text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I loves this movie,because it showed that they were not killing for fun but to save the ones they loved! Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom did a great job portraying Ned and Joe. It has a few quick inappropriate scenes but is all right other than that. The language is very mild and sometimes don't even know it is there. This movie shows that just because they are outlaws does not mean that they are vicious killers! I hope that people will watch this movie and learn about important times in history like this one. There is one thing that fascinates me about this movie is that they got their inspiration for their armor from a book Ned looked at! Also that that is how people remember them,from their armor. I hope that people will watch this movie and get interested as I have. | 1 |
This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for "Just Say" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must. | 1 |
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe. | 0 |
In the process of trying to establish the audiences' empathy with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) the filmmakers slander the North and the Jayhawkers. Missouri never withdrew from the Union and the Union Army was not an invading force. The Southerners fought for State's Rights: the right to own slaves, elect crooked legislatures and judges, and employ a political spoils system. There's nothing noble in that. The Missourians could have easily traveled east and joined the Confederate Army.<br /><br />It seems to me that the story has nothing to do with ambiguity. When Jake leaves the Bushwhackers, it's not because he saw error in his way, he certainly doesn't give himself over to the virtue of the cause of abolition. | 1 |
Avoid the USA version. It is with added US footage and the worst dubbing you've ever heard probably done by New York amateurs. The dubbing is so bad that it sounds like Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think a black guy from the Bronx does Chiba's voice. I couldn't watch the entire film it was that bad. Instead of this Americanized version watch Chiba's other greats like The Streetfighter or Karate Warriors. | 0 |
THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against "heroic" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.<br /><br />For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.<br /><br />My favorite line: "Guess it's caused from steroids." | 1 |
Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.<br /><br />This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .<br /><br />If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.<br /><br />I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me . | 0 |
Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead. | 0 |
Back in 2004 I saw "True", Tom Tykwer's contribution to Paris Je T'aime. When I saw it I loved it and became thrilled. It became my favorite short film and made me appreciate the format so much. Of course I wanted to watch the whole film, and I would even check who was attached, etc.<br /><br />Yesterday I finally saw it, courtesy of the internet.<br /><br />First of all I must say that it looks AWESOME. The photography is BEAUTIFUL in every short and shot, at the worst being nothing special - but still brilliant and clear. Later I read the trivia here, and maybe it's how scanning in 6K gives more justice to all the DP's work. My special favorites are the "Quais de Seine" first scene (that sunlight!), the Sin City-esquire (but better for me) "Quartier de la Madeleine", and "14th Arrondisement" - but you know, what the hell I like them all: "True" or "Faubourg Saint-Denis" still makes me nervous with those brilliant colours (my eyes, they tremble!) and "Quartier Latin" is gold imprisoned on silver. Beautiful.<br /><br />Yes, these are some BEAUTIFUL short films.<br /><br />Now let's get onto the content. I very much (and I mean VERY MUCH) like the eclecticism that is so successfully felt. You never have have the same themes or treatment between two shorts, and I think the formula is restrictive enough to let all these artists explore beautiful and deepening things inside the shorts. I loved coming from a simple love story into a crazy-Chinese-musical-in-Paris-with-Barbet-Schroeder into a social commentary into a terror comedy into a humble monologue. I love surprises! And this film has them! It's great they took a chance to let all these director's flesh out things that are not usual in mainstream cinema (which I have come to heavily despise). It's not heavily experimental, but I can breath the breathing space these people had.<br /><br />I like the small time and I love the acting. I love the simplicity and I love the love. I like the simple feelings and the beauty and the eclecticism and in general it's a film that is very very very nice to see, alone or with someone. To simply feel. It left me feeling very good.<br /><br />There is something about the earnestness in it... it's so frank...<br /><br />What I didn't like? Well, for me there are two shorts that aren't exactly the best - "Quais de Seine" (which is good natured, sure, and maybe even necessary, but feels too much like a commercial?) and "Père-Lachaise" that even though I love the acting, I felt it's themes were forced. But that of course, is just me. "Tour Eiffel" I also didn't love but I think is probably because of my very different sensibility from that of Sylvain Chomet? I don't know if this film has a special interest for people who already know the actor's and directors, and so they can delight in their interaction, in the surprises (look out for Alexander Payne in a funny role) and basically in "what will this director do with this?" great question. I enjoyed it very much in that way.<br /><br />I repeat now: Most shorts I loved and all of them together form a beautiful and energetic mix. I definitely recommend it. Definitely!!! So, watch it if you like Eclectic Beautiful Love! | 1 |
well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time. | 0 |
If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).<br /><br />In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.<br /><br />A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it! | 1 |
A bum gives a Secret Serviceman a tip about a Secret Service man in the presidential detail who plans to kill the president. Baloney. How did the bum know? The script then turns to a most detailed examination of how the Secret Service works, but who cares. Most of this just slows down the movie. All the chases that follow are this film's version of the tiresome car chases of many movies. Then, after a lot of impossible athleticism in which our hero outruns and out-guns all his buddies, we have a shootout in the Toronto City Hall. The Canadians are clearly marked with maple leafs, but how did they get into this? Finally, all is worked out. But it still makes no sense. | 0 |
Why did I go to see this film? Honestly, because Jim Carrey was in it and in the past he has made hilarious movies that have made me cry with laughter, so do you really blame me for expecting that again? Additionally, the premise, the funny trailer, his co-star Jennifer Aniston's involvement, and the fact it was a massive hit stateside encouraged me.<br /><br />However, as my "one line Summary" suggests, I was Disappointed. For various reasons;<br /><br />Reason 1: It wasn't funny. In a 2hour movie, I laughed for about 5-10minutes...all together, the rest of the time I sat thinking "I really should have got some ice-cream". I admit that maybe it is wrong to judge Jim Carrey on his previous films, but what does he really expect when he makes Gem's such as 'The Truman Show' , 'Liar Liar' , 'Me, Myself and Irene' , 'Dumb and Dumber' , 'The Mask', and the 'Ace Ventura' films then produces, in Bruce Nolan's own words, such a mediocre film?<br /><br />Reason 2: Jennifer Aniston's role was criminally underwritten. I mean hello! She's been around in the public eye for about ten years now, and in this film she gets about four lines to say. Wrong.<br /><br />Reason 3: One word - Cliché<br /><br />Reason 4: A casual deployment of specifically American References - Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Cronkite 'sweeps week' - is a clue to the film's specifically home-grown appeal. "A teenager says no to drugs and yes to an Education - that's a miracle! Want to see a miracle soon? Be the miracle!" God tells Bruce, a heavy handed sentiment that seems to have gone down a treat in the US, but might face tougher resistance in markets that retain an inkling for subtlety. Additionally, I still go to school, and that statement suggests me and all of my friend's are miracles...or maybe it just means we have brains?<br /><br />In this film there are enough funny Carrey moments to make you chuckle and prevent Bruce Almighty from being a total calamity, but you are advised to start revising your expectations downwards. | 0 |
