text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.<br /><br />In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a "woe is me for I am a reluctant hero" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself. | 0 |
I really tried to give this film a chance but when I realized that most of the film was being told by a bunch of boring officials walking around and talking on phones, I knew it was over. A lot of this film also looked like stock footage. That's just lame.<br /><br />The camera person kept like doing these quick short zooms for NO REASON! It bothered me so much but I was just wondering why in the heck did they think it was a good idea. It doesn't add anything to a static scene of two people talking. This isn't NYPD Blue or some cop show or something.<br /><br />How could they have not realized that telling this type a story from conversations of people in conference rooms and what not, is BORING?!! Did they not watch this mess? Anyway, this was just a really boring movie and it does make it seem like whoever made it doesn't understand good storytelling in film.<br /><br />Darn stock footage... that's just wrong. | 0 |
The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy. | 0 |
In moments of desperation were willing to do whatever it takes to win. I loved how the Maple Leaves futility was used as a metaphorical basis for Bobby and Tessa. The acting was accurate by far superior from the hogwash intake given by the film industry.<br /><br />Great editing! At the end of the short I felt it was a bit incomplete but so is life and this is were life and art waltz into cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />Excuse me while I rinse off the cheese whiz, but I guess it's acceptable at certain times.<br /><br />Two scenes which I must point out are: The bath tub and the couch scene.<br /><br />The couch scene for Tessa was a defining moment and 360 of the human condition. Throughout the short I viewed her as a brute, but now we see her true reality. Her mind spoke before her heart. Need I say more about the bath tub scene. | 1 |
hello. hello and goodbye. but, before i go, i want to talk to you. i just want to quickly mention a few keys points about this film. the first being erotica. especially homo-erotica.<br /><br />yes, well. let us begin. When a man and a man love each other very much they fuse together in a spectacular, not to mention tender, explosion of cinema which we call merchant of venice.<br /><br />the homo erotic love was sensual at worse. and even more sensual at best. it was hardcore and emotional. it touched me inappropriately and I'm pretty sure i touched it back. and when no one was looking i touched myself a little too.<br /><br />i laughed because portia was denied. she was second in line to our friend, the homo erotic love. oh antonio. antoni. just toni. i love you. more than you loved that guy. whos name may or may not have contained an "B". he was well ugly.<br /><br />antoni was very greasy. he lathered his body in an encasement of his own hair grease and sensual juices and proceed to writhe accoss the screena and present himself to the guy with the name i like the movie in conclusion, go see the movie if not for the homo erotic connotations, for the love of a man such as antoni. just toni. | 1 |
Although films about Edgar Rice Burroughs famous Rousseauian hero Tarzan have been seen by movie goers for almost a century now, this is the definitive version of the story. Greystoke is the actual story of the origins of Tarzan as set down by Edgar Rice Burroughs way back in the second decade of the last century. I've been assured by experts.<br /><br />Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes are probably the most filmed fictional heroes in history. I've no basis in fact for saying that, just a gut feeling. The most popular Holmes was Basil Rathbone, the most popular Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. And films that they made with both those characters will be criticized no end by purists.<br /><br />But Greystoke is the real deal, a faithful adaption of Burroughs first story concerning the origin of his hero. I can't think of another film which shows that Tarzan learned French before English, but that is shown here and it's only natural since it was a French survivor of a massacred safari played by Ian Holm who discovers Tarzan who has been raised by the apes since his parents who were shipwrecked on the African coast died there after his mother gave birth.<br /><br />His parents were in fact the son and daughter-in-law of the Earl of Greystoke and the surviving Earl, played by Ralph Richardson is of course overjoyed to learn he has a grandson. Of course there are others who don't welcome the new heir back in society. <br /><br />One who doesn't is Andie McDowell playing of course Jane. She does not communicate with Tarzan in answer to his grunts and monosyllabic commands. Tarzan speaks a concise English, French, and understands the language of the apes as well. As for the language of love, Tarzan and Jane need no lessons.<br /><br />Greystoke earned three Oscar nominations for best makeup in regard to the apes, best adapted screenplay and a posthumous nomination for Ralph Richardson for Best Supporting Actor. It should also have rated a nomination for cinematography of the jungle scenes in Cameroun and the scenes of the British Aristocracy in several landmark places like Hatfield House and Blenheim Palace.<br /><br />For Burroughs purists, Greystoke is the real deal. | 1 |
This has to be one of my 3 favorite Episodes from the Original TV Series.<br /><br />What makes it great is the battle of wits between The Romulan Commander and Kirk, as well as the top-notch acting from Mark Lenard, who later went on to play Spock's father in other TV Episodes and movies. This is a case where those around rose to the level of the talent around them, and Shatner, Nimoy, and the whole cast deliver an outstanding performance in this episode.<br /><br />The writing and plot are also excellent, and I love the direct approach used to show us the characters, and the feelings and thoughts of those characters, and how freely they are expressed by the actors. <br /><br />This very entertaining episode ranks 10 out of 10. AWESOME!! Desert-Buddha | 1 |
Well the main reason I tuned in to watch this film is because it was done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame. However as soon as the film started the laughs started erupting from my belly. From the subtle gestures towards a joke, to the blatant toilet humour throughout, along with a constant reliance on some very witty innuendo. This film could ruin event he sternest mans poker face, let alone his poker underwear. Some of the funniest blink and you'll miss it jokes ever portrayed in Hollywood, along with constant critique of themselves thrown into the bargain.<br /><br />I just goes to show that not only is Trey Parker adept at writing he's not too shabby at the old acting game either. I was surprised with the amount that I was absorbed in this film. However I'm quite worried that it is not available to buy over the internet, here in the UK. Sort it out boys!<br /><br />I am, and will continue to show it to all my friends annoyingly pointing out the funny bits, and occasionally snorting into my lager. All in all an excellent film if you are a fan of unnecessary comedy. However if you have no sense of humour about silly or rude things steer well clear! However I'm sure the inclusion of Jenny McCarthy and Jasmine Bleeth could have you gurgling past those prejudices. | 1 |
The best thing from the American Pie "bakery." I found the humor and the plot to be far more engaging audience than any of the American Pie movies to date. .Also concerning the appropriateness of the content I found this to be acceptable to a much larger audience than any of the previous American Pie movies. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie experience. When the movie first came out I read a number of negative reviews and ended up not going to see it while it was still in the theater...I now regret that decision. The movie far exceeded my expectations in terms of plot, dialog/scripting, and overall quality. I give it two thumbs way up! | 1 |
Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster. | 0 |
Imagine The Big Chill with a cast of twenty-somethings whose characters are all unlikable, and an iguana-like man-lizard chasing them around and you have an idea of the foolishness herein. On the positive side, the movie does not skimp on showing the monster. There's no peek-a-boo shots, or nighttime scenes where you have to imagine what he looks like; he's right out there folks. Unfortunately, the design and construction aren't that inspired. A little bit of mystery might have helped. Mind you, I've seen far worse, but if you're going to have him out on full display for a lot of the flick, your monster better look damn good. <br /><br />Spoiler Ahead!!!<br /><br />Oh, and there's a twist ending involving the supposedly dead brother that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This came as no surprise given the shoddy writing of the script. As for the acting; well let's just say it wasn't painfully bad, but I don't expect we'll be seeing many of these kids in future cinematic outings.<br /><br />Gore quotient: 2 out of 5; Nudity quotient: 1 out of 5; Intelligence quotient: Negligible | 0 |
This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.<br /><br />This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.<br /><br />The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.<br /><br />But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on. | 0 |
My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.<br /><br />Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.<br /><br />The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, "Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.<br /><br />To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.<br /><br />Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who "kissed their enemy" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.<br /><br />I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up "in self-defense" to make him seem like such a tragic character.<br /><br />Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and "somebody" is "killed by a silver bullet" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.<br /><br />All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book. | 0 |
