text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.<br /><br />Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.<br /><br />This wooden production left me cold. | 0 |
I'm a fan of both actors/singers especially Gackt and when I first discover this movie and watch the trailer,I just think this is a silly one.After a long waiting time,I watched it at last and here's my comment...<br /><br />I consider everyone knows the storyline and not going to mention about it,instead of it my first applause goes to acting,generally that Japanese movies hasn't got brilliant and acting.Yet in MoonChild's all cast is simply wonderful and got into it,especially Gackt reflects his characters emotions and changes pretty well,I like many of his scenes both dramatic and humorous ones,as for HYDE part,his acting is good but he deliberately staying in background as an actor,respectively as his character do,throughout the movie.I didn't like some cinematography especially lighting and some colors but due to small budget,it still has brilliant moments,but the real jewel of the film is story.It has some cheesy moments but it's OK for me,and the friendship theme of the movie is really well developed and touching at sometimes,on the other hand story points out a cruel world which no ones life guaranteed and with some memorable death scenes it reflects this theme to the visuals.An interesting note aside,this movie has some similarities with excellent vampire movie Interwiew with the Vampire which is also played by the most beautiful(not handsome,beautiful)actors of American cinema,actually Moon Child is somehow can be seen as brother with Interwiew,yet original on it's own.Only problem that MoonChild is it's a bit slow sometimes,I'm a Japanese movie fan and I used to that but it's not change MoonChild has some useless scenes or characters.But all in all;this movie is really good and very emotional sometimes,as for actors/singers duo I hope to see their other movies in future,and I recommend this to everyone who likes vampire-action-sci-fiction and romance films 8/10 | 1 |
A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid. | 0 |
It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is simply fascinating.<br /><br />José Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's best actors (see La vida mancha and Héctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still somehow believable.<br /><br />The inner-workings of the scam are shown intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film premise, and therefore he carries it.<br /><br />Sure, it tests belief that a wife would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist.<br /><br />It has been said, in a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not "distinctively Spanish", as if that were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one, just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start watching. | 1 |
A fun filled romp, full of silly if not sometimes cruel jokes. Not the best of movies, but definitely well worth watching. David Niven and Stewart Granger are their usual charming selves with Granger as an especially delightful and ingenious gentleman. Ava Gardner as wonderful as always, with such a delightful character that is absolutely iresistable. The story line is typical, but full of jocular surprises, especially concerning the unconventional relationships between Granger, Gardner and Niven. | 1 |
Okay. Who was it? Who gave Revolver 10 out of 10? Are you tripping of your head on Ecstasy pipes? There were so many of you. Did you do it for a dare? Is this some kind of cult? Or did Guy Richie himself sign up 788 times under different names?<br /><br />Before I say anything else, I'll say this. Just because you don't understand a film doesn't mean that it's not great. Maybe you've had a bad day at work, or you sat down to watch a film after you had a row with your wife and then weren't in the mood. Maybe there's a more fundamental stumbling block- like you just don't have the mental capacity or a highly enough developed philosophical sense to engage with it. BUT. And this is a very, very big but. The XXL elephant-sized mega-but to end all buts.<br /><br />PLEASE don't confuse incoherence for complexity, and please don't confuse this two hour non-squirter for an interesting film. Really. You may think you are pretty smart. You may even think of yourself as somewhat of a romantic figure: an independent thinker championing a masterpiece against a chorus of sheep-like naysayers. Please don't. You're embarrassing yourself. <br /><br />Revolver's a waste of everyone's time. If you thought about if for a few minutes, you'd recognise it too. It was a waste of the cast, a waste of the crew, a waste of the caterers, and definitely a waste of the precious minutes (you can't get them back you know) of anyone unlucky enough to sit through this unutterable, wretched mess.<br /><br />"No - wait," comes a voice in the darkness. "You just don't understand. Its NON-LINEAR. That means the story doesn't go in a STRAIGHT LINE. This is actually the COMPLEX and SUBTLE work of an AUTEUR. It addresses difficult EXISTENTIAL questions. And anyway - they slated FIGHT CLUB when it first came out - didn't you hear? -Because they couldn't deal with the COMPLEXITY. They're eating humble pie now. Bet you hate Lynch films too, doncha?" <br /><br />Hate to disappoint you, but I am quite a big Lynch fan. I rather like Memento, so a narrative told in an unconventional fashion doesn't necessarily fill me with fear. And although I've only studied it briefly a few years ago, philosophy interests me greatly. I don't dislike Revolver for these reasons. I dislike it because it purports to be about weighty, big-brained topics but deals with them in such an insultingly superficial way as to be laughable. I'm not much of a chess player, but Richie's idea of how chess works seems to be that of a precocious four year old. I dislike it because the characters, without exception, totally alienated me. "Aha!" cries the Richie apologist. "Guy is cleverly tipping his hat to Brecht!" Just maybe you're right. I think its more likely that he just can't write a decent script for toffee.<br /><br />Comparing Revolver with Fight Club is actually really instructive. Fight Club has acid-tongued, nihilistic dialogue that makes you laugh. Revolver has stale fortune cookie reject one-liners that make your ears bleed. Fight Club has a great twist that makes you reassess everything that has happened. Revolver has, as far as I can tell, several incomprehensible twists that offer no satisfaction because... well, they don't make sense. If you keep pulling the rug out from under people, they eventually kick you out of their house. And then they lock all the doors and windows. And they never let you back in. Ever.<br /><br />Guy Richie seems to assume that being philosophical entails repeating a mantra of little buzz-phrases. Mostly they are spoken, but often they flash up on the screen with attributions. It's almost pathological.<br /><br />But what makes this film particularly notable is the way in which something so incomprehensible can be married so neatly with all tired gangster clichés in the world. Ultimately its so inconsequential. You don't care about anything. You don't understand anything. You go home.<br /><br />Actually, there was a bit I really liked: the uptight assassin who has a crisis of confidence. He's great. But I can't recommend you see the film just to see him. He's only in it for a few minutes.<br /><br />Please believe me. It's horrible. | 0 |
