text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.<br /><br />When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident
actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it! <br /><br />Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.<br /><br />Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really. | 0 |
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else. | 0 |
A real surprise. Not exactly family entertainment from "Disney". Some violence, lots of tense moments, and a great story, based on fact. The theme of "Night Crossing" is, determination wins. Never losing sight of their objective, two East German families risk it all, in their daring balloon escape to freedom. The story is both harrowing and heartwarming. Time is not on their side. The East German Police are closing in and the outcome far from certain, until the very end. If you are looking for a good evenings entertainment, that contains no nudity, and limited violence, then I highly recommend "Night Crossing". It is pure entertainment. - MERK | 1 |
This movie should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be "cool" and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on this film. | 0 |
A surprise thriller with more twists and double crosses than a doodle pad. A great cast mixing it up with an intriguing plot overseen by a Twin Peaks-ish influence in director Dahl. Nicholas Cage is a very underrated actor and shows a great portrayal of a man in a bind looking for the right thing to do. J.T. Walsh (RIP to a great actor) is always a wonderful villain, as is Dennis Hopper. It's such a shame he never made to a higher profile in the biz. I'm sure he has his followers, though. In all, this is a great film that shows you that you don't need big bangs or a commercial soundtrack to be an entertaining film. | 1 |
This movie is one of the masterpieces from Mr. Antonioni. It is about youth, distraction, happiness, alienation, materialism, honor, corruption. And it is like everything else from great Italian director -true art.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Writer/Director John Hughes covered all bases (as usual) with this bitter-sweet "Sunday Afternoon" family movie. "Curly Sue" is a sweet, precocious orphan, cared for from infancy by "Bill". The pair live off their wits as they travel the great US of A. Fate matches them with a "very pretty" yuppie lawyer, and the rest is predictable.<br /><br />Kids will love this film, as they can relate to the heroine, played by 9 year old Alisan Poter (who went on to be the "you go girl!" of Pepsi commercials). The character is supposed to be about 6 or 7, as she is urged to think about going to school. Some of her vocabulary suggests that she is every day of 9 or older.<br /><br />Similar to "Home Alone", there is plenty of slap-stick and little fists punching big fat chins. Again, this is "formula" film making, aimed at a young audience. Entertaining and heartwarming. Don't look for any surprises, but be prepared to shed a tear or two. | 1 |
Honestly, this is a very funny movie if you are looking for bad acting (Heather Graham could never live this down... it has three titles for a reason- to protect the guilty!), beautifully bad dialog ("Do you like... ribs?"), and a plot only a mother could approve, this is your Friday night entertainment! <br /><br />My roommate rented this under the title "Terrified" because he liked Heather Graham, but terrified is what we felt after the final credits. Not because the movie is scary, but because somebody actually paid money to make this turd on a movie reel.<br /><br />Horrible movie. There are a few no-name actors that provide some unintentional comedy, but nothing worth viewing. Heather Graham's dramatic climax also was one of the most pathetic and disturbing things I have ever witnessed. I award this movie no point, and may God have mercy on its soul. | 0 |
Jafar Panahi's comedy-drama "Offside" portrays some women trying to enter a Tehran sports arena from which women are banned. The official reason: lots of foul language, and the soccer players have their legs showing. But of course, it's really a case of sexism. So, most of the movie consists of mild comic relief as the women try to ask the men serious questions about why women are banned from the stadium, and one woman even comes up with her own scheme to defy the men.<br /><br />As I understand, all of Jafar Panahi's movies (this one included) are banned in Iran. The real tragedy is that the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the prime minister and subsequent backing of the brutal shah gave Ayatollah Khomeini an excuse to use his narrow interpretation of the Koran to establish a chauvinistic society, and that George W. Bush's current policy towards Iran gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an excuse to act the cowboy and tighten censorship.<br /><br />Above all, this is a neat look at people coming up with ways to challenge the system. Not a great movie, but worth seeing. Considering that all Jafar Panahi's movies are banned, I wonder how he's able to even make them. | 1 |
By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.<br /><br />The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.<br /><br />Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.<br /><br />In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.<br /><br />3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music. | 0 |
Like the previous commentator on this film, I too found myself in tears at times during this movie. Sometimes one wonders how a film of such awe-inspiring awfulness comes into existence. From the first moment when our protagonist wakes up in his New York apartment from a dream of subway trains intercut with galloping horses (what Irish emigrant hasn't had that one), its clear we are in trouble. And it doesn't get much better.<br /><br />Whisked back to 1950s Ireland, we enter a world where everybody speaks without intonation, and exclusively on the topic of the Irish Civil War. Schoolchildren go to school to learn about the Civil War. The drinkers in the pub divide themselves according to their Civil War allegiances. Remembrances are carried out for those who died in the Civil War. The town is divided between those who believe we should remember and those who want to forget...the Civil War. Every glance and conversation is dripping with meaning that traces back to the Civil War.<br /><br />The blurb on the videocover of Broken Harvest suggests that the film is a parable of the troubles in modern Ireland. The only parallel which strikes me is that in present day Dublin conversation is indeed dominated by one topic: house prices. If its intention is to offer some sort of insight into Ireland's obsession with its past, it fails miserably. It is striking how few Irish films have dealt with the Irish civil war and its legacies. However it will take a film of a great deal more subtlety and intelligence than this one to tell us anything about the lasting effects of such a traumatic event on the nation's psyche.<br /><br />For those American viewers who have suggested the film evokes the atmosphere of 1950s Ireland: it doesn't. 1950s Ireland was a horrible, poverty stricken pit of sexual repression and misery from which young people fled in their droves. However there was more than one topic of conversation. | 0 |
Last time I checked, the Nazis didn't win the second world war - not that you'd sodding notice. After all, the Third Reich was pretty big on issuing orders and demanding cold, robotic obedience from the populace, and that's pretty much what we're saddled with today. But the way the orders are delivered has changed. Instead of being barked at in a German accent through a loudhailer, they're disguised as concerned expert advice and floated under your nose every time you switch on the TV or flip open a newspaper There's a continual background hum, a middle-class message of self-improvement, whispered on the wind.<br /><br />"You eat too much. You eat the wrong things. You drink. You smoke. You don't get enough exercise. You probably can't even *beep* properly. You'll die if you don't change your ways. Your health will suffer. Have you got no self-respect? Look at you. You sicken me. I pity you. I hate you. We all hate you. God hates you. Don't you get it? It's so sad, what you're doing to yourself. It's just so bloody sad." That's the mantra. And it goes without saying that the people reciting it are routinely depicted as saints. Last year, the media dropped to its knees to give Jamie Oliver a collective blow job over his School Dinners series, in which he campaigned to get healthier food put on school menus. Given the back-slapping reaction, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd personally rescued 5,000 children from the jaws of a slavering paedophile.<br /><br />Anyway, the series was a huge success. In fact in telly terms there was only one real drawback: it wasn't returnable. After all, when you've saved every child in the nation from certain death once, you can't really do it a second time. The only solution is to find a new threat, which brings us to Ian Wright's Unfit Kids (Wed, 9pm, C4), a weekly "issuetainment" programme in which the former footballer and renowned enemy of grammar forces a bunch of overweight youngsters to take part in some extra-curricular PE.