This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon. | 0 |
Even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it's still an awful film. If one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke.....first off, Jeroen Krabbé is i guess the poor man's Gerard Depardieu.....naturally i hate Gerard Depardieu even though he was very funny in the 'Iron Mask' three musketeer one. Otherwise to me he is box office poison and Jeroen Krabbé is worse than that. The poor man's box office poison....really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. If the '4th Man' is supposed to be some sort of critique of the Bourgeoisie....what am i saying? it isn't. Let's just say hypothetically, if it was supposed to be, it wasn't sharp enough. Satire is a tricky thing....if it isn't sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead......i think that is what happened. The story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either.....(for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any Luis Bunuel film....very sharp satire)<br /><br />[potential spoiler alert]<br /><br />Really, the blow job in the cemetery that Jeroen Krabbé's character works so so hard to attain.... do you even care? is it funny? since Mr. Voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control.....though i'm guessing he didn't cast Jeroen Krabbé because he's the worst actor and every character he's played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass.... except he's incompetent at it. So it becomes like a weird caricature. Do you think Mr. Voerhoven did that on purpose? and Jeroen Krabbé is the butt of the joke as well? I just don't see it...... So you understand the dilemma i'm faced with here right? It is the worst film ever because he's supposed to be a good director. So there is some kind of dupery involved. I knew 'Patch Adams' was horrible without even seeing it. Do not be duped by 'The 4th Man"s deceptively alluring packaging or mr. Voerhoven's reputation as a good director etc. etc. | 0 |
I've been disappointed, if not surprised, at the lack of appreciation this film has received. Once again, Billy Zane proves he's more than just a Hollywood pretty boy in a silent performance that combines spastic slapstick with understated pathos. Calling this a silent film is inaccurate, as there's a lot of music and sound. It has a manic pace and is full of the goofy inventiveness that Ed Wood is finally beginning to be appreciated for. Look at the cast listing, and realize that everyone shines. No one is there just to show their face. I believe they're all in the movie to show their appreciation of Wood, and to do a broad, physical kind of acting not seen much these days.<br /><br />But, today, reviewers try to guess what's going to become a hit much more than they show any kind of esthetic appreciation for a movie. And IWUETDID has no discernable target audience. It was made mostly out of love for Wood's script. Even after his death, the trendy social parasites have dealt him another serious blow, and deprived the world of a minor classic. This is a highly entertaining and a genuinely experimental film that really deserves to live, at least on DVD. | 1 |
Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.<br /><br />FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.<br /><br />But if you insist on reading, consider: <br /><br />Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.<br /><br />Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.<br /><br />By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.<br /><br />That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you: <br /><br />Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.<br /><br />Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination. | 0 |
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack. | 0 |
Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.<br /><br />The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button a lot. | 0 |
I think that this film is one of the funniest films i have ever seen. I think Debbie Reynolds is hilarious and the chemistry between her and Glenn Ford is perfect. There is not a dull moment in the film and Debbie looks beautiful as always. <br /><br />The story is about a showgirl Maggie(Debbie Reynolds) who meets a penniless soldier Joe (Glenn Ford). She takes an instant dislike to him but after he accidentally tears her dress, he returns it to her on the condition that she goes on one date with him. They end up getting married the night they have their date after just one kiss. Joe and Maggie move to Spain and find they have nothing in common but physical attraction, so Maggie proposes that for one month they live but not as man and wife which means that Joe is not allowed to kiss or sleep with Maggie, much to Joe's frustration.A hilarious plot and a wonderful film. Not to be missed. | 1 |
I had the privilege recently of viewing what is said to be the last 35mm, Technicolor, stereo print and found it much livelier and more touching than remembered. Also closer to the original material -- basically, all screenwriter N. Richard Nash did was trim, change much recitative to spoken dialog, and insert a transitional scene or two (including a very amusing one for Pearl Bailey). Oliver Smith's production design is stagy in the "Li'l Abner"-"Guys and Dolls" '50s adaptation mode, but it works well for this work's folkloric, unrealistic quality. Stereotyping and racism are present, but not to a wince-inducing degree. Further, for a movie of its time, it's pretty frank -- the adultery, violent behavior, drug use, and self-destructive habits of the denizens of Catfish Row are not at all minimized in the telling. But there are debits, beginning with all that variation from the stage text. The loss of so much compromises Gershwin's brilliance -- no wonder the family doesn't like it. The reorchestration, especially of Sammy Davis Jr.'s material, is disconcertingly trendy and vulgar. George knew what he was doing, folks; you didn't have to mess with it so much. And while Poitier and Dandridge act well and their singing doubles sing well, there's a huge chasm between the characters' singing and speaking voices -- you're constantly aware of the artifice. What really counts here, of course, is the music, among the greatest ever written for the theater, anywhere. Despite all the tinkering, it survives,and you'd have to be made of stone not to be moved by it. If the treatment isn't entirely to the estate's liking (and it shouldn't be), there's still no reason not to spend some bucks to restore this ambitious filming of Gershwin's masterpiece and make new generations more aware of his genius. | 1 |
Think of this film as a Saturday morning live-action program from ages ago. Even the small tykes will find this one hard to please because it runs like molasses! I can't fully understand how god awful it is to make something too typical and uninteresting, especially in the costume department! Too many warrior-wizard movies out there have used the same old plotline numerous times over, but this is mighty scarce considering its appeal to the little darlings. And who in the world would've let a topless mermaid be cast in the first place? I thought this was a "family" movie! MST3K, here's another fine gem for your 1999 TV season! | 0 |
You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the teenagers call each other, from "nerdlebrain" (my personal favorite) to "turkey". Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister) attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because, to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless you're like 10 years old or something). | 1 |
1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end. | 0 |
I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).<br /><br />One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.<br /><br />In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.<br /><br />And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad. | 0 |
if you are dating a girl that is into wicca!<br /><br />many parts of this movie were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on...<br /><br />i definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student should see b/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on | 1 |