I'll admit to being biased when I reviewed this since it was my introduction to the series. I saw this film for the first time in ~2005 on the late night "Fear Friday" on AMC, which often pulls obscure gems like this out of cold storage for new generations. I made it a point to watch the entire Amicus anthology series before reviewing any of them here to make sure I had perspective. Looking back, I still rate The House That Dripped Blood as my favorite, followed closely by Tales From The Crypt and then Asylum.<br /><br />I think all of the elements that make this series charming---the vintage '60s/'70s style cinematography, creepy to kooky, far-fetched tales and the utter Britishness of it all right down the backing music----came together better here than any of the others overall. The movie centers around a very old English country house and the misfortune that befalls all that dwell within.<br /><br />The first story involves a horror writer and his wife, who moved into this secluded place to get a break from the city so he could concentrate on his passion. He creates a murderous character called Dominic and soon starts experiencing great difficulty telling reality from fiction. There is a subtle physchedelia here via his torment that I found amusing yet creepy. Oh and those horrible prop teeth (then again these are British actors, maybe those were REAL!!!) <br /><br />The second story is the tale of a lonely old man (Peter Cushing) that has moved here to escape his loneliness, yet it only worsens as he is haunted by lost love. He seems to have found possible salvation at a local (very creepy) wax museum, but it turns out he would have been much better off alone.......<br /><br />The third story includes the great Christopher Lee (my fav British horror actor) as a single father with a rather disturbed and thoroughly creepy young daughter. He is constantly wary of her getting into things she shouldn't---like witchcraft! She has a natural talent for it, with good reason. Lee is superb here as the ice cold disciplinarian, that man has a true talent for playing characters that are absolutely devoid of warmth!! But despite his best efforts, the little troublemaker does in fact learn forbidden knowledge and bad things follow......<br /><br />This final story is the tale of a cynical old veteran actor that feels the young director he's working with isn't qualified to capture a proper vampire film, right down to the quality of the costumes and his cloak in particular. So he goes to a old curiosity store in the middle of a foggy night to get something more "authentic". Little does he know that he picked up a truly authentic vampire's cloak! Putting it on at the stroke of midnight has rather noticeable effects. By the time I had gotten to this fourth and final story, it was after 3 am and I couldn't quite stay awake on the first try (not from boredom). But I did experience something that I have hundreds of times, a curious bonding experience I have with films or music when I drift in and out of sleep and the film/music becomes part of my dream!! Great fun!! This bizarre story was perfect for that and seemed much scarier the first time than it actually was because I woke up right when he was levitated by the cloak's power and couldn't quite comprehend was what happening at first. Not long after, the lovely Ingrid Pitt, a costar on his movie set, came to visit and he warned her not to put on the cloak at midnight---but he needn't have bothered, for she was a real vampire herself. The chintzy keyboard jingle that followed as she flew toward him on the staircase was simply hysterical!! And again in my half-asleep state, seemed rather confusing! Side Note: Make sure to catch Lee and Pitt along with the stunning Amicus star Britt Ekland in the all time classic film The Wicker Man (1973). <br /><br />The weakest link here was the interlacing commentary between stories, but based on the stories themselves, this is a classic! Objectively, I would say the third story is best, but I like the 4th most because it makes me smile so much.Very highly recommended for horror fans and if you're a British horror fan, it's mandatory! I'd say it's worthwhile to view the series in chronological order if you can. The last film of this series, Monster Club (1980) is certainly the weakest. I think the first 3-4 films except for the at times mediocre Torture Garden (1967) are the best, but if you like any of them, you should watch them all at least once. You'll probably be back many more times to watch your favorites. | 1 |
I've seen "professional" reviews claiming Julia Roberts playing herself was "clever and very funny". I think NOT. An actress playing herself? And doing it with her same usual dizziness whenever she tries comedy? Talk about Hollyweird narcissism at it's utmost. Why doesn't she just stand there and go, "Me, me, me. Look at me!." The director and writer should be shot for not thinking of something better then this in what could have been a charming sequel. and by the way Steven, when the audience starts paying more attention to the weird camera angles then the story you have a problem. Capra, Hitchcock, all used some creative cameras but they were talented enough not to lose the audience in them or just show off with the camera. You seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule of film-making in the name of "style". The Pitt and Zeta Jones chemistry is quite good however, perhaps if they had made the film more focused around them and dispensed with the narcissism it might have worked. Once again Zeta Jones shows how she's got more talent and beauty then Roberts could dream of. Sadly, this film wastes talent and fails on many accounts. I want my money back. | 0 |
It was probably watching this TV movie that got me interested in the debate as to whether "Anna" was really Tsar Nicholas's daughter Anastasia. Since seeing it I have made a point of watching various documentaries and also bought a book. Despite the evidence that has been discovered since the film was released, I sometimes still think she was. Such is the power of Amy Irving's acting in this 2-parter which is somewhat liberal with the historical facts, but packed to the brim with tear-jerking drama and Irving's totally convincing performance.<br /><br />I was not consciously aware of Irving before this, though I must have seen her without realizing it in "Carrie" (another favourite film). In "Anasasia", I never felt for one moment that "it's only a film". For me this woman WAS Anastasia, and when part one ended with her in the railway carriage meeting members of the royal family, I knew that come hell or high water I had to see the second part. I just wanted to see how she would prove that she was who she claimed to be, and as the story progressed I felt an intense hatred of Rex Harrison's character, though I greatly admire him as an actor.<br /><br />When I saw the movie listed again in the TV guide, I convinced my Mother that we should watch it, and afterward she thanked me for doing so, being almost as keen as I had been to watch part 2. Then I bought the video and can totally recommend it. "Anastasia" is one of those rare TV movies that you simply must watch for the sheer enjoyment of watching the finest acting I have ever seen on TV, and it doesn't really matter whether you believe the legend or not. | 1 |
Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good. | 0 |
Very tightly written, acted, and filmed. Violent, but not too much so. Whoever edited this knew exactly what he wanted to portray. There isn't a wasted scene in this movie. "The Usual Suspects" was superb ensemble acting; this is a collection of outstanding individual performances. I rarely buy movies, but this one is worth owning. | 1 |
When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.<br /><br />That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art. | 1 |
Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.<br /><br />You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city. <br /><br />Impressive ! | 1 |
This is a good film. This is very funny. Yet after this film there were no good Ernest films! | 1 |
Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.<br /><br />Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure. | 1 |
One of the first of the best musicals, Anchors Aweigh features several memorable musical sequences, such as Kelly dancing with Jerry the mouse, Kelly dancing with 7-year-old Sharon McManus, Sinatra singing with Jose Iturbi playing piano, Kathryn Grayson singing with Iturbi conducting, and much more. The Technicolor is perfect, with some innovative camera work such as seeing a piano played from beneath, through transparent keys, and Grayson singing, seen through the finder of another camera. The plot is thin, but you get involved from Kelly's & Sinatra's enthusiasm. Sailor's on leave, they have to take home a runaway boy (Dean Stockwell) and Sinatra falls for his aunt. To set him up with the aunt (Grayson), Kelly suggests that Sinatra can get her an audition with Jose Iturbi. But Sinatra's young and naive in this one, and in his own sung words falls in love too fast. While they're trying to contact Iturbi, who's never available, he starts to fall for another girl (Barbara Britton); but Kelly's now falling love with Grayson. Anchors Aweigh is most often remembered for the combination live-action / cartoon sequence with Tom and Jerry, but there's a lot more here that's worth a look. I'm giving it nine stars because, while it's not quite as good as the best musicals - Singin' In The Rain, The Music Man, Oklahoma - it is one of the first of their class of Technicolor big productions (perhaps Meet Me In St. Louis was the first), and better than most others. | 1 |
Well, I should say, "the only film related to club/dj/electronic music and raves...that ravers respect".<br /><br />Seriously now. It's a gloriously fun, fast paced and fairly accurate portrayal of the night of a raver. Albeit, its in a club, its in Wales and its somewhat dated. The film leaves out some of the sketchier elements of club life, but doesn't disassociate from them altogether. It presents a idyllic yet serious portrayal of the ups and downs of the characters lives.<br /><br />At the core of the film, and the best element of Justin Kerrigan's script, is the characters, eccentric, unique yet completely understandable and accessible. This film simple would not work and be infinitely less entertaining were it not for Jip, Koop, Nina, Moff and Lulu. Viewers can deny the political and social implications of the subtext of Human Traffic as a drug film, Trainspotting wannabe, important peg in British youth culture circa 90's, BUT....they can't deny that these are engaging characters.<br /><br />It's frantic, its brutally honest, it's sobering, it's over the top, but its a great comedy. <br /><br />Raves are a complex thing, so are the drugs that are taken at these events, so are the people you will encounter. But from someone who has gone to parties, become jaded and still goes...Human Traffic is the best snapshot that could be taken of the subculture. Just whatever you do, avoid "Groove" as its the antithesis of all that is good about Human Traffic. | 1 |