The seven collaborations between director Joseph "von" Sternberg and star Marlene Dietrich were so distinct in look and tone, and so different from anything else going on at the time, they almost seem to constitute a sub-genre of their own. Like any genre, they have their outright masterpieces, as well as their absolute turkeys. Time to send Blonde Venus back to the farm.<br /><br />After the seedily seductive hits The Blue Angel, Morocco and Shanghai Express, in which Miss Dietrich established her screen image as cabaret-singer-cum-prostitute, someone at Paramount decided it was time for Marlene to play a mother. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; as an actress she was up to the part. It's just that nothing else about the format has changed. It's like The Blue Angel plus a kid. Fair enough, the story of a woman who drags her child along on her sleazy escapades is a sound premise for a tragic drama, but that's not the way this is played. Dietrich's journey is played as some kind of adventure, using her wits and accomplices to stay ahead of the law. This is not some cheeky example of pre-code libertarianism it is just bizarrely distasteful.<br /><br />Although we may be able to accept Marlene is a doting mommy, there is absolutely no way we can buy Sternberg as a director of warmth and poignancy. In spite of this being one of the handful of pictures for which he also took a writing credit, Sternberg simply fails to get the story-arc. The film's emotional payoff is supposed to be the eventual reunion of the family, but even at the beginning this is not established as something worth getting back to. As usual Sternberg's interiors are dressed and shot to look like either brothels or insane asylums. The Faradays' home is actually quite a creepy, dingy environment, and it's a wonder little Johnny wasn't wetting the bed and asking to sleep with the light on.<br /><br />But as anyone familiar with them will know, the point of a Dietrich/Sternberg picture is to make Dietrich look fabulous, and in this respect at least Blonde Venus is a success. Marlene is introduced emerging from a forest pool in a bright, shimmering close-up, and even when she is reduced to rags the camera still loves her. The same cannot be said for the rest of the cast, whom Sternberg tended to view as mobile pieces of scenery. The normally likable Herbert Marshall is here reduced to a moody grouch lurking in the shadows. Even the suave and lively Cary Grant becomes just a boring, background blob, and does not seem nearly interesting enough for Dietrich to run off with.<br /><br />The only standout moments in Blonde Venus are Marlene's song and dance routines, especially the renowned Hot Voodoo number where she parodies her own surreal stage persona by emerging from a gorilla outfit. But even these feel like they have been cut-and-pasted from a different film. Sternberg's fans may hail it as another masterpiece, as they are wont to do, but for the average punter it is a massive disappointment. Audiences of the time did not lap it up as they had her earlier hits, and this heralded the beginning of the end for Marlene's heyday. A year later there would be a new queen at Paramount Mae West. | 0 |
As you all may know, JIGSAW did not make its way to Blackbuster because of a member of Full Moon's own staff, Devin Hamilton. Devin is the one who sells to all of the video chains. He recently released a movie, BLEED, which he was selling to Blackbuster at the same time as JIGSAW. He convinced the Blackbuster buyer not to take any JIGSAW, and double the number of BLEED. The result is that JIGSAW looks like a flop, and BLEED looks like a hit. The major problem with that is that BLEED is one of the worst movies ever, and as we all know, JIGSAW is, well, gold. I urge all of you to go on to the BLEED page on the internet and vote for the movie that wronged JIGSAW, and all of your talents. Likewise, you should go to the JIGSAW page and cast high votes for it (if you already haven't). We need to get JIGSAW up to at least an 8 or 8.5, and BLEED down to around a 2 (thus putting it on the internet's 100 worst movie listing). Also, try to convince friends and family to do the same.<br /><br />Hope you all are doing well, - Matt | 0 |
This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clichés leading up to the inevitable conclusion ("will the show STILL go on?"). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.<br /><br />Nothing new but well done nevertheless. | 1 |
I finally got hold of the excellent Sazuma DVD of this film which is loaded with interesting extras. I have read quite a lot about it, and I unfortunately missed it at the Stockholm Film Festival. It doesn't quite deliver as I thought it would but it is still worth watching if you like strange and unique movies. I much rather watch this again than any of the recent so-called horror films vomited out of Hollywood these days. What detracts from the experience for me, is certain music cues which sound dated and rely too much on cheap synth sounds. For me, all these tonal/harmonic elements of the score could have been lifted out, and replaced by David Kristians excellent sound design. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise this is a daring, angry picture with welcome meditative and poetic parts, like the fading of the photograph sequence which is beautiful. I look forward to seeing Ascension, and I applaud Mitch and Karim for their efforts in producing non-mainstream cinema. They are a great inspiration as I soon embark on my own short film production. | 1 |
