text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Have just seen this film, in Australia on satellite. As i have been avoiding the news more so than usual over the last week coming from the US of A regarding gunmen, well to be absolutely blunt, this film is a prescient gem. A big bravo to all involved. i had only a small idea of what the film entailed as is most often the case for good effect and this certainly came up with cinematic goods. the setting of the scene is effective in the truest sense of the word, with all the hairy confronting subjects of today's world in relation to one's own faltering family, albeit suburb. The first forty minutes sets such a professional theater i was not ready for the out loud laughs when they came. Although the cathartic moment built via comedy and character as the family and neighbors came together in an extraordinary way.<br /><br />All in all a foreseeing of who and what we are. A most meaningful film and a must see.<br /><br />please note the date of this review. | 1 |
The characters are unlikeable and the script is awful. It's a waste of the talents of Deneuve and Auteuil. | 0 |
This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality. | 0 |
Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them. | 0 |
First, let me say that although I generally appreciate Mike Judge's work, I've been merely tepid in my response to Office Space, King of the Hill, and Beavis and Butthead. I generally prefer more intelligent comedy, and therein lies the irony with respect to Idiocracy.<br /><br />In a future world where the embodiment of Beavis and Butthead's views, basest instincts, and intellectual capacities are the framework of a chaotic, messy, semi-Mad Max semi-Blade Runner society, where every trailer-trash guy's fantasy becomes reality, a man with even average intelligence is threatening and accused of talking gay, and the mob mentality takes over. And this world is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Yes, it's obvious that Carl's Jr., Starbucks, Costco and Fuddruckers executives will be horrified at the twisted values given their products in the year 2505.<br /><br />There were some missed opportunities with the film, and the relationship between the time travelers - the other being an average intelligence woman who's worried about her boyfriend's (pimp's) retribution - could have been stronger; the chemistry is there. And there don't seem to be too many women in the future.<br /><br />I did leave with a grin on my face, but the experience is a bit better than the memories. Thus, it's my kind of popcorn film, and it will be fun to revisit on video. Recommended! FYI stay through the credits for an extra scene. | 1 |
No laughs whatsoever. Yes, I watched this entire train wreck but only so that I wouldn't later wonder if Cleese had come to his senses in the latter part. (No, he had not.) <br /><br />This may be historically interesting to you youngsters out there, to see that British "humor" included black "jokes" like these, thirty years ago. <br /><br />What amazes me even more though, is to read the other reviewers' comments, which acknowledge this isn't very good, yet then turn around and give it high votes. If the vast majority of the comedies that you have seen are even much worse than this one, then I certainly pity your torturous existences. <br /><br />The humor level of this show appears aimed at little kids, yet the subject matter does not. So who is this for? People who enjoy repeated & drawn-out double-takes, pratfalls, drug jokes (interesting only as a short trip back to '77), and other "low" humor. The Three Stooges are still funny, and were to me as a kid, too. THEY exerted some effort in making jokes work. This however is sloughed off schlock. I fear that it IS the end of civilization, if this stuff really is accepted as worthwhile. Next you'll be telling me that tabloid TV is popular. :( | 0 |
Hari Om is about an impossible love between a French tourist and the auto-rickshaw driver who agrees to take her to a rendezvous with her indifferent boyfriend. A sort of third-world road movie, that careens from lush reverie to madcap comedy, it is distinguished by the stellar performance of Vijay Raaz, who has become one of India's busier actors after his appearance as the event planner in Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding.<br /><br />In an interview, Raaz proves to be quite untouched by his success, responding rather carefully and pensively to questions. He discovered a love of acting and joined a major theatre troupe while in university, but for one with so much formal training is surprisingly inarticulate about his craft. He speaks of honesty and purity as the wellsprings of his approach, and the earnestness of his desire to communicate something authentic to the audience is clear. On screen, Raaz conveys an emotional integrity and dramatic assurance that lifts his characterization to an extraordinary level, and Director Bharatbala has cast and directed him perfectly. He has a wonderfully expressive face which the camera revels in; close-ups of that face are as compelling as shots of Camille Natta, who is gorgeous as the Frenchwoman Isa. | 1 |
Rose and the good Doctor find themselves in a space station that is on a planet that's quite impossibly hovering in orbit right below a black hole. The crew of the station is just as perplexed at that as the two new inhabitants are. Suitably spooky in it's atmosphere and gets better as the Doctor and Rose find themselves stranded due to circumstances out of their control and speaking through the submissive alien race of the Ood, something quite dark is coming from below the crust of the planet. Not haven seen the second part of this two-parter I can't vouch that the end is as strong yet. But it does make for one hell of a beginning.<br /><br />My Grade: A | 1 |
I ran across Yvette McClendon in a film at the Los Angeles Film Festival and thought she was a doll. After writing my review of her film there, I wanted to see more of her! Found this movie, it was pretty bad. Not her fault, she is only in the first few minutes where she is obviously being the person to pull you in to watch this bad movie. BAD directing. Scenes are looped over and over, with all the actresses. Amber Smith has a very bad breast job yet the other actresses looked pretty good. I really like Yvette but, this was obviously a bad choice of hers. I can't believe I rented this trash to look for her. I hope to find her other movies. | 0 |
After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. "Stay Alive" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing."Stay Alive" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd. | 0 |
Judy Davis shows us here why she is one of Australia's most respected and loved actors - her portrayal of a lonely, directionless nomad is first-rate. A teenaged Claudia Karvan also gives us a glimpse of what would make her one of this country's most popular actors in years to come, with future roles in THE BIG STEAL, THE HEARTBREAK KID, DATING THE ENEMY, RISK and the acclaimed TV series THE SECRET LIFE OF US. (Incidentally, Karvan, as a child, was a young girl whose toy Panda was stolen outside a chemist's shop in the 1983 drama GOING DOWN with Tracey Mann.) If this films comes your way, make sure you see it!! Rating: 79/100. See also: HOTEL SORRENTO, RADIANCE, VACANT POSSESSION, LANTANA. | 1 |
For romantic comedies, I often judge the quality of the film based upon the mistiness of my eyes by the end of the experience. Unfortunately for "The Wedding Date," I can only rate the film with 4 out of 10 possible tears.<br /><br />My apologies to fans of Debra Messing and Dermot Mulroney, but I did not see much chemistry between their two characters. The premise of the film is a reverse "Pretty Woman," with Dermot playing the role of Nick, a high-priced male escort hired by Debra's character Kat to accompany her to England for her sister's wedding. A romantic relationship presumably develops between patron and client. But the dialogue seemed forced and artificial. And there weren't enough romantic sparks flying in the relationship of Nick and Kat.<br /><br />In a supporting role, Amy Adams was a standout as Kat's sister. Whenever Amy came on screen, she served as a spark plug and catalyst for the film's energy. Perhaps if Amy Adams had been cast in the role of Kat, the film might have had more dynamism. But as it turned out, instead of reaching for Kleenex, I was looking for the Visine in attempt to at least pretend that this film had some genuine sentiment and romance. | 0 |
There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says "Good night." "Goodbye," he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together aha, he's going to off himself we watch him struggle to open the window oh no, he's going to jump The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcées live. The twist here is that these two are really married to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys. | 1 |
a real hoot, unintentionally. sidney portier's character is so sweet and lovable you want to smack him. nothing about this movie rings true. and it's boring to boot. | 0 |
Saw this film on DVD yesterday and was gob-smacked and flabbergasted. The unaffected acting of DDL just blew my mind, and I was surprised by the whole cast and its superb acting. All of the character were so authentic to me, I really took DDL for Christy Burns and Brenda Fricker for his mom. Go and see it! You'll cry your heart out, but you'll experience a wonderful catharsis! Besides, it teaches you one important lesson: Determination is everything. You may be a cripple in the poor suburbs of Dublin, but when you are headstrong enough you will have no problems at all. If you can only operate your left foot you are still good enough to be a painter or a writer. The worst thing you can do when you are mentally challenged is to indulge in self-pity. It won't get you anywhere and the only person who'll pity you will be yourself. | 1 |