What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.<br /><br />Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.<br /><br />The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided. | 0 |
The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.<br /><br />The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.<br /><br />As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part. | 0 |
First off, I would like to point out that the reason why I gave this movie 1 star out of 10 is because there is no option to give it NO stars! it really is that bad! I was never eager to see this film after I saw the ads for it, I ended up seeing it only by chance because some friends of mine had tickets and had one spare so I tagged along. Before seeing it I had a fairly good idea that it wouldn't be genius - the premise seemed far too silly and stupid for anything good to come out of it, but at the back of my mind I was thinking "but there must be something good about it for UMA THURMAN and Luke Wilson do to the film..." not that I think either of them are particularly terrific but they are big-named stars who would normally only do films that would enhance their reputations. However, about 10-20 minutes into the feature I realized that the movie was probably worse than I had at first anticipated. I was shocked at how terrible the script was. It really gave the actors NOTHING to work with, so much so that they really looked like they didn't know what they were doing (especially Luke Wilson). The story was completely predictable - if you've seen the ad then you've pretty much seen the movie! And there was nothing original about it - it pretty much borrows from every 'super-hero' story that has ever been which would be acceptable had the film been set up as a satire of that genre, but alas it wasn't. The direction seemed to be of realism. I got the feeling that the director wanted the film to feel completely realistic and not satire at all, and yet there were some moments in the film that were so unbelievably unrealistic that it would have worked if it were a satire. At one moment in the movie two of the characters seem to die and one of the surviving characters has a line like "Oh well, she's dead...time to move on" and he says it in such a droll voice that it completely didn't make any sense. I found myself checking my watch after about 40 minutes to see how much longer I would have to sit through it. And then it struck me...I began to think "I wonder if the studio have made this picture as a test to see if they can make the worst possible movie ever made, and still pull a large audience..." I couldn't think of any other reason why this film would be made. For movies to be made these days, the script goes to a massive screening process and very very few scripts actually make it to the production stage...I can't comprehend how this one got past the first draft stage... By the end, and exceedingly, dumb-founding-Ly stupid climax, I was laughing heartily - just not at what the film-makers wanted me to laugh at, but instead at how ridiculous and stupid the movie was. Thank God I didn't have to pay money to see it...because that would have really annoyed me!!! Oh, and could I just add, that of the two Wilson brothers, I have always preferred Luke because I think he is a better, more versatile actor...but if he wants to step even further into OWEN's shadow then this is exactly the way to do it...I doubt that he will get many more job offers after this crappy waste of 2 hours!!! and remember, it only got a generous 1/10 because I couldn't select 0! | 0 |
I found the movie to be very light and enjoyable. One knows that the story is not real life like, yet the depiction is superb.<br /><br />Lyrics are really good and John Travolta in his usual style. I like the scene wherein he as an angel gives up his own stuff to bring life back to the dog. | 1 |
Thirty years prior to THE DEER HUNTER came this movie, an excellent meditation on the effects of war inflicted on the American family as seen from both the war heroes and their wives. A truly ironic title, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES is anything but since those times have vanished into still images and all that is left is an uncertain future for those involved.<br /><br />Truly an ensemble cast despite the top-billing of Myrna Loy, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES focuses more on the stories of the men. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) comes back to a household that has irrevocably changed as his sons have grown although he finds support from his doting wife Milly (Myrna Loy). Fred Derry, upon returning, cannot find a decent job despite being a war veteran and is trapped in a marriage that he does not want to Marie, a happy-go-lucky girl who wants more out of life and who increasingly comes to hate him. Homer Parrish, on the other hand, has greater problems due to his loss of hands at war and feels the entire world -- including the girl he loves and her family -- thinks he is a freak of nature.<br /><br />At almost three hours of length, the film never seems long and drawn out. There is so much emotions happening even in small moments that the plot breezes by; nothing seems wasted or placed on screen due to a lack of editing. Not a performance rings false, though the standouts are those of Dana Andrews as Fred Derry, Harold Russell as Homer Parrish and Virginia Mayo as Marie Derry. Even then every character has his or her moment on film, and the time was right to talk about all the pain and suffering that until then had not been seen in American films (including the ones made around World War One, which did not dabble in such topics). While there is never any overt violence, it's all there, in the haunted expressions of the three male leads' faces, in the lot where the planes now reside, ready to be turned into junk (and therefore, forgetfulness), in the cynicism of the store owners who couldn't be bothered to employ these shell-shocked men who had seen battle or even worse, to goad them into wondering what was it all worth for. This is the film in which COMING HOME and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY are indebted to. At a time when America fled from war films, to come up with this when the end of the Second World War was still fresh was a necessity in order to make a more honest film-making. | 1 |
There are no flaws in this production. Perfectly entertaining, fun, and worthy of respect.<br /><br />This is what theatre is all about. Definitely not for the very young, but slightly older kids will get a great kick out of seeing it and can be introduced to theatre this way.<br /><br />Astounding and amazing. | 1 |
...I cannot believe I was hooked on this show instantly, after seeing the first scene I was in it deep. <br /><br />Anyway, first of all the guys are hot, Cappy, Evan, Calvin, Fischer, Cappy, Heath, Cappy etc.<br /><br />Secondly, the girls are cute, sexy, smart and are not afraid of being called bitches. I like that. Which at the same time doesn't make them mean and greedy, just realistic.<br /><br />Third the relationships are so great, especially Casey and Cappy. Lately every show turns very away from it's original path and people end up with someone who wasn't even in the first season. Cappy and Casey's relationship is true love, a kind that lasts. They loved each other throughout the years and it didn't end when a guest star appeared. <br /><br />In todays world maybe it's kind of unbelievable for two people to love each other for a long time but it happens. And people define each other in college so I knew exactly who I wanted to be with in college. Just like Casey and Cappy. <br /><br />I HOPE THERE ARE MANY MORE SEASONS OF THIS SHOW AND I HOPE WE CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASEY AND CAPPY NOW THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY STAY TOGETHER, at Thanksgiving... Love this show | 1 |
This is the second movie I saw for Horrorfest this past weekend, The Gravedancers being the first. Gravedancers was better. I can only guess from watching this that the production must have been quite limited. I will admit the story started out interesting but really fizzled for me in the end. We weren't really given time to sympathize or understand any of the characters which only made each of their erratic characteristics even more annoying. I have to mention that there was also a bit of mis-casting with a 12-year-old boy acting as Sheriff. The only reason I sat through the whole film was to find out what the big secret was, which turned out to not be all that interesting. Some more background about the family would have helped but they didn't really seem like a family at all to begin with.<br /><br />To me, this film is so amateur that I couldn't even see putting it on DVD. The four rating is for the initial potential the story might have had. This was one to skip for horrorfest. | 0 |
This modern film noir with its off beat humour and dizzying succession of plot twists delivers a story full of surprises, dangerous characters and excellent entertainment from start to finish. It's impossible not to empathise with the honest, unassuming hero or to be gripped by the ways in which he tries to navigate his way out of the terrible predicaments that he finds himself in, so all you can do is fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride.<br /><br />The story of an ordinary guy who makes a poor decision and then finds that the repercussions propel him into an uncontrollable sequence of events from which he is unable to extricate himself is pure film noir. The same is true of the themes of murder, deceit, corruption and duplicity which are pervasive throughout. Many of the familiar noir visual motifs are also present, such as the way in which cigarette smoke is lit, the rain soaked roads at night, the heavily shadowed interiors and the lines of shadow (created by louvred doors) across people's faces.<br /><br />Michael Williams (Nicolas Cage), an injured war veteran without money or a job, stops off at a bar in Red Rock, Wyoming and is mistaken by the proprietor Wayne Brown (J T Walsh) for a hit man that he's arranged to employ to murder his wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle). Michael, a naturally reticent person, does nothing to disabuse Wayne of his misapprehension, especially as he could use a job and at first doesn't realise what he'd be expected to do. After having been told what his mission is and been given a $5,000 advance, he goes to see Suzanne and warns her about Wayne's plan. She doesn't seem overly concerned about the danger she's in and offers Michael double the fee Wayne had offered, for him to eliminate her husband.