<br /><br />It's essentially a carbon copy of the Jamie Oliver show, with more sweating and fewer shots of pupils mashing fresh basil with a pestle: an uplifting fable in which Wrighty shapes his gang of misfits into a lean, mean, exercising' machine - combating apathy and lethargy, confronting lazy parents, and attempting to turn the whole thing into a nationwide issue that'll have Range Rover mums everywhere dampening their knickers with sheer sanctimony in between trips to the Conran shop. Oh isn't it simply terrible, what these blob-some plebes do to themselves? Not our Josh you understand: he eats nothing but organic spinach and attends lacrosse practise six hundred times a week.<br /><br />Bet he does, the little sh1t yes, it is heartwarming to watch flabby, inconvenient kids transforming themselves with a bit of simple activity... but there's something about the underlying eat-your-greens message that really sticks in my craw, in case you hadn't guessed.<br /><br />What happened to the concept of CHOICE, you *beep* So a bit of jogging might increase your life expectancy - so what? That just equates to a few more years in the nursing home - whoopee do. And besides, I'd rather drop dead tomorrow than spend the rest of my life sharing a planet with a bunch of smug toss ends trying to out-health one another.<br /><br />In episode two, video games and the internet are singled out as villains in the war on flab: they make kids too sedentary, you see. Oddly enough, TV, which is equally sedentary, and unlike those two activities, actively encourages you to let your mind atrophy along with your physique, escapes without a rollicking. Funny that.<br /><br />Well listen here, Channel 4 - instead of forcing kids to eat bracken or do squat-thrusts, how about teaching them to think more expansively, so they reject the sly, cajoling nature of programmes like this? Or would that be a campaign too far? | 0 |
Several things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.<br /><br />But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of cleché and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.<br /><br />Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it. | 0 |
One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY crew:] | 1 |
SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.<br /><br />It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.<br /><br />I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end. | 1 |
Its a spoof, its an intelligent comedy, it has some a pathetic action and choreography (and mind it, it is intentional), good hummable songs, good performances by the entire cast, brilliant by Amir, Salman and Paresh and over all an script which is so rare in Indian cinema that too in comedy (watch David Dhawan, Harmesh Malhotra etc). Story is of two wastrels whose only aim is to get rich and famous by any which ways. They come across one such way when they find out that a rich NRI is coming India to get married. Rest of the story is about oneupmanship and how these wastrels try to out wit each other. Entire cast is perfectly cast right from Deven Verma till Viju Khote. Songs are rightly placed and are funny. Surprise package is Salman who acts with perfect timing and this particular act gave him his style of comedy.<br /><br />All an all a fum film which you should not ignore if you like and watch Indian Cinema. | 1 |
One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.<br /><br />If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound. | 1 |
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid. | 0 |
I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.<br /><br />It is definitely a film i would recommend. | 1 |
Read This:<br /><br />BOYZ 'N THE HOOD IS A SCENE-BY-SCENE, COMPLETE RIP-OFF OF THIS MOVIE.<br /><br />Two friends in the hood, one's focused on intellectual pursuits and the other is an athlete. The friend who's an athlete gets involved with the wrong people and gets killed. (The athlete just happens to be Washington from 'Welcome Back, Kotter'.)<br /><br />It makes me mad that people don't know this. It blows my mind everytime I go into a video store and Boyz 'n the Hood is in the 'Drama' section while Cooley High is in 'Comedy'. It's an embarrassing disgrace. This movie is both funnier and more dramatic than John Singleton's rip-off. At least Singleton could have had the dignity to speak out that his film was homage to Cooley High, but no, he never said a word. Boys 2 Men, however, named their hit record after this film. | 1 |
William Wellmann, who directed one of the most exciting silent films ever made, 'Wings' (1927), here returns to the skies with another rip-roaring story of dare-devil fliers. Wellmann had been an air ace in World War One, and no one knew biplanes like he did. Here they are, stunt-flying, crashing, exploding in the air, and everything you can think of, plus a fascinating glimpse of commercial air operations in 1932 as well. And there is a good strong story, excellently played by the sombre Richard Barthelmess (the silent star who made several films with D. W. Griffith), Sally Eilers and Tom Brown. Eilers is a real sizzler. Such a relief to see a real woman with real fire and character instead of one of those photofit botoxed dummies who play in movies in today's Hollywood and all look identical. The story is a sad one, played with genuine pathos, and well directed. Towards the end of the film there are some extraordinarily thrilling scenes of danger and rescue, and what must be the most ingenious blind landing in thick fog ever thought of. I dare not give away the ingenious aspects of that particular episode. The character played by Barthelmess is very like Wellmann himself, a truly wild hell-raiser in the air. Anyone who likes early aviation would love this film, and it's very rewarding for anyone who likes good solid entertainment, love, tears, and non-stop action all combined in a kind of delectable Wellmann omelette. | 1 |
Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film "A Death in Venice. " Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. **** | 1 |
I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster. <br /><br />Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. <br /><br />On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.<br /><br />Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. <br /><br />Very disappointing and a complete waste of time. | 0 |
All right - it was in black and white and probably on 2" tape - which means the BBC wiped it, right? But it stays in my mind from all those years ago (1960??) as a perfect slice of history enlivened by the most innovative editing and wonderful actors full of youth and bravado.<br /><br />I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN! Are you reading this, BBC? Find your original 2" tapes or the 35mm film, deal with the actors and directors for the rights, and re-issue! I know, I know, some of them are dead, some of them are missing in action.<br /><br />Where else will I be able to see Mary Morris as the 'serpent's heart wrapped in a tiger's hide'? Where else will I be able to see Paul Daneman do 'Now is the winter of discontent....'? Or Robert Hardy deliver his speech about 'that idol ceremony'? | 1 |
En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthologya nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.<br /><br />To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.<br /><br />I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference). | 0 |
In case you're a self-acclaimed connoisseur of cult cinema and/or bad movie-making, there comes a certain point in life preferably sooner than later that you have to watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's an inescapable certainty, as this is one of the most notoriously awful cult movies ever made. One tiny but essential detail, however, is that "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is deliberately awful. Right from the opening message already, mocking Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", this is clearly intended as a zero-budgeted parody and I can't escape the impression that writer/director John De Bello never expected for his film to become such a hit. The film spoofs the contemporary popular trend of so-called "eco-horror" movies (plants, animals and nature in general revolting against humanity) and introduces the least menacing type of vegetable imaginable as undefeatable killing machines. A secret government agricultural project to produce bigger and tastier tomatoes goes horribly wrong and soon there are reports about tomato-attacks coming from all over the country. The president puts together a Special Forces team to battle the juicy enemy, which includes secret agents with very specific areas of expertise and scientists with horrendously dubbed voices. The first half hour of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is very entertaining. As silly as it is, the sight of normally shaped vegetables jumping up from the sink and attacking hysterical housewives is quite original and funny. The first half hour also contains numerous memorable moments like the catchy theme song, the "Jaws" homage and the infamous unforeseen helicopter crash (see the trivia section for more details) that made it to the final cut. After that, however, the whole thing turns into a tedious, unstructured and insufferably amateurish mess. The quality level of the jokes goes from fresh and inventive towards embarrassing and downright not funny and there are too many characters and sub plots. Personally, I prefer the late 80's and early 90's sequels (which I saw before seeing the original) because they benefit from slightly better production values, incredibly over-the-top tomato special effects and the presence of veteran actor John Astin ("The Addams Family") as the mad scientist Dr. Gangreen. But, as said before already, the original inexplicably remains obligatory viewing material at some point in your life. | 0 |