For all viewers out there who have slammed John Waters for creating a film like Pink Flamingos, just stop. It's getting you nowhere. Has anyone ever cared to stop and think about the ambition and dedication Mr.Waters possesses. To gather your best friends up and to create a movie just to gross out thousands of viewers all over shows this man has a great deal of ambition inside himself. Just read his biography Shock Value. It discusses the lengths he went through to get this film finished. Maybe it wasn't just the fact that John made this film to gross people out, it was to prove that there can be something such as good bad taste> | 1 |
A crackling and magnificent thriller about a child psychiatrist, Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) who is desperately urged by two FBI agents, Peter Novak (Vince Vaughn) and Gordon Ramsey (Jake Weber) to use her therapy on Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Ofornio), a serial killer who (uses strange and horrifying torture tactics) is found in a coma by the feds. What Novak wants in return from Deane is whereabouts of Stargher's latest victim is and if she's alive. Once Deane gets into Stargher's mind, which has the appearence and atmosphere that resembles a colorful combination of David Lynch's "Dune" or "Blue Velvet" and Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street", the adventure begins. Deane sees a variety of odd people ranging from Carl as a youngster (an adorable Jake Thomas) to a Freddy Krueger-like man minus the razor claws. I don't want to give away the ending, but the movie is great altogether besides the dynamite performances, Howard Shore's creepy musical score and directing (by Tarsem, who shows here that he can direct). | 1 |
It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very "décalé" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom. | 0 |
There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.<br /><br />"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.<br /><br />####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!##### <br /><br />Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.<br /><br />Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess. | 0 |
THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in "Full Metal Jacket" or "An Officer and a Gentleman". Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note "Dragnet" performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song "If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will"? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff! | 1 |
Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, "What ever happened to Pauly Shore?" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.<br /><br />In "Son-In-Law," Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called "Crawl," and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.<br /><br />Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.<br /><br />The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under "biography" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.<br /><br />"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom "Pauly" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm...." | 0 |
the worst sequel I've ever seen. really awful songs which is upsetting considering how fantastic the first films score and story is! also, which ruins the film for me is the fact there is no John Cleese so jean bob might as well not even be in it and the new villains are dreadful. it is really annoying how that old woman type thing cant string a simple sentence together properly without repeating her words over and over and over again. but to be fair Uberta not shutting up is a little bit funny. but the fact it was her 50th birthday: why do they draw her looking like an 80 year old? i was going to give this a 1 but now i think... i might give it a 2. but still the story line is no where near as good as the first film . it is similar without the humour from certain characters. Overall i disliked this film entirely because of the disappointing music, the severe lack of voice talent: having changed the voice of prince Derek and jean bob, the new villains, disappointing storyline the annoying habits of some characters, and the very simple animation. | 0 |
I have seen "Chasing the Dragon" several times and have enjoyed it each time. The acting was superb. This movie really makes you realize how one bad choice at a weak moment can change your life. | 1 |
I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment. | 0 |
"Mr. Harvey Lights a Candle" is anchored by a brilliant performance by Timothy Spall.<br /><br />While we can predict that his titular morose, up tight teacher will have some sort of break down or catharsis based on some deep down secret from his past, how his emotions are unveiled is surprising. Spall's range of feelings conveyed is quite moving and more than he usually gets to portray as part of the Mike Leigh repertory.<br /><br />While an expected boring school bus trip has only been used for comic purposes, such as on "The Simpsons," this central situation of a visit to Salisbury Cathedral in Rhidian Brook's script is well-contained and structured for dramatic purposes, and is almost formally divided into acts.<br /><br />We're introduced to the urban British range of racially and religiously diverse kids (with their uniforms I couldn't tell if this is a "private" or "public" school), as they gather the rapping black kids, the serious South Asians and Muslims, the white bullies and mean girls but conveyed quite naturally and individually. The young actors, some of whom I recognized from British TV such as "Shameless," were exuberant in representing the usual range of junior high social pressures. Celia Imrie puts more warmth into the supervisor's role than the martinets she usually has to play.<br /><br />A break in the trip leads to a transformative crisis for some while others remain amusingly oblivious. We think, like the teacher portrayed by Ben Miles of "Coupling," that we will be spoon fed a didactic lesson about religious tolerance, but it's much more about faith in people as well as God, which is why the BBC showed it in England at Easter time and BBC America showed it in the U.S. over Christmas.<br /><br />Nathalie Press, who was also so good in "Summer of Love," has a key role in Mr. Harvey's redemption that could have been played for movie-of-the-week preaching, but is touching as they reach out to each other in an unexpected way (unfortunately I saw their intense scene interrupted by commercials).<br /><br />While it is a bit heavy-handed in several times pointedly calling this road trip "a pilgrimage," this quiet film was the best evocation of "good will towards men" than I've seen in most holiday-themed TV movies. | 1 |