Being a giant monster fan, me seeing "Yeti" was an absolute must, especially after hearing so much about it. Thanks to the good 'ol bootleg market I was able to find a copy pretty easily, and was happily surprised upon watching that this flick was actually, dare I say, decent.<br /><br />Decent for what it is, actually, namely a cheesy giant-monster flick. It kicks in pretty quickly as Yeti is found pretty much immediately, and we get introduced to various characters. They consist of some sleazy ones, some good ones, and a girl who is pretty much one of the most downright strikingly beautiful girls in any cheesy sci-fi film, by far.<br /><br />Yeti looks like a long-haired guy straight out of the original Woodstock concert, and really, he's not that bad of a dude, especially after being introduced to the world in some kind of funky cage-like thing. Godzilla he is not - despite his rude awakening, he doesn't even rampage (actually he rarely destroys anything in the whole picture), but kinda just looks puzzled while trying to figure things out. Yeti seems to understand English pretty nicely (my copy was dubbed in English) and he knows who the good guys and bad guys are.<br /><br />However, we want to see the giant Yeti do his thing, and he's pretty much in the whole movie, and in typical low-budget fashion, he seems to change size a lot depending on the scene and there's even a bunch of the "fake legs" shots of him just standing there.<br /><br />Yes, the special effects aren't the greatest, but there are definitely some good ones here. A scene where Yeti smashes through a warehouse is done very well, and in another, he uses the windows of a building as "ladder steps" to climb down from the top of it - shattering each window with his foot and often shocking the occupants inside - in one sequence that really looks much, much better than it should in such a "bad" movie.<br /><br />"Yeti" never stoops as low as say, "A.P.E." does. Actually the only time it even comes close to genuine silliness is when the beautiful girl causes Yeti's nipple to become erect and he lifts his eyebrow in an "oh yeah baby" manner. But even this isn't that bad, and kinda even gets a laugh out of the viewer.<br /><br />The movie is pretty long for this kind of thing, but surprisingly enough it doesn't get boring - the story is actually good, and just watching this utterly gorgeous actress on screen will make any male viewer happy.<br /><br />"Yeti" may not be in the upper echelon of giant monster flicks, but it is definitely better than other King Kong '76 rip-offs like "A.P.E." and "Queen Kong" by very far. | 1 |
This Italian movie is basically a soap opera with skin.<br /><br />The VHS box said it was rated "R" but the into on the actual tape inside said it was "X." The latter makes a lot more sense because there is a short scene near the end that was shocking. Even in the dark, you could see Dutch actress Marishcka Detmers performing all sex on this guy - and, yes, you could see his penis in her mouth. I read somewhere that this was the first time where a "mainline actress" had done something like this on screen.<br /><br />Detmers parades around in the nude on several scenes but her face was even better than her body. She looked beautiful. Unfortunately, the movie is ugly....a real waste of time and certainly not recommended despite Detmers' looks. | 0 |
There are so many episodes that make me howl over the stories<br /><br />that I wish I could pick the best ones , Rocko and Bill make for a strange pair that are beyond help but manage to play the victim and BS their way out of hard time just to drag Dan into their life of crime .<br /><br />Canadians will notice the odd joke for Toronto or the Federal Government, and because the CBC axed a really good show by the Frantics that Dan was part of , the show takes shots at them and in the episode "Dan's Umbrella" the CBC is raked across the coals .<br /><br />When Dan says that the CBC would never waste taxpayers money on useless venture , Rocko enters the room and gives Dan back his Tape of Friday-Night with Ralph Benmurgue , this show was a flop and most people wouldn't get the joke unless they knew the CBC's history for making shows people don't watch or axing good shows that they do watch. | 1 |
I cant help it but i seem to like films that are meant to be scary and are just plain bad. I have personally listed it in my own top 10 worst movies right under creatures of the abyss!. Watch this film and have a laugh just don't expect to see any academy awards for acting. More chance of understanding the film its self. In all honesty though i have seen much worse than this. Plus some maniac cruising round the desert wiping the same people out that just died is that unbelievable that its got to be original. i think its one of those love or hate movies. you can make up your own mind yes its awful but it pulls it off somehow thats why i love it | 0 |
The chaser's war on everything is a weekly show from the guys that brought you CNNNN and the chaser decides where each week the 5 chasers and Firth break down the issues that we didn't know were important.<br /><br />This show goes beyond the mere satirizing of politics and television by not being afraid to take the mickey out of anyone whether it be a counter-girl at subway or even the prime-minister of Australia and although this may be familiar ground in say American television it has never been this well executed.<br /><br />The Chaser's war on everything is the smartest, funniest and overall most entertaining show on Australian television and if you haven't seen it you seriously owe it to yourself to give it a watch. | 1 |
Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic realm.<br /><br />Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.<br /><br />The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.<br /><br />The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.<br /><br />The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better. | 1 |
As far as parody films go, there are few that are worth time and energy. but with a recent resurgence of horrid parodies such as Date Movie and The Comebacks, it is a breath of fresh air to come back and rediscover a truly funny farce like Johnny Dangerously.<br /><br />After his mother has no end of medical problems, little Johnny goes to work for the mob. What fallows is a series of gags, most of which work, there are, however, the occasional flops. But a foreign gangster who can't master the American language (profanity wise, at least), a rival gangster with a penchant for shooting his mouth off (...once!), a younger brother with the D.A. who is out to get Johhny Dangerously, and a hot young starlet hot for his affections have Johnny busy.<br /><br />And the viewer will be busy laughing, for the most part, as every gangster-movie cliché is skewered by a talented cast and decent writing.<br /><br />Not perfect by a long shot, but definitely good for a smile on a bad day. | 1 |
Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :) | 1 |
This is a delightful film. Elizabeth Taylor does a wonderful job, as does Mickey Rooney. The film just makes you feel happy. It's inspirational, and even though some parts are a bit overly sentimental, that is easily forgiven. I could watch this movie again and again. The race at the end is exciting every time I see it. Highly recommend this film. | 1 |
Hobgoblins... what a concept. Rick Sloan was a master with this film. He had the brilliance to produce a film with actors that couldn't act. On top of that, he chose to write a script based on some sort of bad acid trip gone serriously wrong. Put it together, you end up with a film that sucks more than a warehouse filled with suction cups and vaccum cleaners. This movie was very painful. The pain it caused is about equal to the pain caused by having your genitals carved out with a spoon, and then having the entire wound covered with salt and Hydrochloric acid. | 0 |
Tremendous black--and-white nighttime cinematography, and plenty of it, highlights this supposedly-true life account of a 1950s murder in Kansas in which an entire family was wiped out by two men.<br /><br />The story was written by Truman Capote, so you get the very Liberal anti-death penalty message at the end of the film, which is ludicrous knowing the facts of this case. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson play the two atheist losers who have twisted outlooks on life and who unnecessarily murder this nice family. <br /><br />Despite the annoying slant at the end, this is a riveting story from the start and the cinematography makes this even more fascinating. Famed photographer Conrad Hall did a fantastic job on this. It makes me wish more modern-day films were made in black-and-white. See it on DVD.<br /><br />Blake, Wilson, John Forsythe, Jeff Corey and the entire supporting cast are excellent in here. My third viewing of this film came in early April of 2005, shortly after Blake, in real life, was pronounced innocent in the murder trial of his wife. One can't help but look at Blake and this film differently after that. | 1 |
Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets. | 0 |
First of all sorry for giving even a rating of 1 to this movie (nothing less than this available). The film fails in every department be it screenplay, direction, characterization or acting. <br /><br />1) To start with, the name of the movie is really C class (though the movie itself match up to the name). 2) Amitabh Bachchan tries his best to live up to the character but the weak script coupled with pathetic direction ends up making him a humorous character. 3) In Sholay Gabbar Singh has reward of 50,000 on him (which was convincing). Here in Aag the figure was 100 crores for Babban (Amitabh Bachchan but poor man was beaten by our so called hero's and had only few men bikes to commute (with all automatic guns). Making a Sholay like movie in Mumbai type setup in modern time doesn't look convincing. 4) As for Nisha Kothari, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't know acting. Why is Ram Gopal Verma casting her again and again ? 5) Mohanlal was good but there is hardly anything for him to do. 6) Sushant Singh and Rajpal Yadav who are great actors are wasted in the movie. 7) Legendry role played by Lila Misra (Mausi of Basanti) in Sholay is replaced cheaply in this movie by some Gangu Mummy. Ramu please grow up and understand that there needs to be some intellect in your movie. Enough of stupid characters in your movie like Shiva and Aag. 8) Should not say anything about modern Jai and Veeru..pathetic to the greatest extent.<br /><br />To summarize, I was shocked to see this movie because it looks like a cheap and comic translation of original classic. Please don't waste money and time on this movie. I think watching Aap Ka Surror (which I thought was the worst movie possible) would be a better idea than to see this horrible package of stupid characters, bad songs and miserable direction.<br /><br />Thanks, Saurabh | 0 |
I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.<br /><br />I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.<br /><br />What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film. <br /><br />Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out. | 0 |
I've never been a fan of Farrah Fawcett...Until now. She was truly amazing in this movie. The emotion she must have gone through shooting re-take after re-take doesn't bare thinking about. This was a very hard movie to watch, the subject matter is decidedly unpleasant and you feel so helpless just sitting and watching a woman being abused for what seems like an eternity. I actually felt that the whole thing deflated somewhat when her friends returned to the house and I didn't find the conclusion at all plausible. The director seemed very keen in using height in his shots and loved using mirror reflections, I believe he should have paid more attention to the pace in the second half of this piece. I'm sure this makes a heck of a powerful piece of theatre, this movie for me, although it had merit, just fell short. | 1 |
If you are a bit masochistic and like to waste some time you should try this one. I wasted enough time myself watching it, so I will waste no more explaining why it is so awful. Be warned!!! Oh, I see that I have to fill 10 lines or more. Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit. The Cavern is one of those. I didn't have high expectations about this one but the acting is so bad and the production so poor that I'm seriously thinking of asking for a refund. Phewww ... one more line about a useless movie ... Oh, I'm done. | 0 |
The part of The Grinch was made for Jim Carrey and I was extremely impressed with his performance. Not being a great fan of his I was apprehensive but pleasantly surprised with the outcome. Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who was the cutest little girl I have seen on the screen for a long time and she showed a maturity beyond her years in her acting skills. I was even drawn to tears at one point! I've never read the Dr Seuss book of the tale so I didnt know what to expect, the humour was quite dark. Overall,I enjoyed the film (apart from the songs!) and would recommend it, for family viewing especially. | 1 |
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).<br /><br />The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.<br /><br />This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring. | 0 |
An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.<br /><br />Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by "a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage" (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.<br /><br />Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.<br /><br />Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final "twist" doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.<br /><br />Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.<br /><br />Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.<br /><br />The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.<br /><br />It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.<br /><br />The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.<br /><br />Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get. | 1 |
This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).<br /><br />The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!<br /><br />The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.<br /><br />Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself. | 0 |
This is a so called 'feel-good' movies, however it made me sad in a way. Why? Because I had the talent, but my parents didn't let me study at the sports academy, as well the fact that at the age of 12 I decided to quit soccer.<br /><br />And soccer is the red line in this movie. Together with the struggle youngsters have with the expectations parents have. An English-Indian girl and her parents, with their traditions and strong family ties, and on the other hand the English family with a daugther who dresses like a boy, and plays soccer... a combination which worries her mother! This movie also lines out the lives of ordinary people, as well as the Indian community in England. It is about believe in your dreams, and live your one life (where did we hear that before).<br /><br />Paraminder Nagra (a beautiful women!) plays Yasminda, a girl who is not interested in boys, new clothes, make-up and the typical 17 year old girl stuff. In contradiction with her sister Pinky, complete the opposite of Yasminda.<br /><br />A real must it is, to see how a young beautiful girl struggles with the traditions of their parents, and finds her luck eventually. With great music from Blondie, Curtis Mayfield, Texas, Melanie C, as well as Indian hit songs.<br /><br />Pleasant to watch, but if you, as myself, ever played soccer, and never made it to the top, then this movie will make you melachonic. | 1 |
"Christmas in Connecticut" is an absolute gem, and a must-see for Christmas! Elizabeth Lane, a precursor to Martha Stewart, is a magazine columnist and the ne plus ultra of homemakers--the perfect wife, mother, and domestic goddess. Only thing is, she is none of these things--a total phony. Unfortunately for her, she is about to be found out. Her publisher, Mr. Alexander Yardley (a brilliant comic turn by Sydney Greenstreet) gets the bright idea of inviting a famous war hero to Elizabeth's "perfect farm" for the Christmas holiday. Only thing, there is no farm, "perfect" or otherwise. The comedy involves how Elizabeth is to keep her real identity under wraps so she will not lose her job. Elizabeth's colleague, John, happens to have a farm in Connecticut, so that solves that problem. However, he wants to marry Liz, but she does not want to marry him. He offers her marriage, though he knows she doesn't feel the same way about him that he does about her. He makes the offer anyway, and assures her that he is willing to wait. And here Barbara Stanwyck, as Liz, delivers one of the most devastating put-downs I have ever heard. With perfect innocence, she replies: "Could you wait that long?" OUCH! In addition, the scenes between Una O'Conner and S.Z. Sakall are hilarious. They don't seem to like one another (though one suspects they really do). They are rivals in the household, and S.Z. Sakall's mangled English is equaled by Nora's strangled pronunciation of his name ("Mr. Basternook"). "My name is FELIX!" It is amazing how Christmas-y these black and white films are. Great character work by all involved. Don't miss this one! | 1 |
