ever enchanted by a shadow flickering to life...and making magic in the dark. | 1 |
Dee Snider is the villain in this movie and his bad acting and overacting kind of ruined it for me. The whole movie just seemed to take itself too seriously. It tries to achieve the dark atmosphere of "Seven" without the good acting. The movie highlights the urban industrial rock / tattoo / body art "subculture" and expects us to be impressed (scared?) by the size of a guy's nose ring. I'm not a expert on movies but the script and acting in this movie are just awful. Dee Snider looks the part of the villain but his acing is downright horrid. I recommend not wasting the time on this one unless nothing else is available. | 0 |
Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run. <br /><br />To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song. | 1 |
i was glad that this movie did without all the supposed depth of all too many pseudo-serious interracial movies. race was one issue, yes, but so was class...and loyalty...and honesty, etc.<br /><br />i also loved the idea that the love affair wasn't couched solely in the 'decorative' aspects of either character's appearance. aren't our divorce courts (on both sides of the Atlantic, i daresay!) filled now with enough couples who thought 'looking good. together.' is all it takes to make a solid marriage? in any case, the tenderness and sensuality of both characters was thick enough to cut in love scenes that would have brought a rainbow to any dreary day! in other words, a light-hearted movie that's by no means a light-weight! | 1 |
I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey. | 0 |
This was an absolutely spellbinding series and was sorry that I was only able to catch a few shows way back when it aired late night in the UK. The style of it was so different from others of its kind and the whole thing had an unnerving air of stylish dread to it. All you have to do is read all the positive comments (not a single negative that I can see) to realise what a really innovative series this was and how it caught at the imagination. I now understand from reading the comments it got CANCELLED that's just so unbelievable. What a bunch of 'headless overpaid suited turkeys' there must have been (or just maybe still are) running around to do that. | 1 |
I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.<br /><br />The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.<br /><br />The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one. | 0 |
The commercials for RAT RACE made it look too juvenile for me to enjoy, but since my boyfriend adores this movie (and the soundtrack), I finally relented and watched it with him tonight. I make him watch David Lynch films and all sorts of obscure indie stuff (I recently forced URBANIA on him), so I felt I owed him an innocuous Hollywood product.<br /><br />I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I saved my bitching for y'alls. Yeah, RAT RACE has its moments, but a great deal of it irritated me. Let's start at the beginning. RAT RACE was marketed as a "family film," so I was a little surprised to discover that the first scene centered around a porno movie. (I can hear it now: "Mommy, what does AFRO WHORES mean?") This scene has no purpose in this movie other than to cram some naughtiness into a PG-13 movie.<br /><br />And while we're still on the segments in the casino, it's pretty convenient that all the characters happened to play, within the same time frame, the slots that held the gold coins. What would have happened if they didn't? Would those millionaire gamblers just sit around and wait? And how did they get those gold coins in the slots in the first place?<br /><br />But I'm belaboring a plot point that's necessary for the movie to exist, so I'll press on. About Whoopi and her long-lost daughter: they're meeting for the very first time, yet throughout their whole ordeal they don't discuss with each other anything about themselves. Why make their relationship such a presumably complicated one? Couldn't they have just been, say, a mother and daughter on vacation together? Why the business concerning a long-ago adoption? And why portray the daughter as a hard driving career woman chained to her cell phone who never again needs contact with her business? Did the screenplay just forget about this subplot and character trait?<br /><br />This illustrates the main weakness of this movie - the characters are inconsistent and interchangeable; it's exhausting when everyone is equally zany and with no identifying traits. And another thing - the events aren't plausible. Oh, sure, the characters can do some quirky things, but the characters themselves have to be believable. Take THE NAKED GUN (another Jerry Zucker movie) for example. Frank Drebin has some pretty exaggerated moments, but everything he does is, in theory, possible in his world. (Jane is also funny, but it's a different kind of funny, which makes all the difference.) A character in RAT RACE defying natural laws by leaping onto a speeding train destroys any plausibility the movie may have; these clearly aren't real people, so why should I care about them?<br /><br />Another problem I have with RAT RACE is a moral one. The characters obtain their modes of transport almost totally by theft. I know, I know, this is just a silly comedy, and the same actions didn't bother me fifteen years ago when I saw MILLION DOLLAR MYSTERY, but there's a lot of lawbreaking in RAT RACE, and it bothers me now. And I won't delve into the whole airport-sabotage sequence other than to wonder if the screenwriters didn't consider the real-life implications of such an action; was that scene funny before 9/11?<br /><br />I'll skip over the distasteful bits concerning the heart, the drugging of one's family and the Nazis (whose buildup and payoff worked better in an episode of "Seinfeld"), and move on to complain about the acting. Rowan Atkinson started out annoying and ended insufferable; I don't know when I liked a comical character less. And the three Oscar winners need new agents. Whoopi came off best, but she didn't have much to work with (loved the copper perm and purple lipstick though); Kathy Bates' part was shrill but mercifully brief; Cuba, was...oh, man. Cuba, babe, please fire your agent! Following INSTINCT and CHILL FACTOR, this is your third strike (be glad I haven't seen PEARL HARBOR or SNOW DOGS) - it's time to give your '97 Best Supporting Actor Oscar back to its rightful owner (Edward Norton, for PRIMAL FEAR). An actor of your stature has no business running half-naked through the desert and being checked out by a transvestite Lucille Ball impersonator. Do you even read the scripts to your movies anymore, or are you reaching into a bag and pulling your next project out at random?<br /><br />There's other small points that bother me (how did Grisham and the hooker get to the loot so fast?), but, basically, RAT RACE amounts to little more than your basic batch of character types being hindered by arbitrary obstacles on their way to a rather underwhelming and inexplicable ending. They give the money to charity? What kind of ending is that?!? Yeah, it's the "noble" thing to do. Never mind the probability of cross-promotion/licensing whores Smash Mouth (do they ever say no to selling out?) putting on a benefit concert in the middle of the New Mexico desert, but who would honestly do such a thing? Yes, they say it's the journey, not the destination, that makes a trip worthwhile, but there's no journey without a destination. If there was ever an example of a "wrong happy ending," this would be it. What a bummer end to a movie that, despite my nitpicking here, I did enjoy parts of (I confess to enjoying the bit with the cow and some of the Lucy stuff along with the character with the tongue piercing - at first I thought his indecipherable speech would run me up a wall, but he grew to be my favorite).<br /><br />But as far as my boyfriend knows, I found RAT RACE quite funny and charming.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Good movie, very 70s, you can not expect much from a film like this,, Sirpa Lane is an actress of erotic films, a nice body but nothing exceptional savant to a pornographic actress from the body disappears, but the '70s were characterized a small breasts and a simple eroticism. Not demand a lot from these films are light years away from the movies today, the world has changed incredibly. The plot is simple and the actors not extraordinary. And the brunette actress has a single body, has one breast slightly bigger. Be satisfied. Papaya also is not great but at least these films have a certain charm ... Download them again but then again who knows what you pretend not to them. | 1 |