"Handsome Guys With Bad Haircuts !!" "Beautiful Girls Without Any Clues !!" "Stupid Gangsters Who Cannot Shoot Straight !!" From Dragon Dynasty comes the Hong Kong gangster drama, "Dragon Heat." For reasons which will probably forever be completely obscured, the production and casting call for this 'criminals-on-steroids' movie somehow got both Maggie Q and Michael Biehn to sign on as villains. But they don't get all that much to do in this horrid slug-fest.<br /><br />They are two of the best contemporary actors around, each with their own resume' and list of accomplishments, and Biehn in particular has had the courage to take some rather challenging and non-heroic roles.<br /><br />Maggie Q was the super-bad "Mai" in "Live Free Or Die Hard," so 'nuff said.<br /><br />Biehn is, of course, famous for being the soldier-from-the-future who made "The Terminator" of 1984 such a believable science-fiction/fantasy romp, by crashing up against Big Arnold, who is now the Governator of California !! <br /><br />Michael Biehn is almost wholly wasted in this terrible train-wreck of a police drama. There is absolutely no reason for that, as the incredibly convoluted plot -- given mostly in Chinese, as it is a Hong Kong story -- could have been better elaborated for non-Chinese audiences with a foreign narrator.<br /><br />In other words, if Biehn had been used as something like an Interpol observer or coordinator, or an agent under deep cover, who needs to get some 'splaining given to him every five or ten minutes, that would have been great. But no, he's brought in as a part of an odd group of special forces-type bad guys who seem to be freelancing their own corrupt deal, in the middle of somebody else's totally corrupt deal involving the local king of corrupt deals. <br /><br />Yes, there, I said it all. Confused ? Me too. "Welcome to the party, pal."<br /><br />In the truly superb Hong Kong crime drama, known by its English title as "Breaking News," there are also a number of fascinating characters at work, but there is only one story line in the plot. <br /><br />Bad guys vs. good cops. In this wretched and excessively violent foray into the world of a Hong Kong Triad, or gang, it seems that the hot-shot police force is little more than a parade of ducks in a shooting gallery, the way the criminals mow them down.<br /><br />So, not surprisingly, there's an almost otherwise incomprehensible scene ( several scenes, in fact ), where kids are trying to shoot wooden ducks in an arcade game, to win stuffed animal prizes. And so the hot shot good-guy police officers quite naturally intervene on their behalf, so that the arcade owner has to give up the Kewpie dolls.<br /><br />There's also a half-hearted attempt at creating a "love interest" between one of the 'visiting cops' and the sole female 'visiting cop'.<br /><br />The visiting cops are supposed to be material witnesses against the Triad gangster leader, who gets hijacked on the way to his court appearance, but not by his own team but by the mercenaries ( Biehn, Maggie Q, and some others ). These killers all want something but we don't get to learn about what it is, until the very end of the film !! That was a stupid mistake inside of the overall story.<br /><br />You cannot build suspense in a crime drama without something to obtain, or get, or get away from, being introduced very early in the story.<br /><br />Add to that some "cut-away scenes" done for purely artsy effects, all showing the bad-bad guys' and the regular bad guys' recent pasts, and any film buff can readily understand why this barking dog gets a 1 rating from this fan of all things cinematic with criminals and conspirators and Hong Kong. | 0 |
This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film. | 0 |
I wouldn't go so far as to not recommend this movie, since the only problems I have with it are due to an overexposure to the plot devices used in the movie - the sort of things common to every kids movie ever made it seems. That doesn't make it bad, just not something I'd go far.<br /><br />It is a little saccharine, so I might say that for the most part anyone looking for something with a little more wit could be disappointed in an obviously for-kids movie like this.<br /><br />However, all of that goes out the window when that squirrel (the one in all the trailers) comes on-screen. His time is limited, but it seems apparent that the decision makers had the wisdom to tell these guys 'hey, could you stick in a little more squirrel?' every time it's getting intolerably dull. That doesn't save the movie, but you can leave saying 'at least there was one aspect where I couldn't stop laughing.'<br /><br />And of course, visually it won't disappoint, but that's almost a given with Pixar flicks. Of all of their stuff, I'd put this at the bottom...but that isn't in itself bad. | 1 |
Now i really liked this movie, it was so funny.Both Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are brilliant actors, i think after watching this film they should do lots more films together in the future.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar gets himself into a bit of trouble by dating 3 women at the same time, but the way he handles in when one comes out of the door and then the other one was just so funny to watch, he acted really well int his film and i hope that he makes more great comedy's like this one in the future, John Abraham plays his best friend, he plays his role really well and he is so underrated i am glad that some of his amazing work has got noticed but he is a really Good actor. i just love John, Neha Dhupia has a small role in this film and plays it well.<br /><br />The muse is really good i really recommend this movie to everyone. | 1 |
Think 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : "Kiss my ass Harry Potter", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!! | 0 |
It was an excellent piece to the puppet series because this film showed all of the series, from one to seven. And this was about one woman trying to stop the new puppet master because I would have never guessed that the puppets would be in pain. Plus it showed some of the puppet master series that I didn't see and I what to see it so badly like part two. It showed an appearance of Torch which can turn things and humans, which is cool, and showed the return of the puppet master from part one. It also showed little aliens from part 4 that was also cool, it showed other people episodes that might be good to them and it did.So thanks to this Puppet Master is going to be a big hit. | 1 |
The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. <br /><br />The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie. | 0 |