The Net is a movie I never saw upon release, I remember giving it a pass upon the mediocre reviews and since then perhaps been noticing a snippet here and there when it's been on TV. Seeing it now, fourteen years after it's original release, I'm a little flabbergasted as to how time flies. Being in my mid 20's, it made my childhood feel ancient. I felt as if I should probably do some exercise before my body starts stacking up fat in all the wrong places. Cut down on fat and sugar. Too much coffee and cigarettes.<br /><br />Anyway, that was the best part of this movie experience for me. I'd say the first 30 minutes of this movie really kept me occupied with retro heaven. Look at those big cans they call computers. Look, they chat in chat rooms! I remember those tank tops! They look.... stupid. And hey, it even stars Sandra Bullock. First billed! Would you look at that.<br /><br />As a movie, The Net is just an unimaginative, plain and totally routine Hitchockian cat-and-mouse thriller. Nothing archaic about that, they made them then as much as they make them now. Bullock plays a reclusive computer nerd who's job it is to fix software for people who don't get "that whole computer thingy". As it happens, she stumbles upon some delicate information and after her vacation trip ends up with her nearly getting killed by a sexy lay who turns out to be a killer (played by Jeremy Northam, and she should have been suspicious by the fact that they are in an American movie and the guy both smokes and has a British accent!) she gets her "identity wiped out". Her house is empty, for sale, and upon checking it out, it turns out that she now has got a new identity. A convicted prostitute and impostor, no less.<br /><br />Now you might say that this is improbable. How could they possibly do that to her? Even in 1995, it's impossible! That's true, but back in '95 a lot of people didn't even know what the Internet was. I can see how it's a plot hole you could have accepted back then. What's far more disastrous though is the inconsistencies that have nothing to do with technology. The movie obviously owes a lot to Hitchcock movies (it's one of those thrillers that feature a merry-go-round by night) but Hitchcock always made sure that his movies were plausible. The characters didn't act like confused maniacs when trying to prove their innocence, and the plot didn't conveniently lay down for a structure where one obstacle inevitable leads to the other. The characters also tried a little before giving into the whole rouge chase. Has Bullock's character really no friends what so ever? Couldn't any old high school teacher confirm her identity? Or like... her nearest pizza guy? Oh right, she orders pizza from the Internet. Never mind. You figure the movie out pretty quickly. There seems to be hope in an ex boyfriend. You really think so? You should always count on at least ONE surprise. The Net offers none.<br /><br />The Internet poses a lot of danger, this movie seems to predict. But, had the movie been made today, imagine the troubles the villains would have to go through to ensure the identity wipe. Not only do they have to do all those boring literal things, she would still have her Facebook membership, with at least like 100 friends or so, and picture tags, not to mention she might be on YouTube or Linked-In, and what about her video blog with like 150 daily hits, or the webcams in her house and recorded video of her in other people's cell phones, webcams, web downloads... her IMDb membership? | 0 |
I read the comments about this movie before watching it and wasn't expecting much, but as a B movie it's a curiosity. I guess you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy this kind of thing, but I seriously thought it was awesome. People should watch it just for the experience because it's totally one of a kind. Don't expect much of it. The acting is poor, transitions were obviously done on a PC, etc. Definitely a B movie, but nonetheless really worth checking out. Very funny. Mild gore, and some questionable themes, so probably not something to show your Gran, but for the more adventurous viewer I'd say it's a must see. | 1 |
This movie resonated with me on two levels. As a kid I was evacuated from London and planted on unwilling hosts in a country village. While I escaped the bombing and had experiences which produced treasured memories (for example hearing a nightingale sing one dark night for the very first time) and enjoying a life I never could have had in London, I missed my family and worried about them. Tom is an old man whose wife and child have both died and who lives alone in a small country village.As an old man who is now without a wife whose kids have gotten married and live far away in another province, I am again sometime lonely. The boy's mother is a religious fanatic with very odd ideas of raising a child. Since a deep affection has grown between old Tom Oakley and this young lad, Tom goes in search of him and finally rescues him from very odd and dangerous circumstances. At the end of the story there is great tension since due to some bureaucratic ruling it seems that the child is going to lose someone who has developed a loving relationship with him. | 1 |
The danish movie "Slim Slam Slum" surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie "Stjerner uden hjerner" as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance! | 0 |
Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's "Frederick, Frederick, Frederick," you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually "collect" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles. | 0 |
I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.<br /><br />John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?<br /><br />Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended. | 1 |
Great movie. I thought it would never be as good as it was. Great special effects, great story, big laughs. It didn't take itself seriously, which is why I think it worked so well. Even the acting was surprisingly good. Overall a very funny and sometimes chilling story. | 1 |
Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt. | 1 |
This was one of the most emotional movies I have seen. Passion, Pleasure, Pain, Despair, Sorrow, Healing, Cleansing and Love.<br /><br />The entire movie was spellbinding. Everything was done so well; the adaptation from the book, the actors, the sets, the camera shots.<br /><br />This movie touched me deeply in so many ways. It reminded me of the despair that loosing your love can have, and the time it takes to heal that wound. You may love again, but will always be risking the pain that comes with separation. <br /><br />Is this not one of the most important age-old questions?<br /><br />"Is it better to have love and lost? <br /><br />Than to never have loved before?" <br /><br />-Ascension | 1 |
This movie is amazing for several reasons. Harris takes an extremely awkward documentary and turns it into a relevant social commentary. Groovin' Gary is a small-town kid who is (assumed) well-liked for his many impersonations. When he decides to play Olivia Newton John in a local talent show (for whom he is very passionate), Gary's actions show that he is at odds with the conservative social environment in which he lives. This results in him making various justifications for his actions so that people will not think that he is in fact a transvestite or other such social outcast. In the second installment, Harris exploites the struggle between Gary and Beaver in a novice attempt to make a narrative out of the original documentary. The third and final installment to the trilogy is truly amazing for Harris' extreme sensitivity with the subject. Unlike the second installment, "The Orkly Kid" shows Gary as a truly troubled character. He struggles to gain acceptance within his own community to no avail. His secret passion for dressing like Olivia Newton John distances him even further from the people that already consider him a social outcast. The movie is depicted so realistically that, like reality, it lends itself to many reactions. Surely, one can see Gary as a ridiculously pathetic character, but may also identify with him as an outcast. | 1 |
Red Skelton was still another major star who made the transition from movies to television with ease.<br /><br />His shows certainly brought a laughter to the American households of years back.<br /><br />He would begin the show with an opening monologue. Afterwards, we would have a variety of characters. Remember Gertrude and Heathcliff in the monologue? How can we ever forget San Fernando Red? I remember one episode where as a king Red introduced his queen by referring to her as your fatness.<br /><br />Go know that Red would use his comedic talents to really hide from his tragic life. He lost a son to leukemia at age 11 or so. His wife, Georgia, died by suicide. | 1 |
Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the "scary" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.<br /><br />For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?<br /><br />If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2. | 1 |
The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.<br /><br />The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).<br /><br />The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying. <br /><br />The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.<br /><br />Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!<br /><br />I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though | 0 |
A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.<br /><br />If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 "full-length" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known. | 1 |
Even 15 years after the end of the Vietnam war "Jacknife" came not too late or was even superfluous. It's one of the few that try to deal with the second sad side of the war: The time after. Different from movies like "Taxi driver" or "Rambo" which use to present their main characters as broken heroes in a bad after war environment this movie allows the audience to face a different view on the Vietnam vets. Their development is shown very precisely before and especially after the war. The problems are obvious but in all this tragic there is always the feeling of some hope on the basis of love and friendship. "Jacknife" might be the quietest Vietnam movie ever but after almost 15 years this is really plausible and therefor justified. Moreover, it can make us believe that the war has not finished, yet; at least for some of us.<br /><br />The three main characters are amazing. De Niro has done one of his best jobs but Ed Harris is the star of this movie. Possibly,this was his best performance ever. | 1 |
Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for thought.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.<br /><br />While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.<br /><br />Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.<br /><br />Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE. | 0 |
Last night, I got bored and decided to watch a movie called 'out kold' which I had once bought with a whole lot of other cheap movies from a videostore. Seemed like a good old action movie, so I took out the chips and coke and was ready for a relaxing evening. Well, the pain started right from the beginning. The main character is a boxer who is the nicest guy I have ever seen. As the good person he has to be nice of course, but he is just a pussy! That totally doesn't fit with a boxer that has 28 KO's and starts working for a pimp to earn some extra money. Even nice guys can still be cool. Well, then came his first fight while he was working for this pimp. Every punch was clearly missed and that became even more annoying because the sound effect weren't synchronised with the punches. Then there is this totally worthless acting of the whole cast, and you have enough reasons to leave this movie for what it is. I gave it a 1 because I have never seen such a bad movie. | 0 |
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...<br /><br />It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all? | 0 |
Well, what to say...<br /><br />Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...<br /><br />VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"<br /><br />Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it... | 0 |
This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding. <br /><br />The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.<br /><br />I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares? | 0 |
This film is about a young Indian guy who comes home one day and finds himself getting engaged to a woman. The problem is that he is gay. In order to stop the wedding without telling his parents that he is gay, one lie leads to another until it spirals out of control.<br /><br />This film is hilarious and got me laughing many times. Sally Bankes' acting is superb and she plays this strong woman who does what she wants convincingly. The plot is outstanding as well. I find the plot very realistic, and I can completely identify with Jimi's feeling of being terrified, worried and upset. On the other hand, Jimi's boyfriend, Jack, is given much less attention in the film. I would have liked him to be given more lines in the film, and have more character development. However, as I guess the director wants to make this a more mainstream film, the love between Jimi and Jack was not developed in the film.<br /><br />It is great to watch a gay affirmative film. Furthermore, this film preaches us to be accepting to other people's difference, be it sexuality, culture and the way of life. This film makes viewers think hard.<br /><br />We need films like this to give us a boost. Thanks for making this film! | 1 |
Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also. | 1 |
When plague breaks out in New Orleans, it's Richard Widmark to the rescue in "Panic in the Streets," one of the lesser-celebrated films of the great Elia Kazan. Kazan keeps the pace brisk, and there are lots of marvelous touches - the scenes between Widmark and Barbara Bel Geddes, who plays his wife and the scene in the police station show family life and work life and the relationships of average citizens, which is in sharp contrast to the lives and relationships of the low-lifes, portrayed by a menacing Jack Palance, his weak yes man, Zero Mostel, Tommy Cook, and Louis Charles. There are also some interesting visuals - Palance has a couple of scenes with actors who seem to come up to his knees in height.<br /><br />The acting is marvelous and the dialogue sharp if the story isn't quite up to the direction and performances. It has a few questionable aspects which will be spotted by the viewer quite easily. That aside, it's well worth viewing. Kazan was a masterful director. | 1 |
Although it's not as creepy as it's cult classic predecessor (ZOMBI 2) I actually like this one better. This is because of it's faster pace, better settings, and cool 80's soundtrack. It's loaded with action and has sweet gore effects by Lucio Fulci. The zombies don't quite look as nasty as in ZOMBI 2 but they still look good. It was made pretty well but it definitely has it's share of cheesiness; for instance some zombies move really slow while others are as quick as ninjas. some are braindead while others say funny lines, but who expects consistency when it comes to Italian horror? There's even a flying zombie head! How rad is that? Definitely a must see for gorehounds and zombie fans. it'd probably satisfy most fans of action movies as well. Also check out Zombi 4. | 1 |
What an awesome mini-series. The original TRAFFIK completely stole me away from anything else that was on. Far more engaging than the American remake, the original TRAFFIK boasts an amazing cast formed of lesser known actors to North American audiences. Juliette Binoche being the mainly recognizable actress who plays a drug addicted teenaged daughter of a government official. But it's not star power that carries this film (though I enjoyed the American version, I felt it was dimmed by the famous Americans in the picture). <br /><br />Unfortunately, I saw the American version before I found the original BBC mini-series. Of course there were no picture filters, lush locales, and the big name stars/director. However, the grit and grime of Europe (through the drugworld) perfectly compliments the impending sense of danger, which permeates throughout this film. The problems, such as getting addicts off of drugs by giving them more, poor anti-drug campaigning, and the resistance of foreign governments to assist with destroying their drug cultivators from within, all make TRAFFIK bold, immersive, and horrific all at the same time!<br /><br />The truly incredible portions of the movie all come from Pakistan. My God, I never knew how bad the problem really was over in Europe...even all over! For a real education on the problems of drugs, beyond how they affect the human body you must watch both this and the American version. Each show one very clear and undeniable fact. Those countries, which are leaders in the eyes of the world, have a culture that has led to the death and suffering for many. <br /><br />Drugs are worse than war. They work in the shadows, the dark secrets of any "successful" society. | 1 |
I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry. | 0 |