This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman. | 0 |
It's hard to know what to make of this weird little Aussie crime flick - on the one hand, it's an enjoyable little film with a great sense of humour; but on the other, it just lacks a certain something that ensures the film never reaches above it's boundary that keeps it trapped within the merely 'interesting' territory. That being said, Two Hands is a well plotted film that excellently juggles several stories at the same time, which allows several small climaxes throughout the movie, and that in turn helps to stop the film becoming boring. The absurdity of the goings-on, the thick Australian accents and the bizarre set of characters all help to ensure that the film entertains also. The plot follows the story of a young doorman who thinks he'll go on to bigger things after accepting a job from the local kingpin. He doesn't; the job only lands him in trouble when he fancies a swim and stupidly leaves ten grand on the beach, which is promptly stolen by a couple of kids who have the time of their lives on a shopping spree. However, all is not rosy for our hero; who must find the money or face the consequences...<br /><br />The film is made up of a cast of unknowns; at least, it was back in 1999, as nowadays Heath Ledger is something of a name. He doesn't impress too much here, however, as his performance is mostly of the one-note variety and he doesn't make for a very compelling lead. He fits the movie in that he's Australian and looks naive; but beyond that, he's not the best lead I've ever seen in a movie. If you ask me, Bryan Brown gave the best performance here. He might not have a great deal of screen time, but he steals every scene he's in and it's him that provides the movie with a lot of its humour. He's got nothing to do with the best sequence, however, which takes place in the form of probably the most hilarious bank robbery ever caught on film. On the whole, I can recommend this film to people that enjoy quirky crime films; as the weirdness is plentiful, and the way that events take a turn for the bizarre is enjoyable; but if you're not a fan of this sort of film, I can't really say that Two Hands will float your boat. It's not a must see, but if it's your thing and you get a chance to see it...you probably wont completely regret it. | 1 |
There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, "Smoooooookin!" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this. | 0 |
I just watched this movie and have to say, I was very impressed. It's very creepy and has numerous moments that will make you jump out of seat! I had to smoke several "emergency" cigarettes along the way to calm my nerves! If I had to criticise, I'd say that perhaps if anything, there were too many jump moments. It got to the point where every single new scene climaxed with a jump and this gradually wore away the startling effect, because you kind of new what was coming.<br /><br />Although it contains virtually every cliché in the ghost genre, they were all done so well that it maintained the creepy, fear-factor. It had elements of The Shining, The 6th Sense and The Changeling (in particular, the soundtrack reminded me of The Changeling).<br /><br />I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned scare! | 1 |
I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10 | 1 |
Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know! | 1 |
Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith. | 0 |
this is one of the funnier films i've seen. it had it's crude moments, but they were full of charm. it's Altmanesque screenplay, brilliant physical humour, and relaxed friendships were a pleasure to watch, and a slice of life most of us can relate to. and i can say with a measure of honesty that i was afraid for Steve Carell's nipple..i truly was. surprisingly, this is a good-natured, unabashed comedy that is essentially about love, and the many relationships we may find ourselves in along the way. Catherine Keener was terrific as Trish, and all of Steve Carell's friends were flawed but amiable, and so much fun. the idea that they suspected that Carell was a serial killer is a hilarious metaphor for a forty-year old virgin. but the simple truth was that he wanted to be in love first. original, charming, and very funny. highly recommended. | 1 |
Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.<br /><br />First - let's start the with good.<br /><br />1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.<br /><br />2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.<br /><br />1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.<br /><br />2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.<br /><br />3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.<br /><br />4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.<br /><br />This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.<br /><br />If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer. | 0 |
I'm not particularly fond of remakes, or to steal the modern jargon "retellings", but this film truly peeved me off. The original Prom Night, while not in my humble estimation a masterpiece, still realized what it was... horror. There are some simple things to remember when making a horror film. Suspense is crucial to maintaining the interest of the audience. Sorry folks, but a white knuckle film this was not! The scares were cheap, and foreshadowed terribly. (A good example of scare which has been done to clichéd excess now, is the cat jumping out of the closet, followed soon there after but a now unexpected appearance by the villain of the film) This film couldn't successfully pull that off, so how could I expect it to fulfill any of the other conventions of horror film. There needs to be a likable hero or heroine. This film doesn't have one. The person I most identified with was the head detective. His calm demeanor, but level headed approach to the escape of a killer was what more films of this ilk should have. Common sense approach to events that occur. (If you're running from an Axe wielding psycho, you turn and sprint in the opposite direction. Not jog, whilst looking back ever three seconds, gaging the killer's progress, only to trip over every branch and inanimate object in your path.) If you friend disappears, you don't go looking for them alone. And if you suspect foul play you tell someone, not investigate yourself. These clichés are tired and well overplayed. In the horror genre in general, and in this film in particular. | 0 |