<br /><br />Michael decides to take the money he'd received from both parties and leave town. His plan fails however, when he accidentally drives into a man who is standing in the middle of the road and decides to take him to hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. At the hospital, things get more complicated when it emerges that the patient is Suzanne's lover and he has two bullets in his stomach. This leads to the local law enforcement officers getting involved and the revelation that Wayne is the Sheriff!! From this point on, things get even more complicated and also decidedly more dangerous especially when the real hit man, Lyle from Dallas (Dennis Hopper) arrives on the scene.<br /><br />"Red Rock West" has some great moments of suspense, (an example of this is the scene in which Michael makes his escape from Wayne's bar) and also some great performances from its very strong cast. Nicolas Cage's expressions are extremely natural and convincing as he reacts to a variety of situations with anxiety, surprise or uncertainty and J T Walsh is also particularly good as a deceptive character who's always concealing more than he's actually saying. Dennis Hopper is intensely threatening as the vicious contract killer (a role he plays with great gusto) and Lara Flynn Boyle looks suitably cold and calculating as the femme fatale. Dwight Yoakam also provides some good support and moments of humour in his cameo role as a no nonsense truck driver.<br /><br />Incredibly, "Red Rock West" was originally destined to be denied a general cinema release but has justifiably emerged from its modest beginnings to eventually be recognised as the great movie that it really is. | 1 |
Yes, I had the misfortune of watching this film when I was younger at a friends house as his mother was a teacher and she wanted to screen the movie and see if there were any inappropriate scenes that a parent might object to. Well other than the unfunny jokes I think this one was in the clear, well the unfunny jokes and the strange scene where the look a like Ernest hits on a girl. So yes, Ernest gets thrown in jail thanks to a look a like and proceeds to try to escape and there is other stuff to it like him becoming magnetized at one point, shooting electricity, and in a very painful to watch finale flying. There are a couple of jokes, but nothing to much to mention except for the gun carved from soap...I think that is the only scene me or my friend's mother laughed out loud at. This and camp are the only two Ernest movies I have ever seen and from what I have seen in them I am not going to track down the other films. Ernest was good in small doses, but a movie is just to much even when it is as short as this one. I figure though the films made money, mainly because all you need is Varney and a location and a theme and you have your movie. | 0 |
"Who Loves The Sun" works its way through some prickly subject matter with enough wit and grace to keep the story not only engaging, but often hilarious. It's been a while since I've found such a thoroughly touching, thoroughly enjoyable film. <br /><br />The film is gorgeous, drawing the eye with beautiful scenery and tranquil landscapes. The peaceful imagery contrasts wonderfully with the tension between the very human, very flawed, and yet very likable characters. Due to the excellent cast all five of the major players are wonderfully interesting and dynamic. <br /><br />I recommend "Who Loves The Sun." It's a really funny movie that takes a poignant look at the hurts that we can inflict on each other, and the amazingly difficult but equally rewarding process of forgiveness. | 1 |
This movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing this movie. | 0 |
Allow yourself to be transported to a different, old school kind of storytelling. Scoop is classic Woody Allen.<br /><br />Allen's latest muse, Scarlett Johansson (who also appeared in last year's Match Point, also by Allen), is surprisingly able to tone down her sultry sex kitten appeal and transform into a normal looking student-type with the aid of nerdish glasses and outfits but still fails to make the audience believe how Hugh Jackman's lordly character can be so smitten by her, given the royal's background (don't worry, no spoilers here). There are no grand transformations for Johansson's character here, as she consistently plays the same character throughout despite the script saying otherwise. You even forgive her character's apparent lack of logic, continuing an affair with a suspected serial killer, simply because he is His Royal Hotness Jackman, who is refreshing to see sans the Wolverine duds.<br /><br />If anything, consistency is what the 70-year old Allen is all about. He continues to tell his stories on celluloid in the same way he always has; as if he's never been exposed to modern film-making, which is probably what makes his quiet, simple films appealing. They never seem to aim for a specific market; as if Allen makes movies to his taste alone, whether the public likes it or not. | 1 |
Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this "thing",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this "thing" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed. | 0 |
I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.<br /><br />Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.<br /><br />Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of "The original party animals". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.<br /><br />As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy. | 0 |
This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.<br /><br />The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.<br /><br />One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.<br /><br />At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.<br /><br />And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.<br /><br />This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not. | 1 |
The delivery of some very humorous rude lines by Pierce Brosnan is alone worth the price of admission. He plays a kind of "James Bond's psycho twin brother", separated at birth, no doubt. As an intense hit-man, his character is very sexual but even better, very funny. Add the kind-hearted, uber-likable American "guy next door', Greg Kinnear, to set up contrast. The myriad locations, vivid colors, and quick-witted humor provide great entertainment. Hope Davis is well cast as the "gem of a wife". But the focus of the film is on the two fellows, a new "Odd Couple", and that's the part that works very well. Have a great (probably R-rated) laugh, and look for the places where the story goes a little deeper. | 1 |
Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.<br /><br />I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7. | 1 |
The story of Ned Kelly has been enshrouded in myth and exaggeration for time out of hand, and this film is no exception. What ensures Ned Kelly has a permanent place in history is the effort he went to in order to even the odds against the policemen hunting him. During several battles, he marched out wearing plates of beaten iron, off which the bullets available to police at the time would harmlessly bounce. Indeed, it is only because there were a few bright sparks among the Victorian police who noticed he hadn't plated up his legs that he was captured and hanged. The story has been told in schools and histories of Australia for so long that some permutations of the story have, ironically, become boring. The more the stories try to portray Kelly as some inhuman or superhuman monster, the less people pay attention.<br /><br />Which is where this adaptation of Our Sunshine, a novel about the Kelly legend, excels. Rather than attempting to portray a Ned Kelly who is as unfeeling as the armour he wore, the film quickly establishes him as a human being. Indeed, the reversal of the popular legend, showing the corruption of the Victorian police and the untenable situation of the colonists, goes a long way to make this film stand out from the crowd. Here, Ned Kelly is simply a human being living in a time and place where in order to be convicted of murder, one simply had to be the nearest person to the corpse when a policeman found it. No, I am not making that up. About the only area where the film errs is by exaggerating the Irish versus English mentality of the battles. While the Kelly gang were distinctly Irish, Australia has long been a place where peoples of wildly varied ethnicities have mixed together almost seamlessly (a scene with some Chinese migrants highlights this).<br /><br />Heath Ledger does an amazing job of impersonating Australia's most notorious outlaw. It is only because of the fame he has found in other films that the audience is aware they are watching Ledger and not Kelly himself. Orlando Bloom has finally found a role in which he doesn't look completely lost without his bow, and Geoffrey Rush's appearance as the leader of the police contingent at Glenrowan goes to show why he is one of the most revered actors in that desolate little island state. But it is Naomi Watts, appearing as Julia Cook, who gets a bit of a bum deal in this film. Although the film basically implies that Cook was essentially the woman in Ned Kelly's life, but you would not know that from the minimal screen time that she gets here. Indeed, a lot of the film's hundred and ten minutes feels more freeze-dried than explorative. Once the element of police corruption is established, in fact, the film rockets along so fast at times that it almost feels rushed.<br /><br />Unfortunately, most of the film's strengths are not capitalised upon. Rush barely gets more screen time than his name does in the opening and closing credits. Ditto for Watts, and the rest of the cast come off a little like mannequins. I can only conclude that another fifteen, or even thirty, minutes of footage might have fixed this. But that leads to the other problem, in that the lack of any depth or background to characters other than the titular hero leaves the events of the story with zero impact. One scene manages to do the speech-making thing well, but unfortunately, it all becomes a collage of moments with no linking after a while. If one were to believe the impression that this film creates, a matter of weeks, even days, passes between the time that Ned Kelly becomes a wanted man on the say-so of one corrupt policeman, and the infamous shootout at Glenrowan. Annoyingly, the trial and execution of Ned Kelly is not even depicted here, simply referred to in subtitles before the credits roll.<br /><br />That said, aside from some shaky camera-work at times, Ned Kelly manages to depict some exciting shootouts, and it has a good beginning. For that reason, I rated it a seven out of ten. Other critics have not been so kind, so if you're not impressed by shootouts with unusual elements (and what could more more unusual than full body armour in a colonial shootout?), then you might be better off looking elsewhere. Especially if you want a more factual account of Ned Kelly's life. | 1 |