One of the most nihilistic and brutal films I've ever seen, but also one of the most tragic and moving ones. This is an action-melodrama like the world has never seen it before. Sometimes the plot got me close to tears, while in the next moment delivering shocking revelations like a bone-crunching blow to the guts. Chilling performance by Edison Chen. The story of a HK-Cop and a Cambodian killer hunting each other down, while bit by bit losing their humanity, is a strong one. Featuring very little dialog in favor of haunting imagery and gritty camera-work, "Dog bite Dog" is pure HK-Bloodshed without the Heroism. | 1 |
Slayer starts in the South American rain forest where Captain Hawk (Casper Van Dien) & his men are attacked by a bunch of Vampires, they barely manage to escape with their lives. Jump forward six months later & Hawk is called to see Colonel Weaver (Lynda Carter) who informs him there has been other reported sightings of Vampires & that his ex-wife & her Goddaughter Dr. Laurie Williams (Jennifer O'Dell) has gone out there on an expedition to study beetles, worried she ask's Hawk to take a squad of soldiers back to South America & officially provide back up to Captain Grieves (Kevin Grevioux) & his men while at the same time unofficially look for Laurie & not get killed by the Vampires who have decided to venture out of the caves & into the civilised World...<br /><br />Edited, written & directed by Kevin VanHook this is yet another poorly made Sci-Fi Channel original which just isn't very good in any respect. The humourless script has nothing going for it as far as I could see, it's one of those modern Vampire films which decides to pick & choose the 'traditional' Vampire film lore rules it wants to use like these Vampires can be killed with stakes through the heart & have fangs but at the same time can freely walk around in sunlight & they don't sleep in coffins. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it's all very dull, bland & lifeless. The story is poor & just rather stupid, the character's are terrible, the dialogue is forgettable & there's very little here to recommend. Slayer also tries to have some sort of ecological message as the head Vampire claims they are only starting to kill human beings because of their systematic destruction of the rain forest where they have lived in secret for centuries, unfortunately there's no conviction there & is more like a throwaway line to fill the time than a serious statement. There isn't enough exploitation content & is a rather unsatisfying way to spend 90 minutes of your time. The makers don't even do anything with the jungle setting, hell I didn't expect Predator (1987) but I hoped for a bit more than this.<br /><br />Director VanHook has made several horror films all of which I have seen have been equally poor, I'm sorry but he does nothing here & turns in a throughly forgettable looking & feeling film. There's no atmosphere or tension & as for genuine scares forget about it. The gore is restrained, there are some bitten necks & a bit of spraying blood but it's nothing we haven't seen before or has much impact. There's also a huge Vampire monster creature at the end but it doesn't look that impressive & it gets itself killed far too easily.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this actually had a decent sized amount of money spent on it but it's still a rubbish film, it's reasonably well made but nothing special or memorable. The acting sucks, I'm sorry but that's the way I saw it.<br /><br />Slayer is yet another poor, stupid & boring made-for-TV Sci-Fi Channel rubbish that I simply can't recommend. Not to be confused with the rather fine one time British 'Video Nasty' gore film The Slayer (1982) which is 100 times better than this so track that down & watch that instead. | 0 |
Susan Swift is an appealing youngster, a flower child transplanted to the 1980's (like a young Susan Dey), but she doesn't quite have the vocal range for a demanding dramatic lead and she tends to whine; still, she's rather sweet and has bright eyes and a pretty smile. In "The Coming" (as it was called when briefly released to theaters), Swift may be the reincarnation of a Salem witch. The flick is very low-budget and borrows from so many other pictures that I gave up on it with about 15 minutes to go. It starts out strong and has some camp appeal. Obviously, there are more serious films that deal with the Salem witch trials that deserve to be seen over this one; however, as junk movies go, it isn't too terrible. The Boston locales are a definite plus, and the supporting cast is amusingly hammy. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
Nicolas Mallet is a failure. A teller in a bank, everyone walks all over him. Then his friend, a writer who's books no one likes, has a plan to change his life. Our hero tells his boss he is quitting. He intends to spend the rest of his life making a great deal of money and sleeping with a great many women. And he manages to do just that.<br /><br />If it were not for the amount of death (murder/suicide/natural causes) in the film, this would be a farce. There are numerous jabs at marriage, politics, journalism and...life.<br /><br />Jean-Louis Trintignant is a likable amoral rogue. Romy Schneider is at her most appealing. Definitely worth a look. | 1 |
I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.<br /><br />If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.<br /><br />The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?<br /><br />THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliché left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.<br /><br />After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...<br /><br />THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...<br /><br />THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?<br /><br />I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too. | 0 |
Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon) has just been dumped by his wife, because he is one of the most annoying , neurotic people in the world. Suicide is his way out, but he just can't seem to get it to work, so he heads over to his friends house. Oscar Madison (Walther Matthau) is also recently divorced and living it up in bachelor heaven. Smoking, gambling, hitting on chicks, eating out and never cleaning is paradise to him. Well, with the suicide attempts Oscar decides to let Felix move in. At first, it is a match made in heaven, Felix cooks and cleans and helps Oscar pay his alimony on time, but soon Oscar is jonesing for women and Felix (who in today's world would probably be gay) isn't ready to move on. They invite a couple of British birds over and they find Felix so tender that soon they and Felix are weeping and chatting about his family life, leaving Oscar denied. This is it, he explodes and throws him out, but Felix isn't as helpless as it seems, and soon he has the upper hand. My favorite quote "You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" Based on a Neil Simon play (who also wrote the screenplay), this has a certain theatre feel to it. Set and the repartee and looks feel quite play-like (for better or worse). Lemmon and Mathau have excellent comedic chemistry and have appeared in the Grumpier Old Men movies and Out to Sea, reprising the same finicky/slob roles, but with different names (to avoid royalty issues, I'm sure).<br /><br />This movie is like strawberries dipped in chocolate. The chocolate is smooth, sweet and rich, the strawberry is tart, juicy and bright red (unless you get those nasty greenish ones). They are almost polar opposites, but together, the contrasts highlight each other and make a wonderful dessert. 7/10 <br /><br />http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies | 1 |
The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam". | 0 |
David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.<br /><br />Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.<br /><br />It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.<br /><br />Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: "A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen." In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie. | 1 |
Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno. | 0 |
This movie sucks. The acting is worse than in the films we made when we were 10 years old with a camcorder, the effects look like some 80's computer game and the plot is worse than terrible. Even the worst Van Damme movies make this look crappy. The accent and speech rhythm of the 'bad guys' is so bad it's funny.. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend watching this unless you are a big time fan one of the actors. 1 out of 10. | 0 |
On top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con? | 0 |