James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.<br /><br />The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.<br /><br />But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.<br /><br />I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.<br /><br />William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.<br /><br />Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen. | 0 |
First of all I am a butch, straight white male. But even with that handicap I love this movie. It's about real people. A real time and place. And of course New York City in the 80's. I had many gay friends growing up in New York in the eighties and the one thing about them i always admired was their courage to live their lives the way they wanted to live them. No matter what the consequences. That's courageous. You have to admire that. This is a great film, watch it and take in what it was like to be a flamboyant African American or Hispanic Gay man in the New York of the eighties. It's real life. Bottom line it's real life. | 1 |
Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends. | 0 |
Despite being told from a British perspective this is the best WW II documentary ever produced. Presented in digestible (as digestible as war can be) episodes as the grave voice of Laurence Olivier connects the multitudes of eye witnesses who were forced to live the events of that horrific time. Eagerly awaiting its appearance on DVD in the U.S. The Europeans had their opportunity with a release in DVD earlier this year. | 1 |
Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process. | 0 |
Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy! <br /><br />Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value! <br /><br />The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002! | 0 |
I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again.. | 0 |
This is not "direct cinéma", as a matter of fact it is its opposite. Second installment of filmmaker Gatlif's gypsy trilogy, this French work produced by Michèle Ray-Gavras, is a film masterpiece, not pure documentary, no fiction by any means. Instead, Gatlif has chosen different locations of the route from India to Spain, wherever the Rom people have a strong presence, and with the help of art directors he has staged several musical numbers that tell us how the gypsies live, sing, dance, struggle and have survived. The movie may have strong opposition from those who question the hypothesis that the Rom tribe is of Indian origin, mostly challenged by those who see a direct link with the Hebrews (so, in a way, it comes as no surprise that they were also persecuted by the Nazis.) But above any anthropological argument, this is a work of great beauty, strong colors and wonderful singing and dancing. | 1 |
At the end of "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.<br /><br />The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.<br /><br />This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.<br /><br />The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.<br /><br />The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.<br /><br />If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).<br /><br />True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.<br /><br />"Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one. | 0 |
I've got to say, I'm a big fan of these 'Last House on the Left' rip-offs, even the ones that most people seem to hate are often held in relatively high esteem by me; but one of these sorts of films that I didn't like much was Aldo Lado's 'Night Train Murders', and unfortunately it would seem that trains and The Last House on the Left don't mix, as Terror Express is another lacklustre rip-off. Something that this sort of film really needs is a resoundingly nasty lead character; and while Terror Express offers up three potential candidates, not one of them steps up and becomes this villain, leaving the lacking in the most important area. It actually gets off to a good start as three young men on a passenger train begin slightly irritating the guests on board. This leads the audience to believe that there is more in store, but unfortunately it never really gets going once the scene has been set. From there, the trio end up 'taking over' the train and use their new found power to terrorise the guests and rape the women.<br /><br />It has to be said that there's a fair amount of sleaze in this film, which will be pleasing to many viewers; but there's hardly any blood. Director Ferdinando Baldi seemed to think that he could get away with replacing the blood with sex scenes, and he may have gotten away with it too; if he could film a brutal sex scene. The idea that these men have taken the train by force goes out of the window once it gets to the sex, as the people that you would expect to be powerful and forceful seem all too keen to show their women a good time, and despite one very tame 'sandwich' sequence, none of the sex is particularly interesting. Since a lot of the film is taken up by these sex scenes, this becomes a massive problem. Films like this are often lacking in style, suspense and credibility; but you know you're watching a bad one when it's boring you. As you might expect, none of the acting is up to anything; and the central three in particular stand out for being rubbish. The direction is lacking in style, and there's very little tension or suspense; making it difficult to care what is going to happen. Overall, this is a pretty crappy example of an exploitation film, and I can't recommend it. | 0 |
Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything. | 0 |
Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior has a very good, strong plot but is ruined by cheesy details throughout the movie. I am a younger teenager and didn't enjoy this movie very much. I thought the effects were horrible, but they might seem entertaining to younger children. The matrix moves ruined the action, you know that it was absolutely fake. Then there was the Yen Lo, an evil spirit who temporarily possesses random people and homecoming in which Wendy was striving to win. It all ends like a typical feel good movie when Wendy and her Buddhist monk cousin Shen defeat Yen Lo (and destroy him forever) in the end. So Wendy learns a lesson...blah, blah, blah. I'm ready for the next DCOM. | 0 |
Nobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and "Elizabeth and Essex" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.<br /><br />Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?<br /><br />What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon? | 0 |
Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie. | 0 |