A shift in outlook is neccesary to enjoy modern British films, one that somehow allows them to be seen in their own right and for their own qualities rather than by the criteria that American films are judged. Britfilm has to try hard to be gritty and finds it hard to make it, but at warmth British films can lord it over their otherwise overwhelming competitor.<br /><br />This film fails not in its content but only in attaching itself to the predeccesor, so allowing it to be all to easily seen as the work of star and director somewhere near the end of their tethers. It's a couple of decades later, Gregory teaching and this time with two girls on his mind. He teaches at his school railing against human rights abuses. When students he's fired up find abuses in their midst he must face whether he's just all talk.<br /><br />This is a subversive film in that there's not the usual worldly character of any American movie that you expect to do whatever he does, but a naive man boy who may still put everything on the line for principles. Maybe. It's certainly no protest-by-numbers though, being too warm. Where U.S. film may seem realistic because they're urban and gritty, this and other British films of recent years - those that don't try to match America for visceral thrills - are real because British humour reveals truths. | 1 |
Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.<br /><br />The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.<br /><br />Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.<br /><br />While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.<br /><br />Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.<br /><br />*** ½ out of 4 | 1 |
'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.<br /><br />My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.<br /><br />'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.<br /><br />The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird. <br /><br />Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.<br /><br />A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own. | 0 |
I went to see this movie expecting a nice relaxing time in the theater with my younger sister. Instead, I had to really control myself in order to convince her that I was not scared. In many ways still a children´s story, but with a screenplay that has a lot of potential. Could have been one of the scariest movies if planned for another audience. | 1 |
I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch. | 1 |
This is the ultimate one-man show in which Eddie Murphy is at his very best. Just forget the Nutty Professor and the Distinguished Gentlemen, this is the real Eddie Murphy. His imitations of Mr. T. (pretending he is gay), Michael Jackson and other artists are killers. I think it's also quite daring to make fun of artists who where really popular in that time. My favorite act is the one where he is at his annual BBQ with the family and plays his drunken dad and aunt Bunny who falls from the stairs.<br /><br />This show is the best medicine when you feel down ! If you watch the sequel 'Raw' don't be disappointed. It's quite good too but doesn't match 'Delirious'. | 1 |
"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right. | 0 |
toplines this ok comedy about an aging father (C. Aubrey Smith) who decides to gather his grown children from around the world. Davies is working as a chorus girl in New York when she gets the news that "daddy" wants her. Hmmmm, sounds familiar. Davies' considerable talents as a comedienne save this otherwise so-so comedy as she upsets the staid British countryside with her brazen American personality. Not as sharp as some other Davies comedies, but still worth a look. Ray Milland plays her long-lost "brother." Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, and Halliwell Hobbes are all fun, too. | 1 |
Everything this film tried to do is done better - and superbly in "Run Lola Run". The Red Haired Hip Cutie, the critical deadline(s), The Lover in jeopardy, and the "Crime Pays-Sometimes" message. BUT, unlike "Lola", it just isn't believable or well put together. It is a labored knock off that might have worked for me if I had seen it before "Lola" - but it pales in comparison. Yes! The Falling Beetle was nice! But that was about the only surprise in the film. Do yourself a favor and see the Real McCoy - (And the REAL hip Red Head!) - in Run Lola Run! | 0 |
Sometimes, when seeking a movie nothing will do except a good thriller. Dead Line certainly fits the bill. <br /><br />A little warning however: if you are going to watch this film you are better off not knowing too much specifics about the plot. <br /><br />The plot thickens as the film goes by. A really remarkably well built tension mounts. <br /><br />It is deep and horrifying. It goes all the way to the darkest places in human mind.<br /><br />The plot also has some very surprising shifts. <br /><br />Just wait till nightfall, turn off the light and watch this film. | 1 |
Many people remember the Waco standoff that occurred a long time ago. What most people probably have ingrained in their minds is the "cult leader" David Koresh and the images of the compound burning to the ground after a long standoff. A lot of people have the belief that Koresh was some kind of madman who thought he was God. He was accused of being a child molester and was credited for the breakdown and deaths of his followers. Furthermore, many people feel the cult committed mass suicide when the FBI stormed Mount Carmel Center and when the building was burning. Most people feel the cult was at fault for not agreeing with the FBI on reasonable terms. Most people feel the cult was brainwashed by Koresh and followed along with everything that he said. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because of strong evidence after the nightmare was over, and this one-of -a- kind documentary pretty much proves it!! <br /><br />This documentary is one of the most balanced examinations at the situation that occurred. It is much more thorough and highly detailed than anything most people have received in the mainstream media. To the shock of many people, this documentary will reveal that is was the ATF, the FBI, and the higher levels of the United States government who were the ones who were unjust, cruel, and deceptive, and not David Koresh and his followers. What Korseh and Davidians were doing was just protecting their constitutional rights, and the higher powers completely violated and raped those rights. The AFT had no grounds to storm the compound; it was the AFT that shot first and they shot from the helicopters from above at unarmed men, women, and children!! What is even more shocking is the actions of the FBI when they entered the Mount Carmel. Watch it for yourselves and you will develop and new perspective on the U.S. government. There is infrared footage that clearly shows the FBI was shooting with machine guns at the men, women, and children in the burning compound. It will make your blood boil. It will make you really angry. It will make you wonder as to what kind of people run this country. Finally, it will make you wonder as to what you are being told on the news every night is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This video is frightening and I highly recommend it if one can find it. This documentary does not need to be purchased; it can be watched for free on google video! | 1 |
The Merchant of Venice 8/10<br /><br />(This review assumes a basic knowledge of the story and so may be thought of as containing spoilers to anyone unfamiliar with the plot.)<br /><br />As a film version of the famous Shakespeare play, Merchant of Venice does what few adaptations have done since Polanski's rather gritty Macbeth: it takes the spirit of the play and brings it out not just as well as, but better than the play alone could readily achieve. <br /><br />Lord of the Rings Director, Peter Jackson, has argued that in adapting a book or play there are three options: attempt to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, use the original idea as an inspiration but take full license for cinematic change, or (the one he avowedly preferred) stick to the original as much as is cinematic ally viable but make such changes as are necessary for the film and while remaining faithful to the intention or spirit of the original.<br /><br />In Macbeth, Polanski used the rain-sodden beaches and realistic rapes and murder to convey what a bloody and horrific period the play was set in, thus bringing to mind the horrific context in which the characters make such ill-advised decisions. It differs from (say) Branagh's Hamlet, which achieved new heights of faithful rendition, but otherwise offered little new. Macbeth, on the other hand, maybe enabled audiences fresh to Shakespeare to appreciate some of the drama's fullness without extensive study; similarly, more familiar audiences might find a greater depth than the unaided stage performance could accomplish. Such interpretation plays a vital part if audiences are to fully engage, not only intellectually but also emotionally, with the points Shakespeare wanted to make.<br /><br />Radford's adaptation of Merchant of Venice does just this. It takes crucial moral dilemmas involving religious bigotry or the keeping promises and, with minimal messing of the Bard's holy tome, conveys them faithfully within the spirit of the original story.<br /><br />The first of these, religious bigotry, gives meaning to Shylock's otherwise outlandish behaviour. We see the Jews of the period relegated to a walled ghetto, only allowed out if wearing an identifying red cap. Not being allowed to own property, one of the few ways they can earn a living is by money-lending. This makes them both useful to their Christian oppressors and at the same time the object of their vilification. The idea behind (both old and new testament) biblical prohibitions against usury probably stems from not making a profit by helping one's friends. This is extended by the bigoted Christians to curse those they spit on (we see Shylock not only spit on, but fellow Jews thrown into the waterways for sport - in an atmosphere that can only be described as threatening).