This movie has one of the best club scenes, very good soundtrack (if you like techno/trance music)<br /><br />some situations (As the main character Carl begins to take drugs for example) are a little off reality, but the plot is entertaining, but the characters are all a little shallow...<br /><br />I'd not recommend you to see this film if you don't like techno music<br /><br />For the plot/acting alone this movie is a 4/10, with the really cool special effects and the club scenes and soundtrack it's a 7/10, but if you would want to go to the movies just to hear nice tracks and grab a little club feeling, it's a 10/10.<br /><br />the special effects are sometimes hidden, sometimes clearly visible. (i.e. fast moving clouds/sun/moon, morphing background, morphing cuts)<br /><br />I for one enjoyed it very much, a shame there was no dancefloor in the cinema ;) | 1 |
Although Stardust seems to be a fantasy film with predictable ending and average performances, it is certainly not. When i saw the movie, i knew it was going to be one of my favorite movies. And i was right. <br /><br />Stardust is more of a fairytale than an adventure film. It has this magical 'aura' from the beginning to the very end of the movie. The storyline is well written , and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Like every tale , it has some short of morality. Therefore we know in our hearts that the evil brothers won't take the throne but the innocent boy who manages to overcome every obstacle and difficulty he encounters during his journey. We also know that the true love is Yvaine and not Victoria , the material girl who is shallow and manipulative. <br /><br />I have to give extra credits to Claire Danes. She literally shines in this movie. Her eyes have this sparkle that fit totally in her character. Moreover, she and Cox do have chemistry which makes the romance in the film even more notable. The rest of the cast are well known actors and actresses which of course make Stardust an interesting and ''high classed'' movie<br /><br />Overall , the movie is FANTASTIC, the locations magical and the plot interesting.I was very disappointed that the film didn't get nominated for more awards. I have to give at least 9/10 stars for this. | 1 |
No awards show can please all the people. Clearly if your favorite movies didn't win, you will say the show wasn't very good. That's understandable.<br /><br />However, the 74th Annual Academy Awards will be remembered for one magical moment of Hollywood history:<br /><br />Woody Allen's first appearance ever at the Academy Awards.<br /><br />Allen has often shunned the awards as being self-aggrandizing and pointless, and has never attended -- even though he has won several of the coveted awards.<br /><br />When the 74th Academy Awards were held, the nation was still mourning the loss of life in the collapse of the World Trade Centers in New York. When it came time to pay tribute to the city of New York, they decided to show a video of the great movie moments form the city of cities. Then the announcer simply said:<br /><br />"Ladies and gentleman, Oscar Award winning Director Woody Allen."<br /><br />The place erupted in an extremely long standing ovation. The entertainment industry finally got to give their applause to the Man from New York who usually avoids the Hollywood scene. As the applause died down, Woody applied some of his legendary wit to the situation.<br /><br />SOME HIGHLIGHTS:<br /><br />"Thank you very much - that makes up for the strip search."<br /><br />"I thought they wanted their Oscars back," he joked. "I panicked because the pawn shop has been out of business for ages and I had no way of retrieving anything. "<br /><br />"But that wasn't it. I couldn't work it out because my movie wasn't nominated for anything this year. Then it hit me - maybe they were calling to apologise."<br /><br />Allen also disclosed why he had overlooked his lifelong Oscar-aversion for this one special night.<br /><br />"For New York City, I'd do anything. So I got my tux on and came down here," said Allen.<br /><br />"It's a great, great movie town. It's been a great, moving and exciting backdrop for movies and it remains a great, great city."<br /><br /> | 1 |
This is an enjoyable movie. Its very realistic to the "wonderful world of music" I've been there and done that. It shows a human element in each character and the realism that nobody is perfect. These amateur musicians weren't all that bad players. Cleavon Little's character, Marshall Tucker, was played very well. Marshall was no saint himself. Here he was getting paid to do a job and he's giving these guys a hard time about everything in the van on the way up there. You don't bite the hands that feed you. I do find it hard to believe that a player with the jazz experience he has, claims he does not know any of the dixieland tunes. He has a tremendous sense of predicting chord changes to tunes he does not know. Not common, but not unheard of either. He delivers a true and harsh message at the end of the movie when he tells the clarinet player, "its not a religion, devotion is not enough." On that level, he is correct, although I think the clarinet player could have handled the job. He was practicing his butt off and vocal accompaniment music is not that hard to read. Very enjoyable movie. | 1 |
I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.<br /><br />Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism. | 0 |
This series premiered on the cable TV station "Comedy Central" in the United States. It was chopped to death, and shown out of sequence. This was sad for the audience it should have attracted, it didn't and fell by the wayside. Luckily, at the same time my cable company went digital and I got the BBC. Thank goodness because I got to see "The League of Gentlemen" in order, complete and uncut. <br /><br />"The League of Gentlemen" troupe is right up there with England's "Monty Python's Flying Circus" and Canada's "The Kids in the Hall". But..a warning.<br /><br />"The League of Gentlemen" though are one step beyond. It's not only about dressing in drag and lampooning the cultural ills, it goes deeper and much, much, darker. I can tell many of you now -- it will offend certain groups of people, it will enrage others. But remember, its only comedy..dark, dark comedy. If that is not your thing, don't watch. If you think you KNOW dark comedy, watch this -- if you get angry and upset, then you don't quite know DARK COMEDY. <br /><br />These guys got it right, and right on the button. They are brilliant, they are excellent and I enjoyed each and every character creation. There's a COMPLETE story that is told here from episode one to the end. You cannot watch this one episode at a time, willy nilly, that is one of the charms of this series. Watch it in order. See how creative and stylish and deeply disturbed these guys are. No one and nothing is out of bounds. That, my dears, is "dark humor". Bravo! | 1 |
This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie. | 0 |
... and if you're very, very good it will resemble Moon Over Parador.<br /><br />This film had a slightly silly story, but it was a fantasy after all, and the casting and the acting was spot-on! Dreyfuss was perfect as the actor/impostor, full of all the little neuroses and vanities you imagine actors to have. You get a glimpse of what actors are like behind the scenes.<br /><br />This was one of Dreyfuss's best roles, just like his character has his best role impersonating the dead dictator! And the parting scene: like something out of Casablanca, indeed! <br /><br />Raul Julia was superb as the Paradorian Chief of Secret Police. He gets some really funny lines, some of which are homages to other films, like "Round up the usual suspects!" <br /><br />And Sonia Braga was excellent as the girl friend -- in addition to being a really hot number: "You should get an Oscar for tonight!" <br /><br />Let us not forget Johnny Winters as the CIA agent and the several guest stars playing themselves: Sammy Davis Jr., Ike Pappas, Dick Cavett -- all perfectly done.<br /><br />All in all, a memorable romp under the Paradorian moon.<br /><br />-R. | 1 |
I have just sat through this film again and can only wonder if we will see the likes of films like this anymore? The timeless music, the tender voices of William Holden and Jennifer Jones leave this grown man weeping through joyous, romantic scenes and I'm not one who cries very often in life. Where have our William Holden's gone and will they make these moving, wonderful, movies any more? It's sad to have to realize that they probably won't but don't think about it, just try to block that out of your mind. Even so, they won't have Holden in it and he won't appear on that hill just once more either. You can only enjoy this film and watch it again. | 1 |
I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.<br /><br />Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...<br /><br />The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up. | 0 |
LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film "Le Mouton Enrage" (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this "lost" film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the "Special Features" section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.) | 1 |
I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................ | 0 |
I saw Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.<br /><br />But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a "great" film. I've seen "Malcolm X" and was blown away. Same with "What's Love Got To Do With It" and "Bird". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.<br /><br />I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several "other" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got "choppy" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on "Lifetime" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.<br /><br />So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.<br /><br />Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he "looked" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.<br /><br />Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say "he was robbed". I wont particularly feel that he had been.<br /><br />This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A "great" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing so. | 1 |
Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :( | 0 |
Reading some of the other comments, I must agree that some of the (very few) shortcomings found in this brilliant documentary about one of the 20th century's divas (up there with Billie Holliday, Bessie Smith, Edith Piaf, Judy Garland and Mercedes de Sosa) are justified. Because initially this was a 6-hours-plus TV documentary about her career("ESTRANHA FORMA DE VIDA" (V) 1995/1999). Far more encompassing and with greater insight into Amália's inner world. As for the subtitling her songs, I'm all for it! Though the music, the voice and the performance may be - are! - universal, there is so much poetry in the words just begging to be translated. I think this was a conscious choice by the producers. They were aiming at the 200 million Portuguese speakers in Brazil, Portugal, Mozambique, France, East Timor, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Canada, the US, South Africa, St. Tome and Principe, Goa, Daman, Diu, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Germany and the rest of the Portuguese-speaking diaspora worldwide. As for the Lady herself, she did not live to see this particular shortened DVD version of the documentary, but she was given a preview of "Estranha Forma de Vida". And it seems to have been to her liking. Very much so. | 1 |
Words fail me.<br /><br />And that isn't common.<br /><br />Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.<br /><br />Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.<br /><br />Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".<br /><br />If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate. | 0 |
You have to have lived in Japan for awhile to enjoy the beauty of this movie! I lived on Okinawa for over 2 years, and northern Honshu for 4. Believe it or not, what you see paints a very good and accurate picture of contrasting east/west mentalities, both from a sports as well as personal relationships perspective. A funny, funny, and heartwarming movie that deserves better than Americans viewing it can ever judge. 8+ out of 10! | 1 |
The movie starts off as we see a footage of a huge drought back in the 30's in America. Then a short story is shown about a creepy - looking farmer Elija who made a deal with Satan , to get good harvest. Elija hired young men to work in his garden , killed them , and used as scarecrows. He also fed the ground with their blood. Some time after 2 cops come to visit him. One of them gets shot by Elija , another one kills the farmer himself... After that , the present day is shown , and some guy named Sean is told that he has an old farm left as inheritance. He decides to go there with some friends to see what's up. Little did Sean know that the next night is the "Payback Night".....<br /><br />As for me this movie had a good story for a horror flick , but low budget and poor special effects just ruined it. "Dark Harvest" is a perfect example of lazy film making. For example we see a scarecrow (a usual guy wearing a funny , cheap mask) chasing a girl. When he raises his hand we get to see a normal human skin below his glove, instead of some rotting flesh. The gore is not very impressive as well. There are some nasty killings by our "lovely" scarecrows but everything is very cheap and unrealistic. Surprisingly the acting is somewhat OK in this flick , or i better say its believable. Some nude scenes are presented as well for the fans (even a lesbian scene) ,but those scenes don't save it.<br /><br />Verdict : Good music, good story, solid acting. But awful effects , cheap gore and plot holes slow this movie down. Not really recommended. | 0 |
Watch out! This is not a gross out comedy like American Pie or you know the comedies of the new millenium. This is a sweet satire of dog shows focused on a bunch of completely different characters. Oh and the commentator is hilarious!<br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
Nothing to watch here. It's all been done (and better) before. Who cares about this woman - deficient in every way - as a mother as a wife and as a friend? In one instant when she could have taken the high road - she jumped into re-addiction with both feet and held her breath - for no better a reason than "me, too!" If she wasn't the pretty and young person she portrays on screen - but looked more like the real human wreckage that is represented by our family members, neighbors and friends who really suffer from additions we'd change channels in a nanosecond.<br /><br />This movie starts out at the bottom and goes downhill. Nothing redeeming, no lessons taught - nothing uplifting in any way. None of the main characters even evoke sympathy, let alone empathy. (Well, maybe the snake.) I would have had more fun if I'd shut a door on my hand. Who needs drivel like this? | 0 |
You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate! | 0 |
I loved this film almost as much as the origional version!What teenager DOESN'T go through what Scamp's going through;wanting to find independence by getting more and more distant from your family?The songs were nice to,and the character designs were great.Lady and Tramp look almost exactly like they did in the origional feature.They did a good job on the voices of those two,too considering the fact that the origional voice actors are probably dead.However,I do think they should've given more lines to Lady,Annette,Colette,and Daniel.Oh well;at least they had the common sense to keep the same scenery from the original film. | 1 |
I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision. | 0 |
If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD. | 0 |
This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on. | 1 |
i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as "camera copies" of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a great time w/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos.<br /><br />when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first thought was, "cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is" (i have several phone boxes and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent quality of story, character development and f/x. i was to say the least - pleased. for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but now the bar has risen...<br /><br />bad wolf rules!!!!!<br /><br />2008 update - i love David tennant! his "mod" persona is something that my generation remembers, my son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best ride on TV | 1 |
The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.<br /><br />The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.<br /><br />Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...<br /><br />This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it. | 1 |
Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!<br /><br />How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?<br /><br />Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? <br /><br />I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion! | 0 |
I just saw this film and I recommend it. It has a very good plot, it holds your complete attention, the acting is superb, Tom Wilkinson was fantastic and Emily Watson was also very good. A very good film indeed, about great and unconditional love. Tom Wilkinson's character is a man who is not prepared for the ordeal that is about to begin, but he takes the matter in hand as the story progresses, and this great actor gives a performance that makes you feel the character's anguish and suffering. Emily Watson's character is very strong, and she has only to give a quick glance and you understand everything. I won't say more because it is better for you have to enter the story as it unfolds. | 1 |
This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression! | 1 |
Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.<br /><br />Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.<br /><br />By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old "Boo" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.<br /><br />I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order. | 0 |
The thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!<br /><br />This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!<br /><br />She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!<br /><br />Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!<br /><br />After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.<br /><br />Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor. | 0 |
Oddly enough, it's Fred MacMurray who plays the more "screwy" part in this screwball comedy. Carole Lombard shows a fine performance combining lighter moments with and undercurrent of drama and seriousness.<br /><br />As usual, Fred MacMurray remains a mystery to me. The camera is no fan of his, he's not that attractive, and he doesn't have the style and panache to pull off this very Cary Grant-like role.<br /><br />Ralph Bellamy is excellent as the kind friend coming back to life through his relationship with Lombard's character. One can only wonder why her character wouldn't want his gentle, reassuring love instead of the almost certain doom of MacMurray's ineptness. But that's Hollywood!<br /><br />The picture almost works but misses the mark, primarily due to MacMurray's performance. It would've been lovely to see Grant or even Clark Gable in his role. Lombard and Bellamy are largely believable and likable; MacMurray is stiff and makes you want to keep him at arm's length. | 0 |
After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all<br /><br /> | 1 |
I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination. | 0 |