One of Cary Grant's most enduring comedies is Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Although judging by the size of it the dwelling would be a dream mansion today. Still Cary was making a good living in the advertising field even though he was having a devil of a time trying to come up with a slogan for ham with the brand name of Wham.<br /><br />What made this film so popular was the housing shortage of the post World War II years. Returning veterans from the war were claiming their entitlements under the GI Bill of Rights which included home loans. The problem was there literally were not enough houses to satisfy the demand. Around the time the book by Eric Hodgins and the film were so popular Congress passed and President Truman signed the Taft-Ellender- Wagner Housing law which put the government for the first time in the home building business.<br /><br />I had an uncle and aunt who were around the same time building their own home which they moved into in the early Fifties. Like Cary Grant and Myrna Loy they had two daughters and were looking to get out of inner city Rochester. Their place wasn't quite as grand as a house in Connecticut with eighteen rooms, still they lived there the rest of their lives the way Cary and Myrna most likely did.<br /><br />Of course it was expensive and the costs just keep adding up and up, threatening to send Cary to the cleaners. Cary and Myrna also have Melvyn Douglas around to offer counsel, usually too late. Truth be told he's kind of sweet on Myrna and Cary knows it.<br /><br />Myrna Loy's role is simply an extension of Nora Charles. If you can imagine the Charles's moving to the country and William Powell having the headaches Cary Grant does, the film would still work just fine.<br /><br />Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House still works well as comedy because the situations are universal. And this review is dedicated to my Uncle Walter and Aunt Kate who lived in their dream house together for over 40 years. | 1 |
Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.<br /><br />If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.<br /><br />*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***<br /><br />First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.<br /><br />As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care. | 0 |
The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.<br /><br />Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.<br /><br />The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded. | 1 |
Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works<br /><br />1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.<br /><br />2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...<br /><br />in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers<br /><br />Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!! | 0 |
even though this movie is quite old, no matter how many times i watch it, it still makes me laugh. <br /><br />one particular quote in the movie stands out. <br /><br />when Danny( Joe Piscopo) pulls up to the d.a's office & parks in a disabled spot, Danny's partner says <br /><br />" can't park here, it's for the handicapped". <br /><br />Danny replies " i am handicapped,i'm psychotic".<br /><br />that is one of the many lines in the movie that no matter how many times you watch, it'll make you chuckle.<br /><br />Johnny Dangerously stands in my top 5 comedy/spoof movies of all time.<br /><br />As an added bonus it also includes the legendary actor Peter Boyle in the cast. So watch this movie & like myself & many others who have watched it, you'll be hooked. | 1 |
A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script. | 0 |
"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, "The Mad Monster" is no substitute for "The Wolf Man"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. "God" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, "Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!" <br /><br />**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel | 0 |
Rented 3 bad movies to watch with my friends in my dorm room.<br /><br />Leprechaun 4, Jack Frost and The Prey.<br /><br />I picked up Jack and Lep 4 because they are well known bad movies I have never seen.<br /><br />I picked this movie out because it matched the "How to find a bad movie" guide on badmovies.org, No real description, no pics of the movie on the back, and I had never heard of it, had to be a winner :)<br /><br />(SPOILERS, but this movie is so awful it doesn't matter :P)<br /><br />This is a TRUE bad movie, Lep 4 and Jack Frost are dumb on purpose, this is dumb despite the best efforts of the cast and crew.<br /><br />This "movie" starts out much like Evil Dead, even the actors look similar and have the same style of dress. Unlike Evil Dead it never gains any speed at all. For a "slasher" movie it is pretty bland, in 80 minutes 6 people get killed, but these are spread apart so far it becomes quickly boring.<br /><br />The director threw in a lot of boring shots on animals hunting, obviously to go along with the whole "Prey" theme but they do nothing to advance the story and are quite boring. The gore is horrible. All these extra shots were to make up for lack of a script and story.<br /><br />The last 5 minutes of the movie are shot mostly in slow motion, yet another way to add length to this. The "climax" is such a total joke, its hard to laugh at it is so bad. The back of the box says "The ending will shock and haunt you." Yes it will, it will shock you that someone could put such a bad "plot twist" on film and "haunt" you because you won't believe you paid to watch this crap.<br /><br />Also the tagline is "Its not human, and it's got an axe!" One person is killed with an axe in the whole movie and it is off screen.<br /><br />A true 1 out of 10. I LOVE laughing at bad movies, but this one is so bad that it even lacks campy qualities. No bad movie night is compete without a true character building flick :P | 0 |
I hate to say I enjoyed this movie as the subject matter does not lend itself to enjoyment. However, I was moved by the way the family relationships were portrayed and the sincerity of the performances. It was the kind of film I told all my friends and family to experience as a reminder of how important we all are to each other. | 1 |
I just finished watching the movie tonight and I truly loved it. John Denver didn't play a pastor, but it was the reverend of the little town who decided to leave the floor for John Denver to speak. It's a really great movie with a wonderful Christmas message. It was also fun to watch. | 1 |
If you described any of the scenes; nightmares of children murdering you in your sleep, your infant daughter talking to ghosts, searching for your lost child in an abandoned mine at night, so petrified with fear that you can't move even though the blood from a murder victim is dripping onto you from the floor above then I'd say you had a horror movie. But some how 'Wicked Little Things' just wasn't scary. I am a horror fan and I loved the location, the plot in principal and I liked the three leading ladies. I didn't want to see them come to harm, I wanted the 'bad guy' to get his just desserts, the rest of the cast are always simply cannon fodder so I was indifferent either way with them and it played out every cliché in the book - even down to the torch battery running out in the pitch dark just as you start to here whispering voices closing in on you.<br /><br />I would still recommend that you watch it, but unless you are new to horror movies or under 12 years, you will have seen it all before. | 0 |
This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away.<br /><br />Norway is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!! | 1 |
Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....<br /><br />Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.<br /><br />Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes. <br /><br />Disposable at best. 4/10 | 0 |
I chose "Dead Creatures" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like "28 days" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive. <br /><br />That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...<br /><br />Very VERY BAD MOVIE.<br /><br />*My rate: 2/10<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />------------------ | 0 |
Anyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS "event". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clichés. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.<br /><br />Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 0 |