<br /><br />The topicality of the film is curious, since the bigotry of right wing Christianity (as personified by Bush-following Americans) has turned full circle, as they are now the main supporters of Zionism, and the Jewish political leaders bite at their Palestinian neighbors much as Shylock tries to bite at Antonio (once he thinks the law gives him the power to do so). The psychology is self-evident - kick a dog repeatedly and it will become vicious. The circle easily continues as the victims of oppression themselves easily lose their sense of moral values and become oppressors.<br /><br />The stringent sleight of hand that the disguised Portia uses to save Antonio has some merit, both as a clever interpretation of the unsophisticated law that the Venetians of the play so rue and also as a moral pointer. Shylock may 'have his pound of flesh' according to his contract, but may not have any blood. An easy analogy could be made as far as warfare and terrorism goes - it is much easier to justify fighting among combatants or attacking ill-doers if soldiers or evil-doers are the only victims - when there is massive collateral damage, as when innocent citizens, including women and children, are killed in their hundreds, the warmongers' arguments (whether those warmongers be Israeli, Palestinian or US American) carry far less popular support. <br /><br />There has long been much argument whether Shakespeare was being anti-Semitic in this story. One wonders if he had to adapt the ending for a largely Christian audience who had little dealing with Jewish people. Far from teaching him a greater good, the ending enforces Christianity and humiliation upon Shylock - a course likely simply to perpetuate pent up resentment. Both camps look just as bad - one simply holds more power than the other. The slight amelioration of the judgment simply gives the Christian judges a better public image, or as Bassanio so acutely (observes when choosing the caskets and solving the riddles to win Portia's hand):<br /><br />In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.<br /><br />Of course, the bigotry applies to organised religion (rather than spirituality), especially when organised for political purposes, but one that easily goads ordinary god-fearing people who are not in the habit of splitting hairs. The kindness, mercy ('Chesed' in Judaism) which is so fundamental to true Christianity, is something also practiced to a wonderful degree in Judaism as in most creeds. The Jewish faith distinguishes between kindness and charity, ways of practicing both effectively, and ways of making it part of one's being rather than just an outward show. Both Shylock and Antonio are bigoted and use their respective faiths to abuse those of another faith. While Shakespeare maybe pointed up the chasm between the goodness prescribed by different faiths and its absence in practice, the film version reduces much of the window for interpretations of anti-Semitism and brings a greater degree of realism to the psychological causes.<br /><br />The keeping of promises (the men to their wives) is dealt with less well, as are the comic elements inherent in the cross-dressing sub-plots. Bassanio, however strong his love for Antonio (are there homosexual elements there?) cannot make sound moral judgements when showing his gratitude to the 'judge', and so breaks his promise (for which Portia forgives him, displaying a triumphal character for women, not only as supremely intelligent and witty but also as more truly merciful and considerate of others than her bigoted male counterparts, including her husband.)<br /><br />Some of the acting is a bit stilted, and there are too many regional (English) accents, but on the whole Merchant of Venice delivers a fresh and rewarding reworking of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the acting, and also the very beautiful soundtrack by Hayley Westenra and others, singing ballads penned both by Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe. All in all, Merchant of Venice is a not inconsiderable achievement of British (as far as any film can be said to be of a particular nationality these days) cinematic tradition. | 1 |
- The movie opens with a meteor crashing into a lake. Unbeknownst to the locals, a dinosaur egg is also at the bottom of the lake. The meteor heats the lake, turning it into a giant incubator. You guessed it, the egg hatches releasing a dinosaur that proceeds to terrorize the community.<br /><br />- What utter garbage. It's not that I mind the stop-motion clay dinosaur, it's everything else about the movie that bothers me. The acting is atrocious. The dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The comic relief is anything but comic. Logic is non-existent. Any similarity between the "scientists" in this movie and an actual scientist is purely coincidental. I could go on for an eternity on the bad aspects of this movie, but you get the idea. I feel it's fairly safe to call this disaster "MST3K Worthy". | 0 |
Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.<br /><br />I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.<br /><br />The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power. <br /><br />I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.<br /><br />Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.) <br /><br />So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.<br /><br />If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school. | 1 |
My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.<br /><br />The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.<br /><br />Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).<br /><br />My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.<br /><br />The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.<br /><br />Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing. | 0 |
Fair and nifty little science fiction/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game - "eXistenZ" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game, but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee ("P.R. nerd") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some bits from his earlier films ("Videodrome", "Scanners", "The Fly", etc.) and placed it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley, Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to Allegra - " I can't help myself." "eXistenZ" manages to show that he (Cronenberg) is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm. | 1 |
I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen "exorcist: the beginning" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end. | 0 |
There have been very few great comedy films in the history of Hindi Cinema. Andaz Apna Apna happens to be one of them. The film is based on a very simple story of two poor young men (Aamir and Salman) who dream of becoming rich by marrying a millionaire's daughter (Raveena). Aamir and Salman Khan try their best to outwit each other and woo Raveena. The plot thickens when Paresh Rawal & Co. plan to take over all the wealth. The movie is well paced and very funny. Rarely does one come across a Hindi comedy which is both funny and intelligent. This is one of the few films with Aamir and Salman together (probably the only film!). Unfortunately it did not succeed at the box-office, and we might never see a film of this calibre again. Aamir Khan is brilliant in the film and has proved his versatility as an actor in this film. Salman Khan gives a very good performance as a dim-wit. Raveena plays a convincing role as a confused rich girl, and Karishma who is Raveena's assistant/friend is also funny. Paresh Rawal, Junior Ajith, Shakti Kapoor, Deven Verma, Jagdeep and Tiku Talsania just add to the flavour of the film! All in all, the best Hindi comedy ever made and I wish they make more quality films like this one. You will want to watch this film time and again.<br /><br />P.S - For those of you who have watched this film, I also suggest Gol Maal, Chupke Chupke, Chhoti Si Baat, Naram Garam, Hera Pheri (old and new), etc. | 1 |
After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie. | 0 |
A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.) <br /><br />There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K. Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.<br /><br />While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief. They bumble around, fight to stock "banjo music",ogle women, and act like pathetic excuses of humanity. The characters are so bad, they should count as a crime against humanity. | 0 |
This film reappeared on channel 13 in the 1990s when they did a series of comedies from Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, to the tune of "The Jolly Fat Policeman", they had a montage of scenes from the films to introduce the series of people laughing, including one of Gary Cooper chortling when watching a film in a movie house - a sequence from this film.<br /><br />It all begins innocently enough when Cooper, a millionaire, goes into a fancy department store in France to buy pajamas. But he only likes to sleep in the tops. The clerk (Tyler Brooke) insists that he cannot sell half a pair of pajamas as Cooper wants. Claudette Colbert hears the argument and offers to help - she only likes to sleep in pajama bottoms. What if Brooke sells them each half? Brooke has never had such an offer before, so he goes to the floor walker (Rolfe Sedan) and asks him if this can be done. He is disturbed too - the request is quite unconventional. Eventually they contact the store's owner (Charles Halton). Halton is in bed, and gets out - his skinny frame supporting only a pajama top (if a suitably long one for the sake of censorship). Can they sell the two customers one set of pajamas (half for each)? Properly horrified, Halton answers, "No, of course not! That is Communism!!". So the sale is not allowed. Apparently nobody thinks that Cooper can buy the total pair and sell half to Colbert.<br /><br />Lubitsch's BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE has had a reputation of falling flat, most viewers not liking it because of a misreading of Colbert's character. She is seen as quite mercenary towards Cooper - selling herself to him on her terms.<br /><br />Actually Cooper's character is the nastier, as he is rich and figures that everything has a price. He is correct most of the time. Look at the way Colbert's aristocratic pauper of a father, Edward Everett Horton, sees his new son-in-law as a golden goose he can use. Cooper's willingness to marry Colbert somehow includes an agreement that if he is hesitant or chooses to not marry her he has to pay damages. Horton, when he realizes this, takes out a watch, and (in a most reassuring voice) says to Cooper - "Take your time my boy!", to come to a decision. Later we see Horton's wardrobe has gotten more modern and fancier.<br /><br />The film, script by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, compares well with their script for Mitchell Leisin's MIDNIGHT (also with Colbert, but with Don Ameche and John Barrymore). There Colbert is willing to sell herself for a money marriage to (to Francis Lederer), but it is complicated by a fictitious marriage to Ameche. She really loves Ameche (a taxi driver) but she explains to him in an unexpectedly realistic moment that her parents married "for love" but poverty made them grow to hate each other. This is not found in BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE, where Colbert does not have a background like that (she is, after all, the daughter of a Marquis). Her mercenary plotting is to teach Cooper a lesson about his standards.<br /><br />The film has some nice work by the supporting staff, including Herman Bing as a private eye who turns out to be hiding things that Colbert learns about, and a young David Niven, who has a set of choice moments as a stand in punching bag and as a willing ear to Cooper. Coop tells Niven about his problems with Colbert, and how she is so infuriating. Niven listens respectfully. At the end, Cooper is touched by his willingness to hear what he had to say. "Albert, how much do I pay you?", Cooper asks him. Niven thinks and says, "Thirty five francs a week sir.". Cooper looks deeply into his soul, and says (shaking his head), "That's fair!" | 1 |