Recap: Zandalee is a young woman that feels more and more trapped in her marriage with Thierry. Thierry himself is struggling with the death of his father the previous year and has lost his way. He has submerged himself in work, laid of his writing, and Zandalee desperately misses the attraction between them. Into this enters Johnny, and old friend of Thierry's who once were artists in exile together. But Johnny has kept on painting, and just have a day job for the rent. He takes the day as it comes and leaves tomorrow to its destiny. There is an instant raw attraction between Zandalee and Johnny, and they enter into an affair. But Zandalee struggles with her lust to be desired and her conscience and love for her husband. But none of them, not Zandalee, not Johnny and not Thierry can stop the relationships between them to spin totally out of control.<br /><br />Comments: It is set as a thriller. But maybe more a thriller of heart than a normal thriller where it's about life and death, and threat of violence. Not that a thriller of heart can't take on fatal proportions, but the threat comes from a different angle. And it is not really until the second half in Zandalee until the thriller emerges, and even though the foundation for it is laid in the first half, I can't really describe the genre as a thriller then. Much more of a romantic drama than anything else, but with the underlying currents of other genres. The developing thriller is there, but it also has more than a little tint of a sensual erotic kind. Because that is what it is all about, what drives the characters and therefore the entire story. Desire. The need to have, and the need to be.<br /><br />In my opinion it is quite good, definitely a lot better than its current (4.1) rating anyway. It takes its time but it grows a good feeling of suspense, and it handles the erotic part very well, with taste. It is always an integral part of the story, needed to be there to give the story it's needed weight, and I never felt it was an excuse to show a naked breast or anything like that. But unfortunately the climax of the story comes well before the end, and the end itself feels kind of flat, even if in its own way kind of dramatic.<br /><br />The cast is impressive, spearheaded by known actors like Nicholas Cage and Judge Reinhold. But the show is almost completely stolen by Erika Anderson. Beautiful and very adept at acting out the sometimes subtle feelings of desire, she excels were both Cage and Reinhold sometimes goes a bot overboard and become a little rough. Her career afterward is too thin for the talent she shows in Zandalee, I can only hope it is because of her own choices. Also two personal favorites appear in small roles that give some extra edge to the movie, it is Steve Buscemi and Joe Pantoliano.<br /><br />When you're in the right mood this is a very good movie, it could have used another end to get the credit it really deserves.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott! | 0 |
The obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60´s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It´s a pity for his excellent leading actors. | 0 |
Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.<br /><br />None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.<br /><br />Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.<br /><br />The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.<br /><br />My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.<br /><br />Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest. | 1 |
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=211772166650071408&hl=en Distribution was tried.<br /><br />We opted for mass appeal.<br /><br />We want the best possible viewing range so, we forgo profit and continue our manual labor jobs gladly to entertain you for working yours.<br /><br />View Texas tale, please write about it... If you like it or not, if you like Alex or not, if you like Stuie, Texas or Texas tale... Just write about it.<br /><br />Your opinion rules. | 1 |
Every time I hear Karen Carpenter's voice, there is that old familiar feeling of 70's blues. What an overwhelmingly beautiful and mature voice she had. Cynthia Gibb cast in the title role does a good job, however, I thought Karen Allen would have been a better choice. This is a tearjerker movie that does a fine job of presenting the professional careers of Karen and Richard but also the personal struggles that Karen dealt with and her disease. The recording sessions in Herp Albert's studio are very nicely done. However Karen Carpenter turned out, there was a time when she was very special and brought a great deal joy to her fans and music lovers. Even if you weren't a Carpenter's fan this is a nice story that depicts how a great talent can fall victim to the pressures of society. | 1 |
New Orleans is nothing like how it is portrayed in this<br /><br />debacle of a film. Quaid's attempt at speaking with a cajun<br /><br />accent (by the way, hardly anyone speaks that way in New<br /><br />Orleans) is terrible. Plot = elementary and mindless. This<br /><br />picture refers to itself as a mystery, but a mystery involves a<br /><br />gradual process whereby a viewer is given clues and twists throughout a film. There's none of that here. "Big<br /><br />Easy" tries to get by on trite New Orleans stereotypes. <br /><br />Don't be fooled - the real Big Easy is nothing like the town<br /><br />that Quaid & Barkin bumble their way through. | 0 |
Over the weekend i watched the movie Tipping the Velvet and if I was to have to score this movie out of 100 I would have to give it 100 no question asked. I am a true believer in true love and this movie moved me in alot of different ways and the actors fit the parts without a doult. But I have to say that the ending was not so great for I did not see that spark in Nancys eyes when ever she looked into Flo's eyes, as her eyes sparked each time she looked at Kitty, Kitty only had to be in the room or in Nancy's thought and Nancy would just glow fron that spark. Kitty told Nancy that she could not find her and that she looked for her, but could not find her. Kitty was ready to give it all up to get Nancy back. In Kitty's eyes you could see Kitty's pain. I believe that Nancy should have let Kitty see that thier love is true and strong and that she would not let her go that easy. You need to make a part two and have the two make it together, but you must not let anyone else play the roles it has to be the real Kitty & Nancy or it'll never work. My mother once told me that true love is just not real. I am no fool I know that we all have a true love out someplace just waiting for each of us and I believe with my life that Nancy's true love really is only Kitty and Kitty's true love is only Nancy. Come on lets play the game the right way, the only way. Let Nancy's eyes shine again.... Kitty lost her everything, by losing Nancy. And Kitty is not to be the only one to blame. I am gay myself and being gay is not easy!! WAKE UP!!! in 1889 I'd not want to be gay, Kitty was lost deep inside herself and in 1889 maybe the right thing to do was to be married to a man. Even though you love a woman. Kitty needed Nancy to stand up to her needed Nancy to fight for her. Myself I remember how deeply I loved this girl and I let her get away because I thought I was doing something wrong and I went back to my ex-boyfriend. I thought I was doing the right thing, but I know I was wrong to let go of her and I will pay for the rest of my days,for like Kitty I could not find her anyplace. I heard that she is married to a man in the U.S.A someplace. I even heard that he beats her. I guess in the end we both lose. Give the two girls one more chance life can be very lonely if you are not true to you and your loved one.<br /><br />Thank You, Kristen Ann | 1 |
When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate! | 0 |
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.<br /><br />The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.<br /><br />Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.<br /><br />DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.<br /><br />BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.<br /><br />Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.<br /><br />Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone. | 1 |
Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.<br /><br />I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.<br /><br />Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.<br /><br />Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.<br /><br />While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.<br /><br />Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.<br /><br />All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself. | 1 |
This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.<br /><br />Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.<br /><br />I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.<br /><br />*** out of **** | 1 |
I can see why Laurel and Hardy purists might be offended by this rather gentle 're-enactment', but this film would be an excellent way to introduce children to the pleasures of classic L & H. Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain acquit themselves reasonably as the comedy duo and there's a reasonably good supporting cast. I enjoyed it. | 0 |
Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"<br /><br />Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!" <br /><br />Great documentary!!<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
George Lopez is a funny man even without the sitcom. The first episodes I saw of this too often made jokes at the expense of his mom. As I have watched this more, there has been more & more variety. No one on the cast is really safe from his wit now.<br /><br />It seems to me as this season has progressed that George is getting more comfortable with the family sitcom Dad role. At first he wasn't, but he is getting More & more into a groove. This makes both him & the shows progressively funnier. They had added a couple of characters for George to play off this year too. His wife's dad is getting more & more involved in the plot.<br /><br />His mom is still there, but not as central as past seasons. I think it is prudent to say with George's sense of comic timing, & ABC's lack of good sitcoms, George Lopez has a good chance of being here on ABC long after George W. Bush. | 1 |