This is one of the best of the early "Star Trek" episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the "Star Trek" universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like "centurion" and "praetor." The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in "Spartacus." Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of "Gladiator." A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans. | 1 |
several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.<br /><br />at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />9 out of 10 | 1 |
I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe. | 0 |
I found this film to funny from the start. John Waters use of characters reminded of some of the down to earth characters from Fellini films. Christina Ricci has once again expanded her abilities in this film. If you are looking for a fun movie without preaching, I recommend this film. | 1 |
I first saw this in the theater in 1969 when I was 9 and immediately fell in love with it. I'm sad that Sony has not seen fit to release this on DVD ("but one day, one day..."). I recently obtained a VHS copy of this on eBay and sat down to watch it 39 years later. I'm happy to report it still stands the test of time. The acting is spot-on, John Williams' orchestrations are lush and Leslie Bricusse's songs memorable ("When I Am Older," "You and I," "Fill the World With Love," "London Is London" are just a few of the standouts. And not enough can be said about Peter O' Toole, Petula Clarke, Michael Redgrave and Michael Bryant's acting. Terence Rattigan deserves an A+ for his update of the James Hilton story. There really is nothing not to like about this film. It's a good cheer-me-up selection. Glad they have released the original soundtrack as a three-CD set with lots of extras. Wish Sony would hurry up and do the same with the film. | 1 |
If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.<br /><br />Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!<br /><br />P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it. | 0 |
I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of "improvisation", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel. | 0 |
Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at "film noir". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The "non-traditional" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder "what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring! | 0 |
This piece of garbage belongs in the basement of some moldy old mansion where it will never see the light of day again. The only thing scary about this junk was the price of admission. I was only amused when the ending credits started rolling and I was free to vacate the auditorium. What an unmitigated bore; a complete waste of 1 and a half hours. When I die, I pray I can come back as a ghost and give a fever to the moron who penned this gibberish. | 0 |
When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things) | 0 |
My, Kasi Lemmings certainly is a fair looking woman. This film is a lost gem, a dead-on satire "mockumentary" of the early 90's Hip Hop scene, when MC Hammer had just began to fade away into that good night. We follow the three members of the NWH as they embark upon their picaresque journey of would-be riches and fame. And like Nickolas Nickleby, at the end, they finish their journey not far from where they started, but at least a little wiser and lot less naive. This is one of the best films that no one has ever heard of, but it's the kind of film you either love or hate, a lot like "Company Man" in this regard. I regard this movie like the 1000 islands of upstate New York: it's a wonderful little secret you want to keep to yourself. | 1 |
Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks! | 0 |
I am an avid fan of horrendous movies, anything cheesy and down right ridiculous is my game. So imagine my spirit I went to the local Rent Shop, and found Vampires vs. Zombies. The name is just too entertaining, you know that no one in the world could pull off something like it, it just has to be bad.<br /><br />And boy, is it BAD. After viewing this horror-ific movie, I was speechless, literally. Me and my pal sat outside without saying a word to each other for several minutes, both of us contemplating the future of our lives after watching this movie. I broke the depressing silence with the words, "...dude....What?" Yes, i am an enthralling individual.<br /><br />Heres a quick 'street review' The Plot; There is none, at all, ever, constantly in "WTF" mode. The Characters; No development, forgettable. The Music; Worse than porn. The Vampires; Theirs vampires? The Zombies; Theirs Zombies?<br /><br />In the end; Everyone should see this movie, honestly, its so bad I yearn to see it again. So do yourself a favor, watch it and get Depressed. | 0 |
Lost isn't the greatest TV show in history, but it's not far off. It doesn't have the plot or characterisation of The West Wing or possibly even early ER, however, it is arguably the most continuously gripping show I have every come across. I love the way I can't guess what's going to happen. I love the re-telling of the characters' back stories which often give rise to new dimensions for us to see them in. In some ways I want the show to last forever, but I think they can get 6-7 seasons out of it before they have to end it on a glorious high. The combination of the characters and their nationalities coupled with the show's fluidity for moving backwards and forwards thus extending dead characters "life spans" all adds to the overwhelming sense that this show is something very different from what we are used to. It's captivating, surprising and (here's a little suggestion for all of you conspiracy theorists) more than a little interactive- keep those internet discussions going- you're only adding to the plot... | 1 |
Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.<br /><br />Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.<br /><br />Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of "seeing" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.<br /><br />The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.<br /><br />RATING: 9 of 10 | 1 |
It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show "Next Action Star." His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The "film" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word "bet" or "gamble." The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry "NAS" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back. | 0 |
I was very surprised how much I enjoyed this film. I thought it was funny, sexy, painful, and warm. Andie MacDowell's performance was nuanced and vulnerable. For once, the director of a MacDowell film did not make her beauty another character in the film. The romance between Kate and her young man is lovely to watch and it plays out very well. Her relationship with her friends is both a thorn and a balm in her life. Imelda Stalinson, who has been a MVP in so many British films, does a great job in this. There is some tragedy in this but I think the film is saved in the end by the brilliant acting, clean direction, and witty writing.The film quality is excellent and the music is good, too, though unavailable on sound track. | 1 |