This is the best series of its type I've seen all year. I can't help thinking it's just my luck - a series I love gets 6 episodes (and more next year) and the constant stream of cookie-cutter cop shows get never ending episodes.<br /><br />I think the reasons New Tricks succeeds are many. The scripts are good, and the mix of characters superb, The acting is top flight, and the blend of comedy and drama works a treat. The stories aren't all that memorable, but that's not the reason I watch shows like this one. <br /><br />The theme song is a favourite, and we were disappointed to find it isn't available in any published edition. Great stuff, BBC- a triumph of sense over sex-appeal (aside from the young constable nobody's there as eye-lolly, and even if he IS, he can still act!). | 1 |
The first time I've seen this DVD, I was not only happy because of the fact that it was the first time in decades that the band put out anything, but also because the DVD itself is extremely loud. Jimmy Page obviously can't live with quiet music, I guess. I do must say though that during the concert at Royal Albert Hall, they expanded 'How many more times' and 'Moby Dick' too long. Other than that, it was exquisit. My favorite song of all time is now on that DVD. Trampled Underfoot. It's either that one or 'In my time of dying'. In that song, Jimmy really plays that thing good. Ever seen Randy Rhoads play? Well, Jimmy plays just like him, except his guitar is lower. | 1 |
I try to watch it everyday most of the time, and even though I have watched it for the past 4 years, I have not seen every episode.<br /><br />The Show is about Danny Tanner who is guy who does news for sports. His wife is killed by a car accident from a drunk driver and he asks Jesse, an Elvis maniac with a motorcycle and has an obsession of his hair. Joey, an adult kid who does comedy and does voices of cartoons all the time to take care of his three girls, Donna Joe, they call her D.J., Stephinie who is the second oldest and Michelle, the youngest.<br /><br />They all live under one roof with no one to help them out.<br /><br />Later in the show, Jesse gets a girl friend and later is married to her and have twins, Nicki and Alex. (this starts to happen in the new seasons) This show is awesome, if you like The Suite life of Zack and Cody, That's so Raven, Boy Meets world, and Designing Woman, you will love this. (It starts to get better in the ending seasons) Watch it, you will love it! | 1 |
I can't actually think of one good point in this film. The story is absolutely terrible. THe acting is as blunt as a carrot, and the script is so bad it makes you want to kill yourself. OK fine if you love (and you have to love it to understand) snowboarding you might enjoy it microscopically better, as it has large mountains and some cool moves but apart from that it is terrible. It has some absolutely stupid ideas and it is racist with both black and white people insulting each others races. The only time you will laugh is when you are laughing at the stupidity or you are feeling embarrassed for the film. I have seen a lot of films and i have to say that this is the worst film i have ever seen. If you have this film i would suggest you take it back to wherever you bought it from and get you money back. | 0 |
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever. | 0 |
The DVD release of this superior made for TV BBC drama is a more than welcome addition to my collection. Great acting, gripping story, and wonderful direction all add up to one of the best BBC dramas in years. | 1 |
I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection DVD restoration is impressive.<br /><br />In its outline this movie follows the time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us two movies for the price of one.<br /><br />John Servais plays the idea man Tony le Stéphanois (always referred to as "le Stéphanois") with such world-weariness that he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist. They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist.<br /><br />The heist goes off without a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most memorable scenes from any noir film.<br /><br />It is established early on that Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son, partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially. | 1 |
By the late forties the era of the screwball comedy was over, as films were moving in a different direction, comedically and otherwise. With television looming on the horizon, Hollywood would soon be in for a very rough time. Where, one wonders, would movies have gone had television not come along, or its arrival on the scene been delayed by five or ten years? Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House offers one particular way comedy might have developed.<br /><br />Ad man Jim Blandings, along with his wife and two daughters, are living in a nice but way too cramped New York City apartment, as one day he gets the bright idea that it might be fun to realize his dream of building a house in the suburbs. So he buys some property in Connecticut and has one built to his precise specifications. Well, almost. Had he known the trouble he was in for he might have changed his mind. Then again he might not have. You decide. On this frail premise a wonderful film results, full of conflict between the middle class dream of owning one's own home and the the oftentimes unpleasant reality of acquiring one. Nothing comes easy in this life, as Mr. Blandings learns; but one needn't be miserable just because things don't always go one's way. There is, after all, the long run. But, Blandings asks himself every few minutes, how long is long?<br /><br />This movie is a delight. It is not, I suppose, a masterpiece in the Capra-McCarey tradition, but it is a worthy successor to their thirties pictures, and may well have been a harbinger of things to come had the arrival of television not changed the cultural landscape so radically. There is real warmth in the picture, and a good deal of (W.C.) Fieldsian hard-edged reality obtruding periodically, but not so much as to leave a bad taste. The people in the film are all very smart and affluent, but decidedly of the professional upper middle not the idle rich upper class.<br /><br />Lead players Cary Grant and Myrna Loy plays Mr. and Mrs. Blandings to perfection; while Melvyn Douglas is fine as their pragmatic lawyer friend, who often has to bring up unpleasant topics, such as how the real world works. There is, too, a wonderful sense of what for want of a better term one might call the romance of suburbia, which was in its infancy in the immediate postwar years, as one sees the woods and streams that drew people to the country in the first place. These people are most definitely fish out of water in the then still largely rural Connecticut. In a few short years things would change, as the mad rush to suburbia would be in full gear, destroying forever the pastoral innocence so many had yearned for in the small towns, which soon would be connected by highways, littered with bottles and cans, their effluvia rivaling anything one would encounter in the city. | 1 |
This film without doubt is one of the worst I have seen. It was so boring that I simply could not wait for it to end. I talked my girlfriend into watching it after this site had good reviews and after even 30 mins in she looked at me as if to say "your nuts" The scenery was as boring as the film with nothing but driving around in the car looking at the wind blowing bits of bush around. The acting was un-inspiring and the film was simply a waste of what have been a good idea into a waste of a dvdr.<br /><br />Guy Pierce should have stuck to neighbours as at least he washed his hair. All he done was talk on his phone but yet sold nothing as a salesman. He would have been sacked weeks before. His girlfriend (once in Coyote Ugly) should have remained dancing on the bar as at least she looked hot in that.<br /><br />The guy who played Vincent (those who watched know) was so annoying with his phone calls that any normal person would have drove to his house and hit him with a bit of 4 by 2.<br /><br />I do not on this earth know what anyone liked about it. I actually want people to watch this to suffer the torture I went through. | 0 |
Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:<br /><br />I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.<br /><br />There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes <br /><br />Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt<br /><br />The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs<br /><br />For a "family" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid <br /><br />Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.<br /><br />Just painful. Avoid. | 0 |
I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right). | 0 |
In 2023, in a world ruled by the economical interests of the great corporations (and not by the people will or politicians), Kam (Bobbie Phillips) is a human hybrid and IBI (International Bureau of Investigation) agent. She is denominated a `sub'(from sub-human), and her genetic composition is 80% human and 20% animal. She has a combination of genes of cougar, that gives her strength and flexibility; falcon, that giver her a increased capacity of seeing and hearing; and chameleon, that gives her the power of camouflage. In the first film, she was a very seductive and amoral woman, using sex to achieve information. I do not have watched the second yet, but in this third one, the story is full of action. A group of scientists has been developing a new and dangerous form of power generation for fifteen years. The research has not been concluded yet, when one of them betrayal the other and steals the research. The problem is that, due to its molecular instability, a black hole will be created and will suck the whole planet. Kam saves Dr. Tess Adkins (Teal Redmann), the survival of the team of scientist, and tries to retrieve the dangerous invent from the hands of the `bad guys'. There is a very strong `sub' in this gang that causes many difficulties for Kam. This action and sci-fi television movie is better than the first one, recalling `The Terminator' in some parts of the plot. Bobbie Phillips is a very beautiful actress, and her outfit is very cool. I am becoming a fan of this good entertainment. Fans of sci-fi movies will not be disappointed. Now I am trying to buy `Chameleon 2'. My vote is seven. | 1 |