i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic! | 0 |
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.<br /><br />The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.<br /><br />The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.<br /><br />However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V. | 0 |
Okay, it's too long and it's too satisfied with itself. Still, "The Great Dictator" is a fascinating movie. Chaplin does a terrific job satirizing Hitler and trying to portray the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany (this was before the concentration camps were common knowledge). Not a Chaplin masterpiece, but still worth seeing.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. | 0 |
Our America is multi-cultural, with so many sub-cultures. This movie simply tells a story of a snapshot in time within one of these sub-cultures. It is basically an objective look at a group of forgotten people, living their lives oblivious to the rest of the world. Generally, a good movie. It entertained, provoked thought, and showed lives that would not be seen otherwise, right in our own back yard. Should be seen by all. Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I had no idea that there were citizens here that didn't know they were citizens. This movie helps illustrate the diversity of our country by showing this small part of a southern state. The obvious conclusion: If this is really for real, then what else is out there that we know nothing of? | 1 |
A sincere tribute to Suzy Parker, who's just passed away. Not only is TBoE one of the cheesiest movies ever made, but Miss Parker's performance is, in this cheesy-movie-lover's opinion, among the worst performances of all time. Her last scene is especially overplayed. I loved it! | 1 |
It was a doubly interesting experience. For some reason the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century had never been the central figure in a movie*. The closest I can think of as films with Einstein in them are CHAMPAIGN FOR CAESAR, where (like a "deus ex ma-china") the great man is heard clarifying a point on a radio quiz show, so that Ronald Colman is proved to have given the correct answer after all, and in BULLSHOT where the great Albert is one of a dozen leading physicists and scientists who are drugged with cannabis by the villain, intent on stealing some machines of theirs. It is notable that in those two cases, and in IQ, we are dealing with comedies. So far nobody has tried to do a serious film about the life of Einstein, like John Huston's attempt to do one on FREUD with Montgomery Cliff. I guess it is just too hard to get the world of mathematical equations or the secrets of electro-magnetic field theory into exciting dialog. But then, only three years ago Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer did A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Maybe nobody really has tried.<br /><br />(*Subsequently, after writing this, I remembered the successful comedy YOUNG EINSTEIN with Yahoo Serious about ten years ago. But that is an exception and it was a spoof.)<br /><br />The other surprise was the actor playing the great Albert. It was Walter Matthau, here taking time away from the series of films he did with Jack Lemmon in that last decade of their careers. Matthau was a highly capable and gifted character actor, in both comedy and drama, but normally his comic personas were variants of his "Whiplash Willie" Gingrich from THE FORTUNE COOKIE. They were connivers and gonifs. Later they would shed their criminal propensities because we had grown to like them, but they remained grumpy types. But his Albert Einstein happens to be genuinely sweet. More like his Kotch than like Willie Clarke.<br /><br />He plays Albert as good old uncle Albert. It seems that Matthau's Einstein is living in Princeton with his niece Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan), and she is seeing a stuffy professor named James Morland (Stephen Fry). But Fry's car needs repairs, and they take it to the auto shop where Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) works. Robbins falls for Ryan, who is attracted to him - but finds that he lacks the mental equipment that she admires. Good old uncle Albert, aided by his three friends (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, and Gene Saks) decide to give their assistance to Robbins and make him an apparently unrecognized physics genius. This will open the doors of romance between him and Ryan, provided Ryan is impressed and Fry does not spoil things (as he hopes to do).<br /><br />The atmosphere is sweet, as when Matthau and his chums rig up a super physics quiz that they help Robbins cheat on (by switching the positions of their bodies). The plot eventually leads to the outright lie that the brilliant Robbins has constructed an atomic powered rocket ship - which brings in the interests of the nation in the figure of President Eisenhower (Keene Curtis).<br /><br />It was a charming comedy, and an interesting stretch for Matthau in that he was not as hyper as normal, but far more subdued. | 1 |
Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn). <br /><br />Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.<br /><br />It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.<br /><br />The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.<br /><br />This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule. | 0 |
When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.<br /><br />To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.<br /><br />Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing. | 0 |
In trying to keep up with the hipness of youthful audiences as the 70s approached, OaCD,YCSF was the product of odder and odder material selected for musicalization. Here it's past life regression, ESP and hypno-therapy... pretty loopy! The real problem with the concept (music or not) are the extraordinarily low dramatic stakes; just where can a movie go, and what can happen, when a man falls in love with a previous incarnation of a girl he can't stand? It can't go any place new, but strangely, it can't even go any place old! Indeed, if it could, audiences would still have no interest in the union of Yves Montand (playing a much older, arrogant, French ass) and Streisand. (a much younger girl). We never become invested in them, their situations or outcomes. Montand is miscast and his strong accent makes many of his lyrics unintelligible.<br /><br />It's all been given a shallow 60s veneer that makes it eminently disposable; despite efforts here and there from Minelli that are respectable. It's not even adapted from a non-musical story that met with any previous success... that's just too passe! Streisand occasionally has some funny business to offer, as when she's trying not to fall asleep on her roof and improvises an energetic dance. But she over-relies on her ingratiating (translation: irritating) kooky, Jewish girl shtick. She can however sing very well, at both the "gentle" and "powerhouse" ends of the range. Amidst a score of musical dross, she gets 3 or 4 amazing songs* of much higher caliber than anything Fanny or Dolly had to offer. 'He isn't you' is a sweet trifle as sublime as Lorenz Hart's 'My Funny Valentine,' but the movie isn't able to realize any impact from it; because the lyrics don't seem to be referring to anything in the movie, and nothing remotely suggests a great love is blossoming between Chabot and Melinda.<br /><br />The only cut we can view is a poor hatchet job of a much bigger film. Strong research shows a longer, better-explained and more decorative, but not necessarily a better film at: http://barbra-archives.com/films/clear_day_streisand_2.html. You can be sure there's be more Babs in that version but more importantly, there'd be more thoughtful work from Minelli.<br /><br />In the end Montand sends Babs off to sing the title song, after she discovers he's a total dick who feeds her a self-esteem homily to allow himself off the hook. And she takes the bait. So, uh... hooray for that.<br /><br />(*Hurry it's lovely up here, Love with all the trimmings, He isn't you, & the title song) | 0 |
One of the first OVA's ("original video animation") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.<br /><br />The "heroes" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a "if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase "loose cannons".<br /><br />Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.<br /><br />The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.<br /><br />The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...<br /><br />Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended. | 1 |
Well........how and where do I start to describe this utter nonsense? Imagine the morals of a cheesy Hollywood Western, throw in a lavish helping of the most trite soap opera storyline, and try to dupe the kids into thinking its cool by dressing it up to be about something 'contemporary'. This film is all package and absolutely no substance.<br /><br />It starts with promise......young men dreaming of becoming rockstars and engaging in the kind of excessive hero-worship everyone can laugh at. After that, it all goes downhill.....quicker than a bobsleigh with no brakes. The scene involving the first gig with Steel Dragon is one of the most pathetic pieces of 'cine kitsch' I have seen in a long time. The singer appears on stage for his debut and falls down some stairs.....will he get up and sing???......or will he stay there on the floor and not sing......who cares by now?? It gets worse, but I don't want to bore myself by having to remember it in all its excruciating detail. If you watch it after this review, its your own fault! | 0 |