This film is absolutely appalling and awful. It's not low budget, it's a no budget film that makes Ed Wood's movies look like art. The acting is abysmal but sets and props are worse then anything I have ever seen. An ordinary subway train is used to transport people to the evil zone of killer mutants, Woddy Strode has one bullet and the fight scenes are shot in a disused gravel pit. There is sadism as you would expect from an 80s Italian video nasty. No talent was used to make this film. And the female love interest has a huge bhind- Italian taste maybe. Even for 80s Italian standards this film is pretty damn awful but I guess it came out at a time when there weren't so many films available on video or viewers weren't really discerning. This piece of crap has no entertainment value whatsoever and it's not even funny, just boring and extremely cheap. It's actually and insult to the most stupid audience. I just wonder how on earth an actor like Woody Strode ended up ia a turkey like this? | 0 |
An exquisite film. They just don't make them like this any more! We eavesdrop on an upper middle class family in Dublin in the early part of the 20th century. They are hosting an after Christmas dinner for their friends and relatives. Their table talk is just idle chatter but it is so well written that one is engrossed. Away from the dinner table some fine piano playing helps to create an intimate atmosphere as if one were there as one of the guests. Perhaps a bit too perfect for an amateur player, the odd mistake here and there would have added to the magic of this film. No real story but real entertainment and an object lesson for up and coming film makers. | 1 |
This is a very rare example of a movie about transvestitism (of heterosexuals). The film treats the taboo theme so that even a general audience not knowing of transvestitism at all will strongly sympathize with its main character. Adrian Pasdar is very believable as Gerald/Geraldine and shall not be forgot for this brillant acting. The directing of Christopher Monger is very sensitively, treating such a difficult issue quite excellently, packed into a good story. Not a big movie, neither an "art" film, but a little, lovely motion picture! | 1 |
Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic. | 0 |
I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been "American Masters", but it was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With 7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again. | 1 |
Early 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey.<br /><br />While I have to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the thematically similar "The Boogens"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now, the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin quickly.<br /><br />It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much. Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget.<br /><br />An obscure little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
<br /><br />Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey. When a "maverick" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later, it's time for elimination.<br /><br />Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth and funny. He only gets better with age. His face and present day fame should not have been used on the DVD cover to sell this "B" grade movie as he was only the third billed star.<br /><br />Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser quality background music make for a distraction. Nice to see the 1970's big cars. <br /><br />However, the acting is good. <br /><br />Nakedness on the part of Anne Johns was not needed to make this mob story work. And, she does not show up in the database as every acting again in any film other than this one. Too bad; she did a good job!<br /><br />Moral of the story: Don't get your "Don" upset with you.<br /><br />If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the middle of the night then check out this DVD. It was part of a three-movie-on-one DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ... | 1 |
Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion. | 0 |
I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.<br /><br />However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music. | 1 |
What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.<br /><br />This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.<br /><br />Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.<br /><br />I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.<br /><br />This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.<br /><br />It gets a 9/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 1 |
i say the domino principle is an enormously underappreciated film.anyone who has taken the time to investigate our contemporary history of conspiracies;jfk, rfk, mlk,g.wallace and in fact numerous others can only draw the conclusion that the author of the domino principle really knew what he was talking about.roy tucker could be lee harvey oswald or james earl ray or sirhan sirhan or arthur bremer maybe even john hinkley or timothy mcveigh.to mention a few.the conspiracy scenario involving spies, big business and political assassinations is not really a fiction but an ominous part of our convoluted existential history.god help us,but the domino principle is more fact than fantasy.if this causes a little loss of sleep, maybe it should.don't take my word for it,investigate for yourselves. | 1 |
A realistic depiction of young love for the college set but also appealing to an older viewer like me. It has ups and downs and twists and turns and made me shed a tear or two. We rarely see movies with black urban characters that could appeal to older, non black audiences and show a more real life depiction of young black adults.<br /><br />This movie takes place on a college campus and town where two people meet and fall in love. In the background are various friends acquaintances and situations that impact them for better or worse. Typical plot some may say, but this really was unexpected. <br /><br />I found myself rooting for the survival of the couple's relationship, seeing my own past in their story. Moments of deep thought and revelation came pouring out of the actors performances. <br /><br />It's a bright film that I would endorse for those young at heart and in love or have ever been in love. Great movie. I'll be looking for a copy to add to my movie collection. | 1 |
Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the way is a timeless classic in itself.<br /><br />Instead it absorbs you right into it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat and I never grow tired of watching it.<br /><br />It's ending is unique in the respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was the first and much more emotional. | 1 |
this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot of times comedies are so underrated. | 1 |
I watched this movie with my boyfriend, an avid hip-hop fan and he was really really looking forward to catch the "soul" vibe the movie claimed to have. Boy, we were dead wrong. When I finished watching the movie I felt two things: remorse and relief. Remorse because I regretted wasting my time to watch this awful piece of dung, and relief because I watched it free on cable.<br /><br />This movie really really gives a bad name to black people, by putting so much awful stereotypes that I believe all smart black people everywhere has been trying to spell off. I'm Asian, and I feel very very sorry and sick for those who made this movie. What more to say? Bad writing, even worse acting, and horrible storyline.<br /><br />Even if you're bored to death and has no other choice, don't watch this movie. Seriously. The movie really has nothing to offer, except if you want to see things like minor illegal drinking, animal slain, women degradation, and overall: A REALLY REALLY BAD-OBNOXIOUS-SICKENING-AWFUL MOVIE. Yuck. | 0 |