Natalie Wood portrays Courtney Patterson, a polio disabled songwriter who attempts to avoid being victimized as a result of involvement in her first love affair, with her partner being attorney Marcus Simon, played tepidly by Wood's real-life husband, Robert Wagner. The film is cut heavily, but the majority of the remaining scenes shows a very weak hand from the director who permits Wagner to consistently somnambulate, laying waste to a solid and nuanced performance from Wood, who also proffers a fine soprano. The script is somewhat trite but the persistent nature of Wagner's dramatic shortcoming is unfortunately in place throughout, as he is given a free hand to impose his desultory stare at Wood, which must be discouraging to an actress. The progression of their relationship is erratically presented and this, coupled with choppy editing, leads the viewer to be less than assured as to what is transpiring, motivation being almost completely ignored in the writing. Although largely undistinguished, the cinematography shines during one brief scene when Wood is placed in a patio and, following the sound of a closing door, remains at the center while the camera's eye steadily pulls away demonstrating her helplessness and frailty. More controlled direction would have allowed the performers, even the limp Wagner, to scale their acting along the lines of an engaging relationship; as it was released, there is, for the most part, an immense lack of commitment. | 0 |
In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps? | 1 |
I admit to being in awe of the Sea and have spent a number of years in the Navy, so I am somewhat biased on this one. I missed this documentary when it first came out but nagged various people to buy me it on DVD this Christmas (2002) and I got it! Some of the film is amazing and I have a lot of respect for those who make these kinds of documentaries, to see 200 ton Blue Whales 'cruising' through the Sea is an incredible sight, they looked like submarines. I like the level of information and facts conveyed through the narration, it is just right, I don't want to know a load of science just some of the basics, to see these things is enough for most people. The BBC has a knack of putting things at the right level for the intended audience.<br /><br />A really great documentary, up there with 'The World at War for' me, the DVD is of excellent quality. If I had a minor criticism it would be some of the obviously added sound effects here and there, I think they detract from some of the scenes. But well done to the BBC and Discovery. | 1 |
REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.<br /><br />X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities
did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate. <br /><br />If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back. | 0 |
I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :( | 0 |
I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad "Plan 9" for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends "Prepare for the worst movie ever made!" Oh, cruel Karma. There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The "special" effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making. When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short "Troops" for example), the whole "we're enthusiastic amateurs" argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co tried to make a film of the book, rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Ironically enough, the ONLY person who even came close to giving a decent performance was Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress. My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne doesn't screw up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back. | 0 |
We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that. <br /><br />When Meryl Streep the head of the NSC in the movie says "The United States does not torture" it got a big laugh at this movie. It is of course a lie that the Bush Administration has denied time and again. It is a very good movie and it is scary in what they can do to us as we lose all of our civil rights. They can simply "snatch" you anywhere and tell know one that they have done it. In this case, they snatch a man who has a name similar to those who killed thousands on 9-11. He is of course just like you or I. And so they take him to a secret location outside of the US to torture and waterboard him. <br /><br />Very frightening. Well acted by Jake and Reese and the entire cast. | 1 |
Gung Ho is one of those movies that you will want to see over and over again. Michael Keaton is put in charge of wooing a Japanese car company to come to his town thus creating jobs for the residents of Hadleyville. What happens after that is one hilarious moment after another. The two cultures clash and it is up to Keaton to hold things together. Look for great performances from Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, George Wendt, Mimi Rogers, John Turturro, Soh Yamamura and Sab Shimomo. All are perfectly cast. Don't be fooled by the low number rating. This is a 7.5 in my book. It is interesting to note that the town name of Hadleyville was also used in High Noon. Yes, there is a real Hadleyville but in Oregon. | 1 |
Five passengers at a bus depot tell each other their scary dreams while waiting to be picked up. But is there more to these nightmares than meets the eye?<br /><br />Lucky me, five bad movies for the price of one! Each segment features the very worst in acting, special effects, make up and music. And these were supposed to be scary? Hmm.. I think I've been more freaked out during an episode of Teletubbies. I swear, you'll sit there like I was, bored to tears waiting in vain for something interesting to happen. Don't bother. It never does. In fact, I even stopped fast forwarding the commercials, as they were a good deal more entertaining than the main feature. AND the ending is the ultimate cop-out. Yep, none of this actually ever happened. If only the same could be said for the day I set my VCR to record this cobblers.. 2/10 | 0 |
A lawyer is drawn into a deadly game of cat and mouse when he becomes involved with a femme fatale in this adaptation of a Grisham novel. Altman creates a suspenseful, Gothic atmosphere but the script is weak. Sporting a Southern drawl, Branagh is convincing as the lawyer, and Davidtz is alluring as the object of his desire. Downey is likable as a private detective. Duvall has a small role, which does not allow him to do much with his weird character. Hannah and Berenger round out the impressive cast. After an interesting setup, the film bogs down and does not really deliver on its initial promise, but Altman is always worth a look. | 1 |
Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.<br /><br />This movie is a trainwreck.<br /><br />(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is. | 0 |
As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.<br /><br />Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.<br /><br />There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.<br /><br />Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen. | 0 |
OK, so the musical pieces were poorly written and generally poorly sung (though Walken and Marner, particularly Walken, sounded pretty good). And so they shattered the fourth wall at the end by having the king and his nobles sing about the "battle" with the ogre, and praise the efforts of Puss in Boots when they by rights shouldn't have even known about it.<br /><br />Who cares? It's Christopher Freakin' Walken, doing a movie based on a fairy tale, and he sings and dances. His acting style fits the role very well as the devious, mischievous Puss who seems to get his master into deeper and deeper trouble but in fact has a plan he's thought about seven or eight moves in advance. And if you've ever seen Walken in any of his villainous roles, you *know* the ogre bit the dust HARD at the end when Walken got him into his trap.<br /><br />A fun film, and a must-see for anyone who enjoys the unique style of Christopher Walken. | 1 |
This movie is sort of a Carrie meets Heavy Metal. It's about a highschool guy who gets picked on alot and he totally gets revenge with the help of a Heavy Metal ghost. it is such a classic. The soundtrack is A++++. You've got living legends of Metal in it. And Marc Price was great in this film. This is a must have for metal fans. | 1 |
9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.<br /><br />The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.<br /><br />Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry "Dr. Giggles" Drake) comes her way.<br /><br />If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. | 1 |
I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.<br /><br />As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).<br /><br />That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.<br /><br />Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.<br /><br />Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed. | 0 |