One of the most poetic narrative films ever made, WAGONMASTER is nonetheless a difficult film to immediately like. I love this movie, but I recommend seeing some of John Ford's other westerns before taking a look at this one. The first time I saw it I was 18 years old and I hadn't seen too many other westerns, and I hated it. I thought it was incredibly boring. I kept waiting for something to happen. It took several years for me to love this picture. First, I fell in love with westerns in general -- the traditions, characters, landscapes, ways of talking, etc -- and that made me realize when I saw WAGONMASTER again that a lot is happening in it after all.<br /><br />I also was simply a more experienced moviegoer at that point and had learned to appreciate visual storytelling, and to listen to what each image was telling me. WAGONMASTER is a very visual movie by one of the most visual of directors working near the peak of his career.<br /><br />The movie is a celebration of a way of life, and its subject matter is more emotional and interior than other Ford westerns. Actually, that's not really as accurate as saying that, rather, it has a lot less exterior action than the other westerns. (The other westerns have exterior action AND interior emotion.) It quite beautifully places its Mormon pioneers in the context of nature. There are many shots of animals and children -- not for any surface, narrative purpose, but for illustrating this idea. That is why the movie can be called a poem. It isn't about the surface story (which barely exists) nearly as much as it is about an emotional idea, and it gets this idea across through composition, editing, sound and music. In fact, one could argue that this is a purer form of filmmaking because the images directly express the emotional idea of the film, rather than having to first service a "story."<br /><br />Give this movie a chance, and allow it to exist on its own terms, not the terms of other westerns or other movies. | 1 |
I must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. <br /><br />It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling. | 0 |
This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel! | 1 |
For the record, the 1949 version of "The Blue Lagoon" is not the original film, as many have stated.<br /><br />This story was filmed in Great Britain, in 1923, just after the novel was written. As much as I'd love to see the 1949 version, I'd thoroughly enjoy an opportunity at seeing the true original release of this story on film.<br /><br />Granted, the 1980 film with Christopher Atkins, Brooke Shields, and the two youngsters was filmed with beautiful cinematography. The acting didn't seem all that great when I first viewed this film, but after having viewed this a few times.... it becomes obvious that two children growing up on an island without adult guidance, would indeed have a simplistic way of approaching life.... whether it be in their language, appearance, or daily activities.<br /><br />Although some have been fortunate enough to view the 1949 "Blue Lagoon", I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone living who can remember the 1923 release of this story to film. | 1 |
The husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.<br /><br />In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the "second-team" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.<br /><br />The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.<br /><br />I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.<br /><br />I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully. | 0 |
This is the kind of movie that my enemies content I watch all the time, but it's not bloody true. I only watch it once in a while to make sure that it's as bad as I first thought it was.<br /><br />Some kind of mobsters hijack a Boeing 747. (That, at least, is an improvement over having Boeing hijack a good part of the Pentagon.) The airplane goes down in the Bermuda triangle and sinks pressurized to the bottoms, a kind of post-facto submarine.<br /><br />It has one of those all-star casts, the stars either falling or barely above the horizon.<br /><br />"We're on our own!", says pilot Jack Lemon. He is so right. Except for George Kennedy. He's in all these disaster movies.<br /><br />Watch another movie instead. Oh, not "Airport" the original. That's no good either. Instead, watch a decent flick about stuck airplanes like "Flight of the Phoenix." | 0 |
I have seen this movie more than 50 times in my life, and each time I watch it the movie is just as entertaining as it was the first time! George Berger (played by Treat Williams) leads a small group of 1960's-1970's era anti-war "hippies" living at large in New York City. This small group happens upon a young man, Claude Bukowski (played by John Savage) who has been drafted into the US Army for service in Vietnam. Despite their best efforts to dissuade him, Claude does eventually report for basic training in the Army. Still distressed over his having left them, the hippie group steal a car and travel across the USA to visit Claude "...for a couple of hours," in the words of George Berger (to an M.P. stationed at the entry gate of the Army base Claude is temporarily stationed at in Nevada). The outcome is truly touching, so I won't spoil it for those who have not yet seen this fantastic movie. The musical score is equally fantastic! Don Dacus (of the rock group Chicago), who plays the part of "Woof" - one of the hippies, is a not a key character, but the movie wouldn't have been the same without him. Beverly D'Angelo (who plays Sheila Franklin, an uptown girl who is befriended by the hippie group) is sensational in her role! A MUST SEE film!! | 1 |
The video case for this film reads "a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid. | 0 |
Surprisingly effective British drama about two very different people who find common ground, and in particular the "flowering" of one of them. An embittered, "Spike"-type youth (McAvoy) with Deuchennes MD is placed in a home for the disabled and quickly makes friends with a youth (Robertson) with cerebral palsy. Robertson has never known anything outside of the home, but McAvoy has and he is bound and determined to get back into the real world. Together, they manage to do just that in this funny and heartwarming and often heartbreaking tale of inner strength overcoming physical shortcomings. The two leads are terrific, especially Robertson, who must surely have spent some time studying the disabled to pull off this tricky role. He appears in almost every scene, and acts up an absolute storm. To anyone who doesn't know, they might think he really has CB. Highly recommended. | 1 |