Ok, so, this is coming a few weeks late, but it is here. Mostly, this is because of statements of various negative natures. Starting with the technology. When Star Trek: TOS ran, special effect technology was extreamely low tec, and more than that, the crew had little money to do any kind of proper mock ups. In the 35 years seince TOS premiered, the crew of Star Trek have become experts at economy.<br /><br />Ultimately, they have decided, quite rightly in my mind, to abandon the look of TOS and reverse engineered TNG et all. So what if they decided not to make the transporter out of gold glitter or made the phase pistols look closer to the ones from Star Trek II? As for the nits being picked about first contact with the Klingon Empire, it was presumed based upon comments made by Kirk and Riker that Earth only met the Klingon's in 2200. Nothing was firmly established.<br /><br />Enterprise gives us the most promising venue of exploration that we've seen in a while. This is what Voyager COULD have been. No series can evolve without a few inconsistancies, but be thankful that Star Trek has so few. So, quit gripping and enjoy. | 1 |
I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable. | 1 |
Admittedly, I know nothing about baseball, I'm not even a fan of the sport, but that didn't stop me enjoying the Farrelly brothers' latest film, Fever Pitch, a charmingly irreverent romantic comedy. The film is not really about baseball; rather, it's really about relationships, and the emotional disconnectedness that can often take place.<br /><br />Jimmy Fallen giving his best performance to date stars as Ben, a dorky, lightly nerdy schoolteacher. Ben is a kind of man-boy, who unfortunately has never really grown up, and he fosters an almost fanatical addiction to the Red Sox baseball team. Ben has devoted his life to the Sox, and does everything from making the pilgrimage to Florida for spring training to decorating every square inch of his apartment in team paraphernalia.<br /><br />One day, while taking his honors geometry class to on a field trip to her office, Ben meets the go-getting Lindsey (a wonderful Drew Barrymore). Lindsey is a corporate, career orientated kind of girl, but she has a kind of cuteness that Ben finds totally endearing. He's initially hesitant to ask her out, thinking that she's way out of his "class," and, Lindsey doesn't immediately see a potential partner in Ben.<br /><br />Their first date gets off to a disastrous start when Lindsey is stricken with a severe case of food poisoning and her resonant retching provides the first clue that we are, in fact, watching a Farrelly brothers movie. Rather than accept Lindsey's - rather urgent - request to reschedule, Ben sticks around to play nurse, orderly, and janitor. So Ben scrubs the toilet and the dog's teeth, while his love interest is passed out with a bucket next to her bed.<br /><br />When Lindsey wakes up in the morning and finds him asleep on her couch, she begins the long, fitful process of dismantling the web of status anxiety and ambition she has come to think of as her standards. Soon they are falling in love, with Lindsey blithely accepting Ben's fanatical devotion to his sport.<br /><br />Having inherited choice season tickets from his beloved uncle, Ben has organized his life around the season he's never missed a game. But their relationship, which has progressed without a hitch throughout the winter, hits a snag at the start of the season.<br /><br />Lindsey wants Ben to do other things, like holiday with her parents and party with her friends, but Ben begins to have trouble modulating his interest to meet Lindsey halfway. Can Lindsey consent to his irrational devotion to the boys of summer in order to make their relationship work? Can she really accommodate Ben's infatuation with sports? Can a die-hard and nerdy Red Sox fan find true love after all? Of course, Lindsey and Ben come with a colorful assortment of opinion-wielding friends. Lindsey's strictest buddy, the skinny, rich and blond Robin (KaDee Strickland), insists that there must be something wrong with the guy if he's still single at 30. However, plump, curly-haired Sarah (Marissa Jaret Winokur) and Molly (Ione Skye) supply a more optimistic and positive view of Ben.<br /><br />Ben's eccentricity could be applied to virtually any obsessive sports fan, while Lindsay's frustrations could be representative of any upwardly mobile career driven woman. Fallon is terrific as Ben, exhibiting real big screen potential, overcoming the not-insignificant challenge of keeping Ben from being unsympathetic. Barrymore, meanwhile, is equally charming as the workaholic Lindsey, particularly as she struggles to accept Ben for who he is without losing sight of her own needs.<br /><br />Fever Pitch really works, and even though there are lots of inspired comedic moments, the movie is also addressing the serious problem of sports addiction and how difficult it can be for couples to negotiate this fragile territory.<br /><br />Much of the movie was filmed at Boston's Fenway Park, which adds a fine sense of authenticity to the proceedings, as well as the ambiance of the games, though fully appreciating what transpired with the team will probably be limited to baseball aficionados. Even so, Fever Pitch is blessed with such a finely wrought and intelligently funny script that even novice baseball fans will find much with which to connect. Mike Leonard September 05. | 1 |
This film is on my top 20 comedies list. This is a truly unique film. To the reviewer who said "I must be really missing something."--you are correct. You are missing something. If you don't have the kind of sense of humor this film requires, that's one thing. But don't give it a bad review because you think it's "looney" but isn't intended to be. Loony is an apt description of both what it intends to be and what it succeeds in being. I laughed much more often and much more intensely at this film than I do at most other funny films.<br /><br />Michael Almereyda brought out the best in his cast in this, his first big film, for which he was nominated for an Independent Spirit award for Best First Feature. Crispin Glover, as usual, is absolutely brilliant in some perfectly inexplicable way, and some of his very funniest lines ever were said in this film. Glover is clearly the best comic actor working right now. Harry Dean Stanton puts in an excellent comic performance. William Burroughs is incredible in a small role. Dylan McDermott was ideally cast, and Lois Chiles is completely excellent.<br /><br />All of the above are perfectly funny in their own perfect way, but this is one of Crispin's finest performances--up there with his performances in River's Edge and Willard. If you are a Crispin Glover fan, but have somehow overlooked this film, you need to stop whatever it is you're doing and see this immediately.<br /><br />But just remember to relax first, and maybe have a beer or something. This is a great film, but it is very unusual, and I recommend being in or inducing an appropriately silly state of mind before viewing. | 1 |