The title says it all.<br /><br />I'm not a film critic nor will I act like the rest of the snobbish people commenting on this movie.<br /><br />Obviously this movie didn't have a multi-million dollar budget, but the plot was very well done, the acting was awesome and the cinematography was great! It looked like you all had a lot of fun making this movie! I voted 9 out of 10 as the sound was strong on only one channel instead of both, but I imagine this might have been an error in the recording of the DVD.<br /><br />I'll definitely be checking out other movies produced by Brain Damage Films! <br /><br />Dylan O'Leary, cast and crew, I thank you! | 1 |
SPOILERS!<br /><br />I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)<br /><br />Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..<br /><br />Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, "oh my god it's poo."<br /><br />I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol<br /><br />Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog..... | 0 |
Even by the lowered standards of '80s slasher movies, this one stinks. The usual gaggle of oversexed teens heads for a "forbidden" part of forest, which burned in the 1940s and apparently left a sole angry survivor. Fast forward (actually, you'll want to fast-forward through much of this mess) to the present day, where a couple of campers are butchered; the teens follow in their wake, while a semi-concerned park ranger (a sleepwalking Jackie Coogan) and his healthier cohort (who spins a lot of time tuning his banjo) succeed partially in steering our attention from yards of run-of-the-mill nature-footage padding. Finally, more killings--but nothing you haven't seen a zillion times before. If you want to see the kids butchered, opt for SLEEPAWAY CAMP or the first FRIDAY THE 13TH over this | 0 |
Beautifully filmed, well acted, tightly scripted suspense movie. Had me on the edge of my seat. I liked the lead actress very much, and thought the villain was very well done. Not much to chew on here in the way of a theme, but if you just get in your seat, turn your brain off, watch the fancy camera work, and enjoy the plot, you will have a great time. The plot is well worn, and regular movie goers will probably know more or less what to expect by about ten minutes in. But that didn't bother me, as I enjoyed watching it unfold. In the old days, they might not have focused so tightly on just two characters, and there were some enticing moments when I hoped they were going to let some other people have a few lines. But these folks were probably right to keep the movie so tightly focused. The plot got me by the throat fairly early on, and never let go. It's not a good idea to think too much either during or after the movie. as I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense. Just sit back and enjoy. | 1 |
I first saw the trailer for Frailty on Yahoo Movies way back in the day, after hearing Stephen King praise it to high heaven. Not really a fan of either star, I still wanted to see it because I'm a huge thriller fan.<br /><br />I was not disappointed. The acting was superb, especially from the two young boys. Usually I loathe child actors, but Young Adam and Young Fenton were excellent. Bill Paxton really did a good job of directing it too. It was beautifully shot.<br /><br />One must also note the plot twists. The three twists at the end hit hard and fast, and I didn't see them coming. The final twist of the film, coupled with the gravity of what had just been revealed, gives me chills to this day, even though I've re-watched the film so many times.<br /><br />A true gem. | 1 |
This film would be particularly fun for anyone who has been in the film industry, especially in any indie capacity... those whose inheritance includes a film introduction may not appreciate it quite as much. I am hard to please in the documentary category. This doc is different though- its pleasure comes from an earthy realism of indie filmmaker punks who are a hoot to be around and watch. Whether you've ever wondered what it is like to be in films, in front of or behind the camera, or whether you have worked your way through the sometimes painful and hard but rewarding indie world, you'll certainly get a kick out of this film. | 1 |
It must be said that the director of The Cell, Tarsem Singh, has quite handily established himself with his first feature, which happens to rank as one of the most visually astounding films in contemporary cinema.<br /><br />The Cell is more of a visceral experience than a film. As a thriller, it rises above most of its peers, with competent editing and a chilling score effectively providing an exceptionally suspenseful atmosphere. However, it is ultimately Tarsem's skill for elaborate and disturbing set design and imagery that carries the film's jolting sense of terror.<br /><br />As with several recent films, I have been shocked by the alarming hypocrisy among those who have commented negatively about The Cell; in defence of the film, I will address a few of these issues. The plot appears to be the main concern, and while it is not revolutionary and borrows heavily from The Silence of the Lambs, it was never intended to be the most important aspect of the film; the plot itself is a vehicle through which Tarsem's vision--simultaneously horrifying and wondrous--is presented to the audience, much in the same way that the plot of The Silence of the Lambs is secondary to the fascinating study of its two lead characters, Lecter and Starling. While The Silence of the Lambs is clearly the superior film, it is irrational for one to condemn the plot of The Cell, and in the same breath, praise that of The Silence of the Lambs.<br /><br />My final concern is the mention of "MTV style" directing. It pains me to see the condemnation of directors who use innovative camera and cinematography techniques. A camera has the potential to be much more than simply a tool with which to record events; angles, pans, colour adjustment, and so forth, are all used to their full extent in The Cell with the purpose of creating the sense of a dream-like state that could not have been otherwise achieved. This is essential to the film, as the entire premise behind it is the visualization of a serial killer's subconscious. If you simply want a series of static shots, stick to stage plays and give up cinema altogether.<br /><br />That being said, The Cell is thoroughly entertaining, terrifying, and breathtaking in both its pacing and design. Anyone who is able to look past the--perhaps uninspired, yet never dull--screenplay will find one of the best films of the year 2000. | 1 |
iv been a fan of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmednson ever since i can remember weather its young ones or bottom. and i just have to say i have never laughed so much in all my life!!! guest house paradiso is bloody brilliant! i know its not going to be everyones cup of tea (with the vomiting,slapstick comedy, violence and foul language) but then just don't watch it if it ain't yours. its not like no one knows what sick and twisted things Rik and Ade come up with when they're working with one another!! i think its unfair that this film received such a slatting from critics because,and i don't think I'm the only one to think this, this film is 10 out of 10! : ) | 1 |
This is an excellent film dealing with a potentially exploitative subject with great sensitivity. Anne Reid, previously best known in the UK for her TV roles including 'Dinnerladies' (a Victoria Wood scripted series on in-company catering workers, if you're wondering), gives a performance of finely judged understatement as May, a late-60s bereaved mother of two chattering class adults in an inner-London borough. Her husband Toots (Peter Vaughan) dies on their visit to the male of the latter species (Bobby), and we see the pair being rather casually greeted by Bobby and his family. May's teacher daughter Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) lives nearby, however, and the relationship between May and Paula initially appears closer. Thus when May decides she cannot live in her own home and comes back to London, she is able to stay in Paula's house and do some child-minding of Paula's more appreciative offspring.<br /><br />It is on May's visits to Bobby's house that she embarks on an affair with Darren, a mid-30s friend of Bobby who is working on a house extension. In what may be the first mainstream British film to so portray it, it is May and not Darren (Daniel Craig*) who initiates the encounter, and, at least to begin with, it seems that the relationship is founded on mutual respect. There is no explicit sexual content (at least in the DVD I saw: differences in the IMDb cast list suggests the existence of other versions), and the physical basis of the affair is handled directly but not exploitatively. More strongly portrayed is the relationship between May and daughter Paula, a recent convert to 'therapy and self-exploration', who announces that mummy has never been supportive of her. Paula is also Darren's lover, and when she finds May's explicit but rather poor drawings of Darren and May together, things go downhill in dramatic but controlled fashion. Only in an English film, perhaps, could a daughter announce that she is going to hit her mother, politely ask her to stand up, and duly wallop her.<br /><br />In the mean time, May is being drawn into a putative relationship with a decent but older (of her own generation) member of Paula's writing group. The contrast between the ensuing unwanted intercourse and her affair with Darren is clearly made; it is at that point that May starts to acquiesce to Paula, and Darren's worm begins to turn (he reveals on cocaine that he may have been after her money, if not all along, but for some of the ride). So May finds herself superfluous to both of her children's needs, and finally does return home (but later leaves on a jet plane for pastures new).<br /><br />The film's strength is that it portrays with unflinching but sympathetic truth the nature of contemporary adult parent-sibling relationships, where bereavement may leave the surviving parent feeling more alone than if they had no-one to care for them. This is not new, but the openness of the portrayal of sexual need in the over-60s may well be. The darkness of the film's content, from a screenplay by Hanif Kureishi, stands in contrast to the way in which it is lit (it seems to be perpetual summer), and the overall mood is uplifting - it could so easily have been yet another piece set in a dour and rainy England. The ending is perhaps under-written, as we don't know where May is going or for how long - perhaps she's Shirley Valentine with a pension, she's certainly no Picasso. Anne Reid is, however, revealed as a fine actor whose professional life will surely have changed forever. Like Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain (said by Paul Newman), "There goes your Mary Poppins {read Dinnerladies} image for good".<br /><br />* Yes, he: announced Oct 2005 as the new James Bond. | 1 |