How can anyone even begin to like this film is really beyond me.<br /><br />The idea? It has none. "A guy fell apart". That's the idea. Wow. An environment was slowly killing him... now THAT's original and worth watching.<br /><br />This is the first Fasbinder's film I've seen... I've heard that he's a genius of mise-en-scene, but I've seen student films with more attention, inspiration, idea, and craft than this... this.... this nothing. It has nothing!<br /><br />Each and every shot is too long. There's so much emptiness in them... The acting's horrible. You can see the actors had no preparation at all, no understanding of their roles, not even an attempt at showing emotions... it's so... superficial... The lines are so explicative that you could removed 90% of them and still have the same crappy film. Tempo? Who cares about it. Atmosphere, dynamics, that's for pussies! One shot per scene, 80% of the time people staring unrealistically, having no idea how to represent emotions and importance of the moment besides hollow staring at the camera or one another... EDiting? All rules of editing have been disregarded with no pa pay-off of any kind... Photography? Half of the shots have reflection in them, and crappy lighting with no stylization of any kind. Shadows, play of shadows... who needs that? We need a guy pissing, drinking, hitting his wife like he's... like he's acting. We need a bunch of close ups of a not-so-beautiful woman... we need an amateurish climax of his capture by an unconvincing arabian torturer... This film has so much wrongs that it isn't worth the no-budget it had.<br /><br />Frankly, I haven't seen a film this bad since American Pie 5. Yup. That bad.<br /><br />I've just started watching his "Veronica Foss" movie, which seems much better, based on the first 15 minutes (since it does have a hint of directing and artistic idea, unlike this crap), so I won't argue that Fasbinder's clueless.... but this.... this film SUCKS! | 0 |
Quite simply the funniest and shiniest film-comedy of all time... it's certainly on my personal top-ten list. This one also gets a solid ten on the voting scale. Millionaire heir, Arthur Bach (Moore), is a middle-aged 'child' who refuses to take the mature path in life and avoids all requisite responsibilities. He also refuses to leave the bottle. One day he and his personal butler, Hobson (Gielgud), go shopping at Bergdorf Goodman's and run into petty larcenist, Linda (Minnelli). Arthur and Linda's chemistry adds electricity to the rest of the film. There are hilarious set pieces aplenty. In one such scene, Arthur (drunk throughout most of the story) knocks on the wrong apartment door and receives ear shattering threats from a human 'siren' ("My husband has a gun!!!!). Performances by everyone involved should be duly noted: Geraldine Fitzgerald plays Arthur's loving-yet-ruthless grandmother, Sir John Gielgud almost steals the entire show with his acidic droll-isms (He took home the Oscar for this one), and Christopher Cross provides the Main Theme song (Oscar winner "Best That You Can Do"). It's a shame the late Dudley Moore passed away last month (March 2002). | 1 |
Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! ) | 0 |
Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.<br /><br />Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)<br /><br />Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.<br /><br />Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson. <br /><br /> | 0 |
The Ali G character works brilliantly within the confines of a comedy show, but as a movie, it doesn't work in the same way.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong - this is a very funny movie, full of biting, witty dialogue, that caricatures the modern British chav wonderfully well, whilst providing the viewer with a hilarious, if unrealistic story.<br /><br />One problem with this film is that the script and content is either fantastically brilliant, or it's embarrassing to watch. When I say embarrassing, I don't mean funny embarrassing a la Office or Extras, but rather, you'll wish they hadn't included it in the final cut. One example of this is the inclusion of a music video after the film has ended, to the tune of, "This is how we do it." Whenever I watch the film, I stop the DVD when it says the end, and leave it at that.<br /><br />Overall, Ali G Indahouse is a good film, worth watching a couple of times. The script is enjoyable to an extent, and there are no issues as far as acting goes. However, refinement is the key word here.<br /><br />Ali G is a better television programme. Borat is a better film. | 1 |
Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was "just OK", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.<br /><br />But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.<br /><br />There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.<br /><br />Very recommended. | 1 |
Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of "Hobgoblins" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie. | 0 |
I have just seen Caribe a couple of nights ago at the annual Vistas Film Festival held here in Dallas, and I must express my discontent. The opening caption tries to tell us that the film is a portrayal of the current invasion of South American countries (Costa Rica, in this particular case) by North American oil companies, and the negative effects, both economic and environmental, of this invasion. The main characters are a married couple who live a simple, pleasant life maintaining a banana farm. Right away, a woman arrives and announces that she is the wife's half-sister. I'm not going to go into specifics about this (and to be honest, I don't feel that I'm spoiling anything with this review), yet another key point is that the company to whom they distribute their bananas drops them due to budget demands in a poor economy. So, the main conflict that is supposed to be addressed in the movie is of the husband between the rock and the hard place, trying to preserve his livelihood. On one hand, the Reynolds oil company has basically offered him employment and financial compensation (basically a bribe) to use his public influence to encourage the town to allow the company to begin drilling in their town (compromising his standing with the community and the community itself). On the other hand, he is faced with being dead broke, but on the side of his community, protesting the drilling. Given the length of this film, it would have been ample time to explore the issues just described, but it just doesn't happen, and I'll tell you why. You will notice that this film has won a couple of awards so far, one for direction and an audience award. I'm not going to pick apart Esteban's direction, it wasn't bad or good enough for me to be all that passionate about writing anything. The audience award was at a film festival in Spain, and for it to gain an audience award, I'd have to imagine