You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).<br /><br />Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.<br /><br />I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk. <br /><br />As you may have worked out by now - I hated it. | 0 |
most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit". | 1 |
"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK | 0 |
While I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream "Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative "Raging Bull".<br /><br />For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic "Psycho" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for "Psycho" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.<br /><br />The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.<br /><br />(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)<br /><br />The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together. | 0 |
One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one. <br /><br />It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent
Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen. <br /><br />Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.<br /><br />In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream. | 1 |
Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece. | 1 |
This movie is horrendous. Decent fight scenes or not, the acting is REALLY bad, like you can tell they're reading their lines from a card. With painful line delivery by everyone in the cast. Think watching a high school play and cringing at the obvious lack of smoothness in the actor's interactions (weird pauses between different character's lines, combined with hurried line delivery by others). If the movie were all action, this might be forgivable, but a lot of the movie includes plot set-up and Family Guy style, irreverent cut aways (Oh, wow, are they badly done). I'm assuming they were attempting to be funny with these, but it again came off as a bunch of high-schoolers/ college entry students goofing off for the afternoon trying to set up a funny Youtube clip. <br /><br />Now to the fight scenes. They're not too bad, considering the level of quality seen everywhere else in the film. Nothing great either, certainly not anywhere near the same level as other posters have stated (Nothing like Drunken Master). The fights have an overly staged feel, with LOTS of cuts to different angles with blatantly different positions by those involved. <br /><br />In sum, the only reason to watch this movie is if you were one of the guy's friends involved with this very, very cheap production. Which guy you may ask? Oh, the same guy who wrote, directed, produced AND stared in this Middle School masterpiece. | 0 |
Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is set in the small American town of Plainfield in Wisconsin during 1957 where loner Ed Gein (Kane Hodder) lives by himself on a farm after the death if his mother & brother. The local police have had a spate of grave robberies to deal with & when local barmaid Sue Layton (Ceia Coley) suspicions grow that something nasty is going on. Ed is a violent sexually deviant man who kidnaps girls & murders them, will the police figure the truth out in time to save Erica (Adrienne Frantz) the Sheriff's (Timothy Oman) daughter...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Michael Feifer this was an attempt to base a horror film around the true events surrounding notorious serial killer Ed Gein & turns out to be pretty crap. The real life Ed Gein was only ever convicted of two murders & died in 1984 but several films have been inspired by him including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Deranged (1974) & Ed Gein (2000) with this fairly recent addition possibly being the worst Gein film ever. Even though Ed Gein was real next to nothing in this film is based on fact, Gein never had an accomplice, none of his victims were related to any of the investigating officers, there was no car crash victim, although Gein keeps his name other people have had name changes, the kidnapping & murder of the two women depicted here actually happened four years apart in reality but in this film it happens over the course of a couple of days & while here Gein is shown as a large hulking muscular man in reality he was a scrawny, thin, old & quite short. As a factual drama Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is worthless & as pure entertainment it's no better with a deadly dull pace & feel to it, the character's are all boring & when he isn't killing someone Gein is shown working or just walking around & it's very dull. There's no suspense because we know who the killer is & it's just a tedious wait until he gets caught at the end. There is no real attempt to get into Gein's mind with the makers giving him no more motivation than him occasionally having hallucinations of his domineering mother.<br /><br />There isn't much gore here, there's a scene with a woman hanging on a meat-hook, there's a really badly edited scene of Gein cutting a leg off, there's the usual jars of bodily organs & skulls lying around as well as a bit of blood but there's really not much here to get excited about. The film was obviously processed to bleach a lot of the colour out of the picture as it's not far off black and white at times, I personally think the lack of colour makes it even duller to sit through.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 I can't really see where the money went in a very forgettable production. Although set in Wisconsin this was filmed in California. Kane Hodder is all wrong for the role of Ed Gein, just from a physical point of view Hodder doesn't look even remotely like Gein & he gives a pretty poor performance to as he just stares at the camera a lot making silly faces.<br /><br />Ed Gein: The BUtcher of Plainfield is crap & it's as simple & straightforward as that. As either a factual drama or pure exploitation entertainment this is total tripe from start to finish with nothing to recommend it. | 0 |
I enjoyed this movie, granted it is mainly because I enjoy seeing Sean Connery act and this one has the added bonus of having Ed Harris and Lawrence Fishburne in it too. The story has a grandma seeking out Connery's assistance because her grandson is in prison and she says he was wrongly convicted. At first it seems there may have been some racist aspects of the case, however it later turns out the main officer on the case was black himself and it seems he did some rather bad things to coerce a confession out of the boy. Well the boy tries to point to another killer locked up in the same prison, one who is about to be put to death. He is a particularly nasty person too, as he takes a lot of joy in what he did, writing the relatives of his victims and trying to get people to mail them. A lot of twists and turns in this one with some of it being somewhat unexpected. Me I just enjoyed Sean Connery's character trying to make sense of the whole ordeal. The movie also made me mad in areas, especially when you find out what ultimately happened. You get very good interplay between Connery and Harris and Connery and Fishburne as they all shine rather well in this one. In the end this one makes for a rather good suspense/thriller. | 1 |
Ah yez, the Sci Fi Channel produces Yeti another abominable movie. I was particularly taken by the scenes immediately following the crash where, as the survivors desperately searched for matches, at least a half dozen fires burned with no apparent reason at various points of the wreckage. Fire seemed to be a predominate theme throughout. They searched corpses for lighters and matches, and finally finding a box built a fire every day for, apparently, 12, but no one ever gathered wood. Then when the vegan (hah) burned the bodies, what did she use for an accelerant? I mean these guys were frozen well maybe not. Despite the apparent low temperature everything the yeti ate, bled. Maybe it's just me, but even in a totally unbelievable tale (none of the survivors had ever heard of a yeti, or an abominable snowman, until the very end), if you take care of the little things the bigger deals become more acceptable. Oh, what did the prologue (1972) have to do with the remainder of the movie? And the revolver, warm enough to hold in his hand, froze up and wouldn't fire. Gimme a break. Well, at least we have Carly Pope, another eminently lovely Canadian lass. And, with little irony, Ed Marinaro as the coach.<br /><br />Well I might as well add, the rabbit they ate (despite it looking like chicken) is not a rodent, but a lagomorph. Now if it had been a squirrel (or a rat) it would have been a rodent, but it still looked like chicken. And the writers missed a real chance to have someone note "It tastes just like..." | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.