Watching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.<br /><br />Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.<br /><br />In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.<br /><br />The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.<br /><br />The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare. | 0 |
The entire civilized world by now knows that this is where Emil Sitka says his immortal "Hold hands, you lovebirds." But Shemp Howard, Professor of Music, steals the show. Watch him tutoring Dee Green as she fractures the "Voices of Spring." Watch Shemp as he shaves by a mirror suspended from the ceiling by a string. Watch him as he gets walloped by Christine McIntyre. Watch him, and you will laugh and learn. Moe is no slouch either. Watch him as he attempts to induce a woman to sit on a bear trap. Larry, as usual, is the Zen master of reaction. All in all, one of the very best Stooge shorts. You won't find one weak moment. | 1 |
This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.<br /><br />The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.<br /><br />Overall, I would give it a thumbs up! | 1 |
This is a great little movie, full of interesting characters and situations. While not in the same class as some of the better-known movies of its time, it is still extremely watchable and memorable. The scene where Zachary Scott, sitting on a bus, casually steals the airman pin from the lapel of a coat thrown over the seat next to him, is terrific. It defines his character beautifully -- a guy who's so low, he'll purloin something of inestimable value to a war veteran, to use as a prop in his various charades. He lies easily as the situation calls for, and captivates the women in the Fenchurch household with his irresistible charm and that killer smile.<br /><br />I couldn't help wondering if this movie was made to capitalize on the success of Mildred Pierce. Scott and Bruce Bennett were teamed again, and Faye Emerson bears some resemblance to Joan Crawford, with her facial bone structure and large eyes. Also, the Mona Freeman character is not unlike the odious Veda in Mildred Pierce.<br /><br />I agree with a previous comment that the ending to the movie was too pat, with the convenient tumble over a cliff for "Ronnie Mason", Zachary Scott's character. Also, in one of the final scenes, we see bratty Mona Freeman reunited with the boyfriend she had previously scorned in favor of the older, smoother Zachary Scott. I think the script should've called for her to be chastened for her behavior and for her cruelty toward her sister, instead of treating it as just a typical adolescent episode. But these are minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable and well-made movie. | 1 |
Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
Cimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the "best" pictures. | 0 |
I saw this film last night (about 102 minutes) and don't know what kept me in my seat. I guess I just expected a film with Gere would have some value in it eventually but nothing of value ever came on the screen. The story is a silly excuse to pile on shot after shot of bondage and torture. There is not a character in the film that does anything like real life. The cutting "style" relies on jump cuts, mini flashbacks and overprinting to give weight to this vapid setup of a gang of sadists apparently running free for years and SURPRISE the leader is the "victim" of an executed killer. I don't see how Gere, a Buddhist, got involved in this violent, sexist trash. | 0 |
A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.<br /><br />Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book "Nightmare USA." While watching it, you wonder the following<br /><br />-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?<br /><br />-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?<br /><br />-What the hell am I watching?<br /><br />"Death Bed" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.<br /><br />In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much. | 1 |
This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all. | 0 |
The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent. | 0 |
OK, no one will confuse this with Citizen Kane but you've got to love a movie where the women are always topless. There are a few catfights and some kinky sex as well. On the other hand I hope they didn't overpay the guy who wrote the dialogue. Here's a prime example. After one of the captive girls dies: <br /><br />"This is terrible. It reminds me of the day Zenobia died" "A relative?" "No, my favorite cow." I guess they saved some money on the script and blew it on great special effects like that plastic crocodile. I will say that it took me three sittings to make it through this fine work of art, never a good sign. I guess that's what happens after a while when everything looks the same. I hope the folks waiting to rent it next didn't get too impatient. Don't worry folks, it's on it's way. | 0 |
The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.<br /><br />Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.<br /><br />Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the "Doom-cam". Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.<br /><br />I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.<br /><br />I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity. | 0 |
While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that he will return to her.<br /><br />Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great film. | 1 |
I rented "New Best Friend" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as "Gossip" and "The Curve". Instead, "New Best Friend" is much more like "The In Crowd", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. "New Best Friend" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time. | 0 |
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure. | 0 |
I, like many die-hard Trekkers (or Trekkies, i don't care!) suffered through seven seasons of "Star Trek Voyager", dreaming of a better show when it was over, lamenting the end of "Deep Space Nine" in 1999. prayers, answered. "Enterprise" is fantastic. Fresh perspective, radically different characters, stunning new visuals, a pop-song for the intro. (I was shocked!) I can't think of anything I didn't like. sign me up for 10 seasons of this show. "Star Trek" is back - "Voyager," nobody misses you! Keep on Trekkin'!<br /><br />> | 1 |
I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.<br /><br />In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10. | 0 |
I question anyone saying they don't care for this movie. Some reviewers have said it didn't have enough action, some said it was too long, etc. Don't listen to them!!! If you like Shawshank Redemption and/or Braveheart, you will definitely love this movie!<br /><br />The acting performances are superb! Tim Roth, John Hurt and Jessica Lang are allsuperb and Liam Neeson does an admarible job and is a very imposing character because of his size. The Cinemaphotography was brilliant and breathtaking. It is onw of the few movies I have seen in my life (along with Shawshank) that was virtually flawless from casting, directing, writing, acting, etc.!!!<br /><br />I was amazed this wasn't in the top 50 or 100 movies reviewed. I felt so passionately about it that I just registered with IMDB so I could let everyone know the real scoop. I have seen this movie about 10 times (each time with a different person) and everyone has loved it! You must be awake and pay attention carefully for the first 30 minutes because they introduce quite a few characters in the beginning. If you have the attention span longer than most of these juvenille kids writing reviews for the movies on this site, than you will love this movie! Come on...all 3 Lord of the Rings movies in the top 9 and the Matrix at #32?!?! That should show you the age range of most reviewers here!<br /><br />This is a top 50 movie!!! | 1 |
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guyhis films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.<br /><br />Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.<br /><br />Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.<br /><br />Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me. | 0 |
This is the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me. | 0 |
Arthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.<br /><br />Later, in the "surprise twist", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not "Twilight Zone-y" enough for my tastes. | 0 |
I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accurately and without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography. | 1 |
Yet another remake of "Fistful of Dollars", Sergio Leone's remake of Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" (suggested by the novel 'Red Harvest').<br /><br />This one is strictly a B-Movie; taken as that, it is rather enjoyable. the direction is crisp, the acting full of verve, the limitations of its 'direct-to-video' photography well-handled.<br /><br />The weakness of the film is in the disastrous decision to marry the 'fistful'/'yojimbo' plot to a sub-plot from Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. Although leone directed both 'Fistful' and 'West', his motivations behind the two films couldn't be anymore different. The 'Man With No Name' (Eastwood) is a borderline socio-path with a soft spot for broken families. Harmonica (Chaeles Bronson) is obsessed with his own broken family, and obsessed with revenge. These two characters would not have had much to do with each other. In order to bring them together, 'Gun Crazy' has to twist it's plot and complicate it until we lose track of which story we're actually following.<br /><br />But this is a B-Movie after all, and filled with action and silliness; it's entertaining on that level, just don't expect anything more. | 1 |
So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...<br /><br />This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!<br /><br />If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!<br /><br />But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.<br /><br />Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!<br /><br />so.. deal for yourself! good luck | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.