that Spanish people just dig soap operas. In fact, Central and South America dig soap operas as well, I know that much. I assume that Esteban was either aiming to take advantage of this or that he himself digs soap operas, because that is what unfolds over the course of this film, so much to the point that it kicks the whole oil company plot to the side, almost as if they imagined halfway through the making of this film that it had become tiresome, because it seems like at least three of the supporting characters have had their back story and character development severely compromised to make room for more sex and crying scenes. The only true villain in the movie is one of these three characters, and at no point do you actually get to find out who the hell he is. It's almost as if they cut his screen time just short of taking him out of the film entirely. From time to time, they toy with the oil against community plot, but these are digressions at best. What we see a lot more of are scenes of passion, jealousy, betrayal, adultery, etc. These themes saturate the story to such a degree that the oil company 'sub'plot becomes unnecessary. It's almost as if this was a stunt to legitimize a romantic drama (soap opera) by throwing in a little political relevance. Nevertheless, the film gets so caught up in the romance that it ultimately doesn't know what to do with itself, resulting in an ending so tacked on that you're left wondering what it is that you've been waiting around for, or if there was ever anything to begin with. Here are two things that I think could have saved this movie: either cut out the half-sister or cut out the oil company. It's obvious which one of the two they were more interested in. Or, perhaps if Caribe had been an hour longer, they could have worked this all out. Regardless, I'd have been fine with a straight-up soap opera and I think that the subject of oil companies exploiting foreign nations is in dire need of addressing by the film community. Caribe is both and neither. These two angles could have worked together had they been balanced accordingly, but with a romantic plot running around in circles and taking up almost twice as much time as necessary at the expense of an oil plot that's barely been established to begin with, both sides suffer. Best of all, the romance plot is never even resolved. I'd like to say I'd watch this movie again to see what I've missed, but I have a strong feeling that I already know what it is. As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter if I saw Caribe ten more times. I've missed it because it is simply not there. | 0 |
Rock Star is a "nice" movie. Everyone is nice. Even the guys who aren't supposed to be nice, really are nice. Chris is a nice guy, who learns a lesson in life. He goes back to his girlfriend Emily, who is also nice. <br /><br />It's a good movie, despite all the niceness. Maybe I'm just used to all the angst of the X Gen music. In some ways the film was a caricature of Rock Stars and not hard edged enough to be believable.<br /><br />Mark Wahlberg's acting is quite good. Jennifer Aniston played her role well, but it was uncomplicated. She was a nice girl. <br /><br />Go see it. If you have ever been to a rock concert or seen Spinal Tap, go see it. | 1 |
The second "Mr. Eko" episode has somewhat less interesting flashbacks than the first ("The 23rd Psalm"), but in just about every other department it is one of the best episodes of Season 2, advancing the series' mythology/background as well as the characters. A new Dharma Initiative station - The Pearl - is discovered by Locke and Eko, and the orientation film that they find and watch inside completes Locke's transformation from a believer ("Orientation" - after the end of the film: "We're gonna have to watch this again") to a doubter ("S.O.S" - "Did you push that button, Henry? I need to know") to a non-believer ("?" - after the end of the film: "Do you want to watch this again? - "No, I've seen enough"). Terry O'Quinn's performance is powerful as usual ("every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button"). Meanwhile, Eko takes his place as the man who becomes sure that he was brought on the island as part of his true destiny, which is to continue pushing the button. Other high points of "?" are a startling, unique dream sequence where person A has the dream as being person B (this is the kind of bold idea that the current season of LOST could use much more of), and the haunting scene of Libby's last word before her death, and the way Jack and Hurley cannot possibly know its true meaning. ***1/2 out of 4. | 1 |
'Ray' lives on<br /><br />Ray Dir- Taylor Hackford Cast- Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Curtis Armstrong and Sharon Warren. Written by- Taylor Hackford and James L. White. Rating- ***<br /><br />"Hit the road Jack, and don't come back
no more, no more, no more, NO MORE!" Who would've thought that this immortal line that has almost become a remedial mantra for broken relationships in popular culture was conceived over a lovers' brawl! Ray Charles was a genius. And if there was one thing that he knew, breathed and lived for; it was music. So in a lifetime that comprised acute poverty, a desperate struggle with darkness, guilt, drugs and painful affairs; Ray still found moments when inspiration hit him out of nowhere and words and notes took their own shape to form an instant eternal classic! <br /><br />There are some lives that deserve to be transformed on the silver screen. Ray Charles's life was one of them. It almost comes as a shock to learn that this project had no studio-backing until it was completed! And that backing probably came after the initial screenings where Jamie Foxx's performance was lauded and predicted as a surefire Oscar winner in hushed voices. Jamie Foxx as Ray almost convinces us that it is indeed Ray Charles performing on screen and not an actor impersonating! From the crooked all-knowing smile to the bent gait of not so much a handicapped but a man dancing through his demons, Foxx captures every essence of the actual Ray Charles. Ray was a complicated man. He never demanded sympathy and very rarely showed it himself. An astute businessman, he ensured his success at any cost, sometimes at the price of losing his loved ones. He never apologized for his philandering ways and always maintained that he loved his family, which we are convinced he did. He liked sex; it was as simple as that! But beneath all, there also existed a Ray that was afraid of darkness. Imagine the horrors of a blind man afraid of darkness! His fear was because of his guilt. Ray was convinced that he was the reason for his brother's death, and his whole life was spent trying to redeem himself. Ray was a maverick who fused gospel with jazz, an unheard blasphemous practice in the 50's. But his intentions weren't to instigate. He was simply practicing the only way he knew of getting close to God!