I haven't yet read Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night (though I've read other books of his, all outstanding pieces of satire and game-changing novel pieces). After seeing Keith Gordon's film adaptation of his book, it will be an immediate must-read in the near future. It's the kind of material that I'm sure if it wasn't made in 1995/96 as a film, it would be picked up right away today in the time period when many period post/present-Holocaust/WW2 movies are quite popular. Except that this is much darker, though even more resonant, about the nature of playing roles and the real underlying horror of living with life after war than say The Reader. It's about the very real danger of pretending in wartime, which is what being a spy in WW2 is really all about.<br /><br />It would be one thing if Mother Night had a script with a lot of emotional depth and complexity about the moral choice and constant role- even after the war ends- for Howard W. Cambpell (Nick Nolte), which is does. But it's also just a really strong feat of cinematic technique. Keith Gordon is not someone I usually think of as a director of really strong material (more-so I think back to him as an actor, oddly enough featured briefly with Vonnegut himself in Back to School), but this is a revelation. He takes the story of Campbell as a story of a fractured life: a German propaganda master (the "only American left in Berlin"), who is actually a spy for the Americans but can never have his identity revealed, and was before a playwright who really belonged to "a nation of two", himself and his wife (Sheryl Lee). It follows him from his prison cell, awaiting trial in Israel in 1961, as he writes his memoir and tells of his disillusionment about being a 'pretend' Nazi, and then in 1960 in semi-hiding in a New York apartment, which is where the bulk of the film takes place.<br /><br />Mother Night can be quite heavy, like on a level one might associate with the Pianist, but on another more emotional-cerebral level than the stark poetry of that film. Gordon, by way of Vonnegut, is trying to give us a strong look at a man who has nothing, except the memory (and then later a weird transposition) of his long lost love in a "sister" who has come back to him in NYC, so he's left to his own devices when he befriends a painter (Alan Arkin, very very good here), and then is found out as a Nazi-in-hiding by a white supremacist newsletter, leading wackos to his apartment. On the surface this should be just a straightforward spy story, but not a thing is straightforward. The 'something' of this man's life is staggering, but it's ultimately of his own choosing. Campbell is one of those characters that could be analyzed for hours on end, but the same conclusions might be reached (and, in a way, mirrors the line Goebbels said): the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. That is except for the select few who started the lie and know its secret and power.<br /><br />But oh, it would be one thing if it were just a wonderful and tragic-comic tale, or another if it were featuring some really fantastic performances (which is does: Nolte is at his very best here, and Sheryl Lee, who we might remember from Twin Peaks as Laura Palmer, stuns in multiple roles, especially in the scene when she reveals she's not 'really' Helga). It's also a gorgeously shot film, with brilliant lighting and shots that reflect the state of mind of the character, or just the starkness or sickening colors of the time (watch the scene where an old Campbell watches a film of his younger self spouting out a rant, the juxtaposition of faces is great). And the music selections rise the level of tragedy. It could be argued some of the music is too much, but at other times it elevates the material past its own usual dramatic dimensions and makes it operatic, solemn about human nature.<br /><br />It's not always an easy film to take emotionally, and some of the twists do have that tinge of "whoa" as in any spy story. But it's the subversion from Vonnegut that sticks through, the way of taking appearance and performance, of life imitating art imitating life imitating death, and making it into something worth remembering. I have no idea just yet if the book is better than the film (or the other way around), but at the moment it's hard for me not to recommend this to anyone looking for a masterpiece of post WW2/holocaust storytelling. | 1 |
Those who know who know the Kelly "legend" & are hoping that this film would be an accurate depiction of his life may be disappointed with the creative license taken with this film (eg. Naomi Watt's character never existed in reality), but if you look at it purely as a piece of entertainment, it holds up pretty well. Ledgers performance in the title role is quite solid, taking the mantle of cinema's best Ned (not hard considering the previous Ned's include Yahoo Serious, Mick Jagger & former Carlton champion (Australian Rules Football) Bob Chitty, a great footballer but a poor actor. Some location shooting film in the area I live, Bacchus Marsh outside Melbourne as well as Clunes & Ballarat. | 1 |
Two actors play rival gangsters in three films, the final of which is a sci-fi film, that nods strangely to William S. Burroughs, Philip K. Dick, and anime all at once. The robots are actually called "replicants", a reference to Dicks Blade Runner(several visual allusions to the film can be found as well) and the bad guy is a psychotic gay mayor obsessed with limiting procreation through use of a compulsory drug for "heterosexual love is fleeting, and homosexual love is eternal"....martial arts fights ensue, a first for the dead or alive films. The hilarious climax involves the two leads morphing into a winged robot with a gigantic phallus for a head, who personifies "destruction", which has been the path of both characters thus far, their individual minds and later literal heads functioning as something like testicles. The film ends with the mayor f*&%ing his free jazz playing boy lackey as the robot apparently tears down a wall around them, the last words of the mayor "Oh f*&%", followed by a quick fade to black. Part of me felt cheated, part of me confused, but mostly I was just laughing. A lot of the film is quite boring though, the best scenes bookend the film while the rest is far too slow. Takashi Miike has always mined the sexual motifs beneath male violence in action films, and this film with the exception of "Gozu", reinforces this theme more than any other. Sex and violence are two pretty basic themes, but like Cronerberg(who the jazz interludes may be a homage to ala Naked Lunch)Miike is able to show where the two connect, to hilarious an oddly cohesive effect. | 1 |
I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around. | 0 |
Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others. | 1 |
I haven't seen a lot of episodes of "Family Guy" and it's a pretty safe bet that I won't be seeing too many in the future. Some people say to compare this show to "The Simpsons" is unfair. I absolutely think this show wouldn't exist if "The Simpsons" hadn't come first and I absolutely think it wants so very much to be "The Simpsons". I don't understand what's so funny about this show. In the episodes that I've watched, I've understood where they've WANTED me to laugh, I understand that someone thinks a joke was just told but the joke isn't funny. I find the whole show to be lazy: the title, the "jokes", there is a complete lack of inspiration throughout.<br /><br />The best shows on television (cartoon or not) are created like this: a script is written, it goes through several rewrites, stuff that doesn't work is taken out, inspiration is sparked, good stuff is added, there are more rewrites and then it is filmed.<br /><br />I picture a "Family Guy" episode to be created like this: a script is written and it's filmed. | 0 |
I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here. | 0 |
Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit<br /><br />space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.