After watching this movie once, it quickly became one of my favorites. As different events happen in the movie, you change your mind about Prot, back and forth, until the end and even after. The movie is very thought-provoking and a must-watch!! | 1 |
Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)"Feast of the Dead" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the "evil breeder" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.<br /><br />Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick. | 0 |
Since I'd seen the other three, I figured I might as well catch this made for TV fourth part of The Omen series. As a stand alone film, this movie is mediocre; but as a sequel to the 1976 masterpiece; it's a travesty. The film goes along the same route that many series' go down when they're running out of ideas; that being the idea of changing the male lead to a female. It's always obvious that this film was made for television as the acting is very standard, the plot lacks ideas and the gruesome murder scenes seen in the previous three are kept to a bloodless minimum. The film does keep a thread with the original, which I won't reveal as despite being obvious; that revelation is one of the most interesting aspects of the movie. The basics of the plot largely copy Richard Donner's original, and see a young couple adopt a child, which they name Delia (not Damiella or Damiana, fortunately). There's a big dog involved, and a child minder; and pretty soon, the wife starts to suspect that the child may not quite be normal; as she's menstruating at eight years old, and never suffered from any illnesses...<br /><br />The first two sequels to The Omen weren't bad at all, and the series really should have ended at number three. I guess there was money involved somewhere down the line, as there really is no artistic reason why this film should have been made. It brings nothing to the table in terms of originality, and the only thing it's likely to succeed in doing is annoying fans of the series. The film looks and feels like a TV movie all the way through and for the most part plays out like a film about the troubled upbringing of a young girl. Indeed, Asia Vieira does look like a little bitch; but she never convinces that she's the Antichrist, as her stares are redundant and most of the 'evil' she does is laughable. Faye Grant is given the meatiest role, and doesn't impress; while the rest of the cast regret agreeing to star in such an awful waste of time. The only good thing about this movie is the theme tune, which of course has been ripped off from the original; and is overused. On the whole, this film really isn't worth seeing; as it delivers nothing that the series is famous for, and doesn't even do justice to weaker second sequel. | 0 |
Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!). | 1 |
This project was originally conceived as the movie version of popular Japanese manga SlamDunk! and that's not something new to Jay Chou, who made his movie debut playing a character from another wildly popular manga Initial D. Along the way, it was decided to incorporate some kung fu into the movie, so hence the title, even if the idea wasn't very original, with Stephen Chow's Shaolin Soccer coming to mind with martial arts and ball games combined.<br /><br />However, and thankfully, those scenes where kung fu actually influenced the games were kept to a bare minimum, and in Kung Fu Dunk, really quite unnecessary, because they don't add much to the plot nor drum up much excitement, and at most offered some cheap laughs and reminisced about the time when Stephen Chow used kung fu in football games. Jay Chou is comfortable in his role as a martial artist Fang Shi-jie since it's not the first time he fought using martial arts (Curse of the Golden Flower anyone?), and under the stunt direction of Ching Siu-Tung, he was made to look really believable as he trashes countless of gangsters in a bar as seen in the trailer, just to let you know who's boss.<br /><br />That was almost why his character is made a kung fu practitioner, and for the fact of giving him an excuse for being a top shot, able to shoot the hoops from practically any angle. And with Eric Tsang as a small time hustler Chen-Li who sees his potential and becomes his agent, he joins a university to play varsity basketball, but not without the initial objection of team captain Ting-wei (Chen Bo-Lin) and team star Xiao-lan (Baron Chen, in his big-screen debut). But you know with team members on the same side, it's not before long they combine their strengths to take on adversaries on the basketball court.<br /><br />And I will stick my neck out to say that this movie is to basketball just as how Goal was to football. It made the sport look good because of its charismatic characters, despite them dripping so much coolness and aloofness on the courts. Here, special effects and wire-work were employed to make the actors seem like professionals who can take out a top side in the NBA league, and in all honesty, really looked stunning, especially when they mimic various dunking moves, and performing combo-moves thanks to technology and stunt work. So in actuality, the kung fu elements don't really have to be in the movie. The stunt work itself will be able to justify most of the moves as they're quite grounded to reality, only having you to suspend belief that boys of average height have springs in their feet to leap that height for a professional dunk.<br /><br />Pity too that the number of games were only a handful, with the time spent on plenty of subplots, but each were loosely developed and flitted in and out of the story as and when they please. Things like the abandoned Shi-jie's quest to use the basketball games to get his parents to one day attend them, that of gangsterism penetrating and influencing games, and his love life with Charlene Choi in yet another flower vase role just to look good and do nothing else. Everyone's acting a little too cool, leaving little room for main characters to add depth. One of the key themes here is the realization of the importance of teamwork rather than on individual talent and ability, and it could have been brought out much stronger if the players themselves interacted a lot more off the court, than only on it, and during competitive games, apart from the high-fives and friendly passes.<br /><br />With the US$10 million budget, it is easy to see where the money went to - the effects, in particular, a massive fantasy sequence at a crucial point in the movie. It's quite flawless, nice to look at and probably justifiable on its quality alone, but again I like to emphasize, that even without those elements, the basketball stunts itself would still make this a decent movie with nifty basketball moves. And having Jay Chou playing for your team is a big boost to any hopes of a box office success. | 1 |
While everyone does a decent job in this film, I agree with the other comment: it's too loose and scattered, too much like a script-less experiment with really talented actors. As such, it isn't enough to hold your attention. Having said that, there are a few really funny moments, one involving Dylan McDermott and a flaming shot glass that I think anyone who's been that drunk would find as funny as I did; the other is a split-second with an inflatable dinosaur. Crispin Glover does his usual nutty twitch-fest guy and does it fine, Harry Dean Stanton does his usual nutty patriarch (Repo Man, anyone?) etc. Good cast, not enough to keep it going. Just a few gems, seconds long. | 0 |
Drivel. Utter junk. The writers must not have read the book, or seen David Lynch's film. Not worth wasting your time.<br /><br />Longer does not make better. While more in-depth then Lynch's film, it has gross in-accuracies, and down-play's key parts of the story.<br /><br />"A Night at the Roxbury" is more worth your time. | 0 |
House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.<br /><br />I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.<br /><br />I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.<br /><br />Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.<br /><br />There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....<br /><br />House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.<br /><br />In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie. | 1 |
This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment. | 0 |