I recently viewed Manufactured Landscapes at the Seattle International Film Festival. I was drawn to the movie as a photographer because I'm both familiar and a fan of Burtynsky's work. While I believe the movie does a good job getting it's message across, I couldn't help but feel that it was made as a complete afterthought to the photographs and subsequent popular book by Burtynsky. Obviously one reason for this is the extensive use of still photographs featuring zooms and pans across them. While this is a good effect when used economically, I felt like 75% of the movie was just stills from Burtynsky's book (which I already own). That's probably an exaggeration, but that's how I felt. If you own the book or are familiar with his work you might be better off skipping this one. | 0 |
This takes place on Fire Island back in the 1970s. A couple Peter (Craig Dudley) and Buddy (J. Will Deane) are throwing a 4th of July party at their house. Unfortunately their relationship is falling apart and they have to get ready for a house full of very strange guests. The rest of the movie chronicles the party and what happens between Peter and Buddy.<br /><br />OK--I'm a gay man but I was 8 back when this was made. If this is a true view of what gay life was in the 1970s, I'm glad I wasn't around. From the puzzling opening credits which shows kids playing in the sand (???) this movie slides slowly into disaster. There's a guru (Robert Case) who talks nonstop about nothing of any importance. I wanted to gag the guy halfway into his first LONG speech. There's the young kid Danny who is there for his first time. There's the lesbian couple (who do nothing--except one strips for no reason). There's the leather queen. Worst of all is the effeminate man named Jimmy (Jimmy Foster). We're introduced to him and his friend (whose name I never got) when they get a flat tire. They basically scream and screech for 10 minutes and have NO idea how to fix a flat. I know some people find this funny but I found it offensive and pretty sad. The party itself is full of people you would never want to know. It's like being dumped in a party full of bad actors playing obnoxious people. With the sole exception of Dudley no one can act.<br /><br />This may be valuable as a portrait of what Fire Island was like in the 1970s...but it's pretty dull viewing. This gets a 2 only for the frequent male nudity of some very nice bodies. | 0 |
When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis. Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State. Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.<br /><br />A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department; they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem. Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.<br /><br />A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down. Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy; this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters. (If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).<br /><br />The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright. There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds. Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon. On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.<br /><br />The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny. Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed. There was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid-eighties, as this was the period which also saw the awful Ben Kingsley/ Nastassia Kinski film "Harem", about a lascivious Middle Eastern ruler who kidnaps a young American woman, and the mini-series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. The film-makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy, because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter-day "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about Democracy and the Constitution and the Citizen's Duty to Vote and We The People and how the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance blah blah blah
, but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy.<br /><br />Goldie Hawn has made a number of good comedies, such as "Cactus Flower", "Overboard" and ""Housesitter", but "Protocol" is not one of them. I have not seen all of her films, but of those I have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. 3/10 | 0 |
Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.<br /><br />This production offers the disclaimer, "For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.<br /><br />The "poetic license" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.<br /><br />For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's "poetic", I'm a kumquat.<br /><br />When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.<br /><br />An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages. | 0 |
During World War II, two Byelorussian (Soviet Russian) soldiers try to avoid being captured by occupying Nazis, as they trudge through snowy terrain, searching for food and safety. If you happen not to like black-and-white "foreign" films, you may still enjoy "Voskhozhdeniye" (retiled in English "The Ascent"). Director Larisa Shepitko paces the film extraordinarily well, despite its being a largely introspective piece of work. Her untimely death, in a car accident, made this Ms. Shepitko's final film, unfortunately.<br /><br />After the opening mission is declared, there doesn't seem to be much that could happen in the snowy woods, but Shepitko and a changing setting make it unexpectedly exciting. Leading players Vladimir Gostyukhin (as the spiritually wounded "Rybak") and Boris Plotnikov (as the physically wounded 'Sotnikov") successfully avoid being crushed by the ever increasing symbolism. Their allegorical performances, under Shepitko's sharp direction, provide a memorable and thought-provoking take on a familiar story.<br /><br />******** Voskhozhdeniye (4/2/77) Larisa Shepitko ~ Vladimir Gostyukhin, Boris Plotnikov, Lyudmila Polyakova, Anatoli Solonitsyn | 1 |
This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.<br /><br />The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.<br /><br />I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.<br /><br />Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.<br /><br />I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.<br /><br />it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday. | 1 |
Critics are a strange kind of people. Some of them are common people like you and me. Some of them are not. When a critic say Subconscius Cruelty is beautiful I wonder where they did grow up? What's beautiful with filming a field, some clouds or a tree with an old camera if you can't do it with style and capture the mood of the environments. Karim Hussain for sure can't. I've seen kids do better footage than Karim manage to do in Subconscius Cruelty. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the whole recording, I refuse to call this a film, is just a bad excuse to picture nudity and extreme torture, rapes of both sexes, masturbation, sperm, pissing, cannibalism, child-murder and much much more. I love gore/splatter and I love horror. This ain't neither of those. This is utter crap and if my comments make just one single person skip Subconscius Cruelty it's been worth it. Always remember that your life won't last forever, don't waste two hours of precious time on Subconscius Cruelty. You've been warned. | 0 |
An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities. | 1 |
The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man. <br /><br />-ahem- But that's not the point.<br /><br />The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.<br /><br />Sit tight and here goes:<br /><br />-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.<br /><br />-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.<br /><br />-WHERE DID AXEL GO? <br /><br />-VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16. <br /><br />-VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.' <br /><br />-There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.<br /><br />-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.<br /><br />-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.<br /><br />-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.<br /><br />-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her. <br /><br />And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:<br /><br />-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.<br /><br />Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop. <br /><br />A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School? <br /><br />*sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf <br /><br />With love,<br /><br />Caitlin | 0 |
And Gi Joe go stuck in the water, I die of laufther every time I see this movie, and then a big brown shark came, This is comedy at it's best, this blows away the kings of comedy and anyone else, Andrew Dice Clay, Jerry, Tucker, Rock, They can't thouch the man the myth the legend Eddie Murphy,<br /><br />Yo EDDIE WE WANT MORE<br /><br />MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