This early Warner Brothers talkie "Son of the Gods" (1930) deals with the racial intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but contempt.<br /><br />Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess of "Only Angels Have Wings"), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E. Alyn Warren of "Gone With The Wind"), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London, England, peeling potatoes while he is on board.<br /><br />During the trip, he encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of "Arrowsmith"), who needs some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of "Two-Faced Woman"), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop in front of a room filled with on-lookers.<br /><br />Of course, Sam is terribly devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of "Iron Man") sends Sam a telegram about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana, Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and they marry and live happily ever after.<br /><br />This socially conscientious Warner Brothers/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it, they wind up in each other's arms.<br /><br />The capitulation on the race issue with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power. Incredibly, "Son of the Gods" is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced performance. Despite its age, "Son of the Gods" is a son of a good movie! | 1 |
Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.<br /><br />Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".<br /><br />If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.<br /><br />The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.<br /><br />The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.<br /><br />There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all. | 0 |
Wow. I watched One Night at McCool's yesterday, and all I can say is, "Wow."<br /><br />Here I go. MAJOR SPOILERS.<br /><br />Would you like a summary of the plot, just to see how stupid and pointless this movie is? I would never tell anybody to watch it, unless I was out to inflict pain upon them. Anyway, here's a glimpse (or a huge chunk) of the plot.<br /><br />Randy works for a bar, McCool's. He meets up with this woman named Jewel who convinces him to, surprisingly, have sex with him. Her ex-boyfriend ends up trying to rob them and gets killed. Randy and his cousin and the detective at the scene of the crime all fall for Jewel. She, being the mascot of stupidity, uses every one of these guys to get what she wants, involving a DVD player. Randy hires a hit man to kill her, and eventually the detective is killed by the ex-boyfriend's psycho brother and the hit man and Jewel take off.<br /><br />Seriously. That's it. I left hardly anything out, except for a few more sex scenes and a nearly-pornographic scene of Liv Tyler as Jewel using a hose to flaunt her sexuality.<br /><br />What was the point of this movie? To be honest, I think it was so that the producers and directors could show off their male urges. Which I think is absolutely uncalled for and just plain stupid. When I watch a movie, I want a plot. I want characters. I don't care about sexy woman flaunting anything they might have. Something should happen in a movie, for goodness' sake. This is as bad as Fight Club.<br /><br />It gets even worse. John Goodman is the detective devoted to the higher being. I myself wondered why Goodman would play in something so outrageously pitiful as this, but then I remembered that he was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? as well. His reputation just went down a notch.<br /><br />Liv Tyler was an amazing actress in the Lord of the Rings series. In this movie she is nothing more than an unintelligent slut who wants nothing but her way. Her reputation has gone down seven or eight notches, to me.<br /><br />I am amazed, simply AMAZED that people would work so hard to make something so stupid. The music is absolutely crappy (having "YMCA" play while John Goodman's character is being killed doesn't really fit), the characters are totally unlikeable, the plot is one of the most stupid ever conceived by man, and to top it off, it doesn't even fit into any genre. The closest it gets to is pornographic comedy. If it was even supposed to be funny. Which it wasn't.<br /><br />I think I'm done ranting now. But let me just assure you that nobody in their right mind would ever, ever want to see this movie. Unless they lust for Liv Tyler as much as the characters do, that is. | 0 |
I have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless. | 0 |
For those out there that like to think of themselves as reasonably intelligent human beings, who love film, have good attention to detail and enjoy indie movies with funny, smartly written dialogue then this is a film for you.<br /><br />For those with a poor attention span, high expectations and no brains.. well.. um.. you may get bored and find things dragging at times.<br /><br />This is a charming, modest and well paced movie with the actors bestowing a real sense of depth and warmth to their roles. I chuckled to myself pretty much the whole way through..<br /><br />This film is a little gem. | 1 |
Spoiler Alert <br /><br />I have never seen comments on a movie, that I disagree with more then the comments people made on this. One could learn from critical viewings of this movie. As an educational film, I rate it highly because it teaches "how to succeed"! We do not watch movies to learn; we generally watch for entertainment. As entertainment, I rate it low: the ending is downbeat and cerebral/intellectual. This conflict results in my eight star rating. The movie follows Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), a television news producer. The network executive introduces Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), to study for the on air news anchor position. Tom immediately charms people with humbleness. Another potential news anchor has been waiting for years for his on air opportunity, Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks). Altman knows all news stories, inside and out.<br /><br />The Network executive wants Grunnick on the air and Jane argues, saying Grunnick is not ready, he doesn't know the news. They do not listen to her. Forced to place Grunnick on the air, Jane contacts Altman to get information on the news story and relays Altman's comments through an earpiece to Grunnick while Grunnick speaks. We watch the sharp contrast between Altman's/Jane Craig's words and Grunnick's, as Grunnick skillfully rewords everything Altman and Jane Craig say in his ear, in order to make it understandable, likable and entertaining the audience. Altman gets a chance on air and the network execs require him to seek coaching from Grunnick, the new guy. This new (news ingnorant) guy coaching him? This is something Altman does not see justified, but agrees reluctantly. <br /><br />Grunnick coaches Altman and gets excited noting hundreds of Altman's shortcomings in appearance, audio and vocabulary. Altman never considered these things before, when he became an expert on the news itself. The complexity of understanding what Grunnick taught him, causes Altman to have a panicked sweating attack ("Flop Sweat") when he is on the air. Grunnick eventually becomes the top network anchor and Altman resigns prior to being fired. But Grunnick fails in his attempt for a romance with Jane Craig, because she finds out from Altman, that Grunnick sometimes fakes circumstances in order to make people like him. This turns her off of him. This sends the message that in relationships, we want people who are genuine and not trying to make us like them. <br /><br />This movie sends the message that getting people to like you is the most important skill in a job, but it is especially true in Broadcast News. There are many people commenting on how this is the dumbing down of TV News and how Grunnick represents a good looking, but dumb guy or all style, but no substance. The opposite is true, Grunnick possessed skills and very complex intellect, to get people to like him, including the presence of mind to know exactly how he appears and sounds, when he is on camera (He coaches Altman to Punch a word in every sentence). Grunnick's flaw that costs him the relationship with Jane Craig, is that he is too driven to be likable and will fake a situation. Many people are calling Altman very intelligent or brilliant. Altman played by Brookes is not as intelligent as Grunnick and the "Flop Sweat" scene shows that his mind could not handle the complexity that Grunnick handles when on the air. Altman is angered by this fact that he knew the news and Grunnick suceeded more by getting people to like him. There are also people commenting that these things are exclusive to the TV News industry. The concept that winning friends is the most important skill in a job, is obviously, not popular, but my experience indicates it is true in most jobs. As an education on how to succeed, this movie is fantastic, albeit unpopular. Educational, yes, but it does not have an uplifting ending. | 1 |
Unless you understand wretched excess this movie won't really mean much to you. An attempt was made to interject a bit of humanity into a cold and bleak period consumed by alcohol and drugs -- it doesn't work.<br /><br />When Salma Hayak does her big disco number her voice is so obviously dubbed it is pathetic -- the producers could at least have gotten someone that sounded remotely like her.<br /><br />The documentary that has been playing on television lately is far superior and gives a much truer view of that period of our history.<br /><br />No one, with the exception of Mikey Myers, could be accused of acting; however, he does an incredible job. | 0 |