Like the first one,the team of JACKASS are back to try to kill themselves with whatever manner they see fit.Either,it's fitting yourself in a tractor tyre and rolling down a slope.Or getting yourself deliberately smashed by a bull.Or something even worse.<br /><br />The first one was crazy,and that's how you can describe it.It was also really hard laughing film.But this one is completely nuts.It's got even more dangerous stunts,and even harder laughs.So,I think watching dumb idiots getting themselves killed is gonna be the funniest thing this week.<br /><br />So,before BORAT comes out,I shall laugh my A** out. | 1 |
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures. | 0 |
OK, this movie, was the worst display I have seen in years. The actors weren't to bad (I figured it was a b-movie so they were doing b-movie acting). Anyways, I watched this movie, thinking, OH COOL a UFO Sci-Fi movie. WRONG. It was just an excuse for radical Christians to push a message onto people. The last scene was extremely messed up. That is a horrible thing to do to a person to make them believe in something. What someone believe in is a matter of opinion. This movie just shows how corrupted religion is, especially Christianity.<br /><br />If you want to watch a b-movie, this ain't. If you want to watch a movie that is TRYING to brainwash the masses. Well this is the pick of the litter. go right for it. If you are going to convey a message, do it, don't force it. Ridiculous, that people would abuse the media to such a degree. Especially, Christians. | 0 |
(Spoilers warning) I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is a great horror comedy/spoof that does everything right for a change. The humor is great and ranges from funny to so-funny-you'll-cry funny. In one scene, Ed goes edit-crazy and deletes a big scene. When his boss is looking at Ed's edit, he yells out: "Where in the fu%# is my beaver-rape scene?!?!" Hysterical. There are also many other great, humorous & memorable quotes and moments throughout: Ed yells out "Don't you fu#$ing look at me!!!" while punching some poor schmuck repeatedly in the face. Very funny stuff. The plot of the movie itself is so ridiculous that it's priceless: Ed is a mild-mannered everyday guy that gets moved over to the horror-film editing department, and after a while goes nuts, sees monsters, and attacks people while quoting the horror movies that he has edited. This movie has it all and is simply hilarious. The DVD only costs about $7, and is a great bargain as it is the unrated widescreen cut. I own a lot of DVD's, most of which cost a lot more money than this one, but not many are as great as this movie. My Evil Ed DVD is one of the highlights of my collection and i would beat someone with a telephone receiver if they tried to steal it. Evil Ed oozes style and quality -- something that Hollywood filmmakers need to majorly learn. Evil Ed is a rare gem, and i would like to thank everyone involved in making this wonderful movie -- you did everything right, and i love Evil Ed! 10 out of 10!!! | 1 |
Director and auteur Jean-Pierre Rappenau was 8 years old during the spring of 1940 as France's Third Republic disintegrated in a matter of a few weeks. It was a time, he says, when "all the adults were a little bit insane." He and the production staff have lovingly and meticulously recreated that world in a film where all the characters are essentially fictional. The structure, a classic farce, is ideal for the period as multiple plot lines zip and intersect only to come together in a logical, satisfying conclusion. The peg for this plot is Frederic, played by brilliant newcomer Gregory Derangere, who is fully up to playing opposite Adjani, Depardieu and Ledoyen. The real strength of the film is in its supporting performances. M. Rappeneau has cast the film exquisitely with actors who volunteered ideas for both action and dialogue and who know and prove that it is possible to fully realize a character with just two short sentences of dialogue. Though not yet as widely influential as Renoir's 'Rules of the Game,' 'Bon Voyage' richly deserves to be a companion piece to that classic. Though it demands a lot of the audience, it gives much back. One of its demands is tolerance for a certain coyness and misdirection as to the exact genre we are watching: a crime melodrama, no, a spy thriller, ah, a romantic comedy. Recommend it to cinemaphile friends. Just be sure to let them discover for themselves that it is a romantic comedy. | 1 |
Mary Pickford becomes the chieftain of a Scottish clan after the death of her father, and then has a romance. As fellow commenter Snow Leopard said, the film is rather episodic to begin. Some of it is amusing, such as Pickford whipping her clansmen to church, while some of it is just there. All in all, the story is weak, especially the recycled, contrived romance plot-line and its climax. The transfer is so dark it's difficult to appreciate the scenery, but even accounting for that, this doesn't appear to be director Maurice Tourneur's best work. Pickford and Tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible 'The Poor Little Rich Girl,' typecasting Pickford as a child character. | 0 |
One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?<br /><br />So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Intelligent summary, isn't it?<br /><br />If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!<br /><br />Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.<br /><br />Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.<br /><br />3/10. | 0 |
Unbelievable. "Philosophy". "Depth". "Genius". "Masterpiece". People must have seen another "Oldboy" because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of "Kraapola" which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.<br /><br />The "depth" of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, "Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone", the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once "great art". In short, yuck.<br /><br />2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though. | 0 |
Hellraiser: Bloodline is only a so-so film. I believe it's the fourth installment in the Hellraiser series.<br /><br />I missed the beginning, and all I remember from there was some topless women and a box-shape thing on a computer screen. But, using my wit and intelligence, (and the Info Button) I soon found out that the villain (Pinhead) was released from Pandora's Box, which, I believe is a gateway straight to Hell.<br /><br />So, anyways, Pinhead somehow comes out of the box and terrorizes the "Toymaker's" family. And, that's about it. Oh, and not to mention the random tortures of various people that cross his path. Yawn.<br /><br />What mainly happens in this film is that Pinhead captures the kid, and then unleashes the dog on his wife, and then kills a random person. Then he husband comes along, blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Why it fails is because Hellraiser: Bloodline is too corny to be scary. Look at Pinhead's minion of creatures: a cheesy dog that looks like it's been turned inside out, two men whose heads and bodies are connected together, (Siamese twins in a horror film?) and some person who is supposed to be a princess of some sort. (I haven't seen the previous films.) Now look at the main villain. His name is Pinhead. Isn't that the name you call somebody when they're stupid? He has pins in his head and hooks coming out of his fingers, and he has blue skin. I suppose he would make a decent villain if he didn't have such a corny name, and a corny speech. Somewhere in the film, two cops approach him and say "Don't make us put some pain on you!" Pinhead replies "Pain? How dare you use that word! I AM pain
" blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It sounds a bit cliché if you ask me.<br /><br />Don't forget the final half of the movie. The characters (and audience) get to experience more torture when Pinhead attacks some futuristic asylum. Some person who we don't recognize (Maybe he was in the previous films. I don't remember him in the beginning of the movie.) This scene is basically one thing played over and over again: <br /><br />A guard goes to inspect a mysterious noise.<br /><br />Some other guard: "Oh no! He's down. I will go check on him
by myself!"<br /><br />After he dies the same thing happens again.<br /><br />(SPOILERS) Here's the thing I didn't get. In the film Pinhead is supposedly sent to Oblivion at the end. So, how does he come back for another four films? Are they prequels? Why hasn't he died in the previous ones? Geez. The makers need to come up with an idea for a different series. (END OF SPOILERS) Hellraiser: Bloodline is gory and full of torture scenes, but has little thrill or scare value. Just forget it. Bad special effects with bad
everything else make this more of a snooze-fest than a good horror.<br /><br />Good: Well
some people may enjoy the topless women in the beginning. Plus, Pinhead's voice is pretty cool. I suppose if you like ultra-violence, you might like this too.<br /><br />Bad: None of the reasons above make this a very good film. The corniness and repetitiveness are pretty bad. And, who names their villain Pinhead?<br /><br />Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment. | 0 |
Wow! I'm shocked to learn that it's a small world and that we are all interconnected. What a waste of 88 minutes. John Dunne put it much better in one sentence. "No man is an island." The acting wasn't bad. The kids gave it all they had but at times the thread got so thin I couldn't follow it and the only real "hero" in the film ends up in jail after being tormented by a meter maid. I don't know. I just don't get it. Oh well. | 0 |
`The United States of Kiss My Ass'<br /><br />House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.<br /><br />The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.<br /><br />In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.<br /><br />The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.<br /><br />An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10 | 1 |
*** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.<br /><br />Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed "friend" Louie.<br /><br />It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.<br /><br />Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.<br /><br />*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on "quitting cold turkey." I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy. | 1 |
This is an awful movie from just about every point of view. Since much has been already pointed out in previous reviews, let me just focus on "Serbs" and "Delta Force" guys in this movie.<br /><br />1) The uniforms that "Serbs" wear are not Serbian. And helmets are wrong, too.<br /><br />2) The actors who play "Serbs" are not speaking Serbian, not even a language close to Serbian, unlike in "Behind enemy lines" where the Czech actors did their best to speak the language and add at least a bit of credibility to the movie.<br /><br />3) The gray-bearded "Serbian general" looks and acts like a moron, firing his gun whenever US soldiers call his name: <br /><br />- US soldier: "Gravic! Give up!"<br /><br />- Gray-bearded moronic general: (fires his AK47)<br /><br />- US soldier: "Gravic! Come out!"<br /><br />- GBMG: (fires his AK47)<br /><br />- US soldier: "Gravic! You're surrounded"<br /><br />- GBMG: (fires his AK47)<br /><br />- Prop guy: "Excuse me, Mr. gray-bearded moronic general, see, we're out of blanks and I sent the boy to buy some more, but he's not back yet..."<br /><br />- GBMG: (click)<br /><br />4) Since when does the Army issue AK47s to the Delta Force? I guess they couldn't find enough working M4s in Bulgaria, but there were plenty of old AK47s and practice blanks ;) Maybe they should have went for some airsofts, they are cheaper and wouldn't have hurt the credibility of the movie anyway...<br /><br />5) In the scene where a DF officer is hanging on a rope while talking to a rocket scientist, he is holding his finger on the trigger all the time. No sane person with any weapons training or just plain common sense would ever do that. I guess the actor figured that his coolness level increases the longer he holds the gun that way. <br /><br />This movie is such an insult to common sense.. | 0 |
After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others. | 1 |
I found this movie to be very funny, I loved how it made of the politics of modern day sports. This movie is not as funny as South Park but it is pretty funny. And since I am a sports fan I loved how they made fun some of the more ridiculous things in sports. This movie is great for non sports lovers too, probably better for them actually since they have to go through life wondering why people follow sports so closing when there are so many insane rules and intricacies to sports and the fact that it means absolutely nothing. I also found the actual game they came up with to be interesting, it is sort of like horse with bases and psyche outs (for the person shooting). Overall I highly recommend you see this movie, and believe that you will end up loving this movie. However if this style of comedy is not your favorite you probably won't like it. (but that is with any comedy movie) | 1 |
What I liked best about this feature-length animated film from 1941 is the great feel it gives for the early 1940s. It's the songs, the clothing, automobiles, buildings lingo of the day, etc. You feel like you've stepped back into time.<br /><br />From reading some of the reviews here, I see this was a hard-luck film, being released a couple of days before the Pearl Harbor attack. Wow, no one would be interested in going to the movies for a feature-length cartoon during those eventful and shocking days, I'm sure. Too bad, because the folks missed some nice animation would have really impressed back then, almost 70 years ago. The colors are nice, drawings are good and story involving as we root for the bugs led by "Hoppity" and and his beautiful girl "Honey" to make it happily-ever-after and out of harm's way. It's also about all of them finding a grassy spot they can live and not worry about humans trampling them.<br /><br />There is a nasty villain, though - "C. Bagley Beetle" - and two of his henchmen. Those helpers ("Swat, The Fly" and "Smack, the Mosquito") are comedians, complete with their Brooklyn-ese accents! The story is a familiar one where a nasty old man wants to marry the sweet young thing and uses unscrupulous means to force her hand. The good guy, meanwhile, has the decked stacked against him but in the very end, of course, prevails.<br /><br />My favorite part - this will sound worse than what it was - was when good-guy "Hoppity" got temporarily electrocuted and he danced in black-and-white. That was fantastic animation! <br /><br />You know, it's a good thing I didn't see this as a very little kid; I would have been afraid to play outside and squash all those nice bug-people! You never know what (or who) is in that grass beneath your feet! | 1 |
boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is. <br /><br />The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.<br /><br />Maybe next time knox.<br /><br />Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good. | 0 |
I usually steer clear of TV movies because of the many ways you know that it's TV movies five seconds into the picture. This one got my attention because of the unusual title and its gloomy, well-crafted mood that is established from the very start. While the ever present rain confirmed my suspicions of a misplaced story (even if claiming to be set in California the movie was largely shot around a stormy Vancouver, B.C.), the dark and oppressive outdoors beautifully complement Olmos' excellent acting. | 1 |
You see a movie titled 'battlespace', what are you going to think? Space battles with cool as heck explosions and everyone shooting at each other. What do you get with this movie? Well, you do get SOME space battle goodness, but for a great majority of the time it's just stupid people wandering around doing almost nothing. NO ONE TALKS!!!! What is this nonsense?! We get a narrators, and a ton of British computers, but thats about it. The main protagonist must be the worst one I have ever seen, as she doesn't even have any dialog, and sleepwalks though scenes (literately!). Some of the things happening are just stupid, like they use a rocket (like to go to space) for basic transportation planet side, why not just use one of those nifty space ships? In any case, the music is almost non-existent, with a few boring dull lifeless samples, but the main thing you will notice is the Atari sound effects the ships use...you have got to be kidding me. I can also tell that the budget was low, because everything looks fake, which is not what you would expect from a movie, especially what should be a super cool space battle movie. I seriously think the budget must have been in the double digits it is so bad, making you laugh more than you should at how plain bad it is. I am starting to think that they paid the actors based on how much dialog they had, because their is very little here (if you can't tell already that is my main gripe here, as I probably said that like 3 times already). | 0 |
This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.<br /><br />The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.<br /><br />The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners. | 0 |
"Phantasm" of 1979 was a highly atmospheric, creepy, scary and very original Horror flick, and, in one word, cult. The first sequel of 1988 was gory, witty, action-packed and highly entertaining. After the first sequel however, "Phantasm" creator Don Coscarelly apparently lacked new ideas. "Phantasm III - Lord Of The Dead" of 1994 is certainly not a complete failure, it even is quite entertaining, but there is no more originality, and the desperate attempts to bring in something new, are at times tiresome, which makes it quite disappointing in comparison to its predecessors. <br /><br />- SPOILERS - <br /><br />Quite in the beginning, we are introduced the secret behind the mysterious sentinel spheres (the brain-sucking flying silver balls) is unraveled. Thenceforward, a number of unnecessary and annoying new characters (such as Tim, a "Home Alone"-style little kid who happens to be great at shooting, an Rocky, a tough and super-cool nunchaku-swinging black chick with a crew cut) are introduced. The film also has its qualities - Reggie Bannister is again very cool as the pony-tailed, guitar playing Reggie. Angus Scrimm is still quite creepy as the Tall Man, but the fact that the Tall Man talks a lot more in this film, makes him loose some of his creepiness. The character of Mike is played by A. Michael Baldwin again (he had been replaced by James LeGros in Part 2), which, in my opinion, doesn't make much of a difference. The gore also keeps the film interesting enough to watch, but it is still a disappointment, especially because the attempts to make up for the lack of ideas get annoying quite quickly.<br /><br />All things considered, "Phantasm III" is an acceptable time-waster, but it is definitely disappointing compared to its predecessors. Fans of the first two "Phantasm" films can give it a try, but I recommend not to set your expectations too high. | 0 |