Hailing from 1988, Touch Of Death is probably the most frustrating Fulci film I've seen to date, prompting me to join the chorus of horror fans who generalise that his films get worse as you get later into his career. Considering the plot synopsis, I was expecting some bloody bad-natured fun with this one, but for all its bizarre flourishes, it feels tedious even at a running time of just 80 minutes, and suffers from nauseatingly shabby production values and film-making craft (or lack thereof).<br /><br />El Story: A gambling addict widower wines and dines rich (and strange) women he finds via lonely hearts columns before offing them in gruesome fashion - sometimes eating them or feeding them to animals - and stealing their money to keep his debtors at bay. Sure, it's unlikely that just one man would be the host for so much screwed-up pathology all at once (addict, psycho/sociopath, cannibal), but this is Fulci!<br /><br />Touch is actually the cheapest and sparsest looking Fulci film I've seen. There's almost nobody in it, even in the background of shots out on the street, for instance. A newsreader who keeps appearing on the film's televisions to warn the non-existent cast about the maniac's latest doings operates out of the most pathetic TV studio on the planet. He never even gets to look at the camera because has to read all the headlines off misaligned sheets of paper.<br /><br />Some scenes just go on and on with the protagonist muttering to himself about what he's done or what he's about to do, but the acting is nowhere near good enough to sustain this kind of thing, so the main outcome is viewer boredom. The film also looks bland and ugly in general. I've read that it was intended to be an Italian telemovie (did it ever screen in that venue? With the amount of gore involved, it seems unlikely), and it does reek of crappy old telemovie production values.<br /><br />This is also Fulci's first foray into outright black humour, but he's just too graceless a director to make it work. Sometimes conspicuously cheerful or 'wacky' music is used to play against a gruesome scene, for instance while the hero/villain is carving up a dead body in his basement. The effect isn't really chilling or funny or ironic anything that you'd like it to be - it's mostly just hamfisted and crappy.<br /><br />There are of course some redeeming moments of gore (that you'll be waiting for while trying to stay awake), including the eventual murder by oven(!) of a woman who just won't quit life, even after her face has been totally bashed apart with a bloody great club, and a homeless guy who gets a car run back and forth over him about five times. The most outrageous element of Touch, however, is all the physical deformation on the widows courted by the crazy guy. Beards, hairy moles, messy harelips - it's not like he sought out women with these features, it's just the way all lonely hearts widows are, apparently. There are plenty of shots of Mr Crazy secretly grimacing while he's smooching up these women. The black humour of such garish misogyny might have some staying power or resonance if the film wasn't so poorly executed in general. In the end, Touch Of Death just seems like a really lazy, inarticulate mess. | 0 |
I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him. | 1 |
This three-hour Chinese epic, set in 220 B.C., may ultimately amount to a familiar theme of an Emperor's idealistic dream of peace through unification mutating into corrupted isolation, and there's nothing inherently challenging about the film, but it's a compelling narrative, crammed with intrigue and passion and betrayal and epic events told in vivid strokes. Even for those not drawn to such historical spectacles for their own sake, it's an astonishing feast for the eyes: the scene depicting the coup attempt of the Marquis is one of the most staggering evocations of physical space and grandeur in memory, and the battle scenes are memorable both in their scope and their immediacy. The title sums up the film's use of compelling contrasts - huge plainland vistas set against intimate horrors; the noblest of motives set against the most degraded; hope turning to dust. If you've never seen a three-hour Chinese epic, this wouldn't be a bad place to start. | 1 |
It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad. | 0 |
"Party Girl" capitalizes on the tremendous charm of Parker Posey. In fact, at times, the movie seems to be a vehicle in which Ms. Posey is allow to play herself, as she normally is in real life.<br /><br />The film, directed by Daisy Von Scherler Mayer, is a treat for Ms. Posey's fans. Ms. Von Scherler Mayer takes us on a wild trip into lower Manhattan to show us this aimless soul whose life is dedicated to have fun in the different clubs she constantly frequents. This is an era that still was more naive than what that area and the adjacent Meat Market districts became. At least, there are no pretensions in the films and we see down to earth people going about their lives in a normal way, if we can call it that way.<br /><br />Parker Posey makes an amazing Mary. It's because of Parker Posey we enjoy the movie more than if another actress would have played Mary. She is the whole picture. The rest of the cast is good. | 1 |
despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.<br /><br />It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now<br /><br />honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development<br /><br />i was glad i watched it | 1 |
I didn't really expect much from "The Night Listener" and I actually never heard of it until I saw the cover in the videostore. However, the movie is very effective when it comes to building up suspension and tension. On occasion it drags a little, but it actually helps to keep you wondering what's going to happen and more importantly: when. As the movie progresses, the character played by Robin Williams gets dragged into some kind of "cat and mouse" spiel to the point where he becomes obsessed with finding out the truth and existence about a 14 year old abused kid that no-one seemed to have ever seen in person. The Night Listener is an interesting story, which is great in building up the suspense throughout the movie and you're pretty much kept in the dark of who is lying and what's real. However, in the end it kind of disappoints and doesn't live up to the potential it could have had. It doesn't really give you a detailed or plausible explanation about the other main character, which would have been helpful and interesting. | 0 |
I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned! | 1 |
OK, it's very rare that I complain something I got for FREE. So I guess this movie pushed me over that limit. I saw it at the Hollywood Cemetery for FREE and walked away very very disappointed. One audience member's question to the director about using the Native American references just as "bookends" instead of being weaved into the movie better, basically says everything that this movie FAILED on. <br /><br />NATIVE American REFERENCES--- The Native American references felt really out of place and contrived. It's obvious that this director and writer tried tackling an arena they never played in before. They should have stuck to the old adage of "write about something you know". IF they are in fact versed in this it certainly did not show on the movie or the beauty of this unique culture was not given proper justice. <br /><br />Clichés and ON THE NOSE--- I agreed to see this film on the basis that it was an indie. So I held it to higher expectations. "Little Miss Sunshine" was an indie and saw it before it became so popular. Before it even came out to wide release I was already raving how it's going to be a hit. UNFORTUNATELY I could not say the same about "Expiration Date". "Sunshine" took us to cliché incidents but the filmmakers were so clever at their approach that the outcome would take us to a different direction avoiding the trap of being a "cliche". This movie on the other hand had no way of not falling in the trap because it was already TRAPPED from the start. The psycho mom's antics, the Hendrix couple, etc. <br /><br />I hate to say it, but the best and WORST movie I've seen this year were both indies. "Little Miss Sunshine" being the best and this movie being the worst. I wish I could say otherwise. <br /><br />But I do congratulate the filmmakers for having such a good turn out from their family members at the cemetery. | 0 |
Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the "Legion of Decency." My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse "humor" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, "just too darn sensitive" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank. | 0 |
The most positive points in this film were the credits (text style) and some moments in Ice-T's acting. The story-line; two rival gangs having to fight it out, with the sub-plots of betrayal, power and change are well worn plots but in this case painful(very) to wade through. The decrepit scenery, which added slight believability in places, and questionable lighting, constantly distracted from any interest/identification with the characters (the shine off of the actress's forehead/nose was blinding, not to mention other scenes with the same problem.) Not even half way into the film I wanted to know more about how and why it came about as opposed to what was going on on screen. A disappointment if you have seen Ice-T in other roles. Kudos to other actors/actresses who seemed to get into their roles despite the weak direction; Corrupt's side kick and the other restaurant worker. | 0 |
Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.<br /><br />Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.<br /><br />His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.<br /><br />I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.<br /><br />This guy has a grudge that won't end.<br /><br />I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.<br /><br />The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.<br /><br />Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.<br /><br />Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay. | 0 |
Ever since seeing this film as a child, over 30 years ago, I never tire of watching it. From the opening scenes in the horn factory, to the car motor running from the back seat of the car, to Ollie answering the phone and being accidentally pushed out the window by Stan, I think this was perhaps their best latter day film. After this they moved to 20th Century Fox, and while those films weren't terrible, they lacked the comic timing of this movie. Jimmy Finnlayson, their long time foil, in his last appearance with the boys, showing up as the Doctor is super! quote: " I said goat milk " his reply to Stan asking him how do you milk a ghost! Charlie Hall and even Ben Turpin show up! I'd say all in all one of my favorite L & H comedies. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.