The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.<br /><br /> | 0 |
It starts a little slow but give it a chance. In the spirit of the "Wackiest Ship in the Arm" and the "Pink Sub" this movie is about a not so orthodox group engaged in not so orthodox methods to outwit everyone. Rob Schneider is priceless as a LT that takes himself way too seriously which results in a failed mutiny attempt and "pirate" crew makes him walk the plank. In contrast Kelsey Grammar(similar to Cary Grant)does not take anything to serious except the job. This movie is more about lines than plot. From the "beered up" fisherman in Charleston harbor to the "whale" decoy, their antics took me by surprise and I laughed out loud. | 1 |
Plato's run is an entertaining b movie with Gary Busey.it is a fairly unknown film so one i saw it at a car boot i thought this looks entertaining i was right to.Gary Busey plays Plato smith a tough mercenary who is framed for the assassination of a powerful Cuban crime lord now on the run Plato must survive long enough to prove his innocence with the help of his friends played by Steve Bauer (scarface) and action star Jeff Speaksman (the expert). what i liked about Plato's run was the way the film never got boring the plot may have been done before but it was still good the acting was fun to watch and the action was quite fun as well especially the climax Gary Busey makes a good hero ironic since he normally plays the bad guy and Steve Bauer is good as Plato's sidekick even Jeff Speaksman makes a good performance and he cant even act well to finish it of Plato's run is an enjoyable effort from nu image films and i give it 7 out of 10 | 1 |
This movie moves and inspire you, it's like you are one of the family. Just to see and witness life during the depression era, makes you feel humble and grateful. Jonathan Silverman delivered well, so convincing and very witty! A must see for Teens! | 1 |
This film is all about humans. This film stayed as my all time favorite short cartoon for years.<br /><br />Isn't it the simplest things that make life so much more interesting?! We humans are so soft, compassionate, funny, caring to each other one moment -- we invent the most beautiful and amazing machines to kill as many people as possible with the least effort the next. In our short lives, we destroy our world, each other and often, our own lives, than spend the rest of our lives trying to fix what we've destroyed. Sometimes, there is nothing left to fix!<br /><br />This film can entertain, educate and even help us realize what is wrong in our lives! Life is short and can be even shorter! The ending is way too optimistic I am afraid.<br /><br />I love Richard Condie's mind and what he makes happen with it! <br /><br />Enjoy<br /><br />H.K. | 1 |
Bad, bad, bad. How do movies like this get made? Badly written, poorly acted; I could go on, but why bother? As an aside, note that the characters' first names are the same as the actors playing them : this is a dead giveaway that no one on the set is even interested enough in their role to bother learning someone else's characters names! | 0 |
This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this. | 0 |
Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually. | 1 |
This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette. | 1 |
I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty! | 0 |
Very entertaining, and a great cast as noted. I'd like to add that Bruce Dern did a fine job also, as is usually the case. Worth renting if you can find it, which has proved difficult for me. Also note that the Amazon link from this page currently goes to a different movie of the same name. | 1 |
I know these types of films sell tickets and make a profit for the film makers but it just won't do as a film about Vietnam. Viet Nam was filled with horrors for the men who lived it day in and day out.<br /><br />This film stars Gene Hackman who is Korean war vet assigned to train a group of rag-tag Viet Nam Vets for a return trip to that country to rescue a group of American POW's held at a camp there. These men include a former tunnel rat, a crazy acid dropping sailor, a blond tanned surfer from California and some inexperienced kid (Patrick Swayze) who just so happens had a dad that was killed in Nam. They train first at some camp in Texas and once in Nam they are found out and lose all their weapons. They are able to find replacement weapons and continue on their way to free the captured men. Most of the men are found and saved but the rag-tag group is mostly wiped out.<br /><br />This movie played like a video game in which you could figure out what was going to happen next and who would pop out of behind what bush, and who was going to die and who was going to live. Viet Nam I'm guessing was not like a video game.... | 0 |
Look, we rated this a 10 on entertainment value. It's a comedy sure, not an epic like Lord of the Rings, or Gone with the Wind. Still for comedy, particularly these days, it's a 10.<br /><br />Not a long movie, moves quickly and easily. Kelsey Grammar right at home is this role as a loose but brilliant captain of a diesel sub, pitted against the US Nuclear Navy in a war game, designed to see if Terrorists could get a nuclear bomb through our defenses. (kinda ironic this plot...pre 911) Don't take this topic seriously cause it's mostly laughs from start to finish.<br /><br />Rob Schneider is 2nd in command (like "Frank Burns") and pulls many laughs. All the others are perfect for their parts as well. Rip Torn and Bruce Dern.<br /><br />Look plain and simple, you got 90 minutes and need a laugh or pick me up and you're not a prude (their is some language and innuendo) then rent it, or buy it (we did) and enjoy! I wish they would make a part 2! | 1 |
A documentary about two rocks bands, spanning a number of years. Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. What makes it special is the examination of the complex contrasting personalities and the ironies of success and failure.<br /><br />Anton Newcombe, the main man of Brian Jonestown Massacre, is widely recognised as a musical genius not only by his colleagues, his friends and rivals the Dandy Warhols, but also by record producers and most people who have worked with him. Sadly he and his band members are also incapable of integrating with the real world. Newcombe picks fights with band members on stage or with members of the audience (getting arrested at one point for literally kicking in the head of a fan). Newcombe knows no limits he plays between 40 and 100 different instruments, writes and produces all BJM's music, can produce enough songs to fill a whole album in a single day, has a prophet-like obsessiveness with his own musical genius, but is also a heavy drugs user, flies into rages at the slightest compromise of his own artistic integrity, orders his band members about as if they are lower forms of life, and can blow deals as fast as he makes them. BJM go through a large number of record labels in fast succession they sign them up as soon as they realise Newcombe's talents and let them go as soon as they realise he is totally uncontrollable.<br /><br />The Warhols acknowledge their debt to Newcombe's creativity and don't even put themselves in the same exalted sphere of greatness but the Warhols have something that BJM don't the ability to integrate their talents with common sense, the real world, and their market as a mixing pot of talent (even if much of it is distilled from guru Newcombe) and accessibility, they are the very definition of 'cool.' DiG! follows the parallel careers of the two bands with increasing poignancy. At one point, Newcombe pulls stunts designed to generate publicity by sending apparent death threats and hate messages to the Warhols (in a box containing live ammunition and insults like a bar of soap 'to clean up their act') only he forgets to tell them it's a stunt and they get so paranoid they take out a restraining order against Newcombe. By the time the Dandy Warhols take off in Europe with hits like 'Every Day Should Be A Holiday' and 'Bohemian Like You', Newcombe is becoming increasingly isolated. BJM are stopped and the band breaks up when they are arrested for possession of marijuana the Warhols get busted for drugs around the same time, let off with a warning, and even allowed to keep the grass.<br /><br />The wider appeal of DiG! is that the lessons of genius versus accessibility go way beyond two bands or even rock music. The downside is that it is still a documentary, however intimate, and it will mostly only appeal to dedicated film fans or people who are already interested in the music of one or both of the featured bands. Newcombe may well be a largely unrecognised genius, and there are feint glimpses of this in the film, but to the unattuned ear there is little more than the assertions of the people interviewed to attest to this. In the words of one of the band members: "In every spiritual tradition, you burn in hell for pretending to be God and not being able to back it up." Newcombe isn't pretending but numerically there are maybe still insufficient people to appreciate him in his own lifetime, and DiG! has an uphill struggle to rectify the balance in favour of a tortured but largely unrecognised genius. | 1 |
I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending! | 1 |
Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.