<br /><br />It is hard to capture such an eventful life as that of Ray, and that is perhaps where the movie fails. We are never really allowed to get close to Ray as a person. We know him only as much as we see him. His relationships, especially with Margie Hendricks(Regina King), aren't explored in detail. And the script barely passes over Della Bea(Kerry Washington), Ray's wife, who everyone knows was a rock by his side. And the biggest blunder of all is the rushed, almost abrupt climax. It's as if the director suddenly realized he was out of stock and called for a pack-up! Nonetheless, 'Ray' is definitely recommended for a flawless performance from Jamie Foxx and an able stellar ensemble. The songs and age create a sense of nostalgia, and we get a genuine feeling that the film is made with sincerity. <br /><br />- Abhishek Bandekar<br /><br />Note- 'Ray' is nominated in six categories at this year's Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor(Jamie Foxx).<br /><br />Rating- ***<br /><br />* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent<br /><br />19th February, 2005 | 1 |
solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that "it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.") commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node. | 1 |
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel | 0 |
This film is just plain lovely. It's funny as hell and as old as the hills. The acting is superb and it's fascinating seeing post-war Britain and how we used to behave in those days. This seems to have been some pre-runner to the St. Trinians films (given the Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford connection - there's also a very young George Cole in there who appeared in many St. Trinians films) but I don't myself understand the connection. It was shown on BBC4 recently after a biography of St. Trinians creator Ronald Searle, however I missed enough of the biography to miss the connection with this film. Anyway a great film in its own right and something that should be preserved for all time! | 1 |
Brief marital infidelity comes back to haunt loving wife Grace Needham (portrayed by the always sexy Nastassja Kinski).<br /><br />She had left town, and her depressing husband, to embark on a trip to sunny Miami, where she was pursued and ultimately seduced by Julian Grant, a handsomely evil and manipulative business executive, who is portrayed very well by William Baldwin (why do all of the Baldwin brothers play evil people so damn well?)<br /><br />The seducing of Grace took place as the two drank champagne on a deserted beach they reached privately by sailboat. Grace admitted she drank too much for her own good and revealed the many problems in her marriage. Julian gained her confidence by claiming he would never allow those types of problems to occur, if he had a relationship with Grace. Julian's manipulation continued as he described a "lost at sea" fantasy involving the now uninhibited Grace, who sat near, listening to his every word and becoming more and more engaged with his romantic dream.<br /><br />His manipulation paid off as a few subtle nudges led to Grace's soft kisses, paused momentarily by her pulling back as if suddenly thinking to herself `What am I doing? I'm a wife. I'm a mother. I have a real life. Real responsibilities. Sure, the two of us have talked about being together, lost at sea, but that is just a fantasy. Look at what we're doing here. The consequences are real. We're really alone on a secluded beach. Am I going to let this fantasy really happen?'<br /><br />She succumbs to the dream, as her kisses became more passionate. The once guarded Grace, who used to respond to men's propositions by saying "I'm married" enjoyed watching as Julian unbuttoned her shirt, leading to more kisses, body caresses and her climbing onto Julian's lap! She smiles, kisses, moans, laughs and frequently looks up at the sun throughout what unfortunately was a brief love-making scene in which everybody seemed to have most of their clothes on.<br /><br />While I thoroughly enjoyed the look of illicit passion on Grace's face as the once devoted wife was being thoroughly satisfied by having sex with a man that clearly enjoys manipulating others, I will say that on the whole, the scene was undeserving of the movie's "R" rating.<br /><br />Julian returned home to find her husband rejuvenated from his securing of a high paying job, and she is excited about being able to return to a normal life where she can once again be a loving wife and caring mother.<br /><br />But the evil Julian Grant reenters the picture and is not willing to give up so easily on Grace. Grace has a plan to rid her life of Julian, but will it work?<br /><br />Obviously, I don't want to ruin the remaining story line for you. However, I will say that I always enjoy movies involving sexual pretense by a wife (especially when she exhibits uninhibited attraction and behavior that is normally reserved for her husband) but in actuality, is seeking revenge against the antagonist. This movie would have been much, much better if the movie had included more of that in the story line. My feelings are if the movie brings it up, then the movie should finish it. And this movie definitely brought it up. Unfortunately, certain constraints in the story line prevented this from being significantly pursued. There are many other movies available that succeed with that very point, and I'll include their titles in the "recommendations" portion of this section. I'm also open to receiving emailed suggestions of other movies that contain a good story line involving sexual pretense on the part of a seemingly devoted wife.<br /><br />Overall, Nastassja Kinski and William Baldwin are both very good. The movie is not. | 0 |
I was watching this when my wife called to inquire from the other room as to my choice of fare. My comment? "I am watching my Life!"<br /><br />Though younger, but only by 5 years or so, than the "Rocket Boys" I remember the absolute urgency with which Sputnick was greeted by our administrators of education and how the whole Science Fair thing gained momentum and took me and others into the competitive whirlwind. My own tornado landed me in my own State's Science Fair, in Physics by '62, though our group was less successful in gaining the support of, for example, firefighters we approached for guidance and counsel until after a tragic event, our city went so far as to allow us to tour the Nike missile site on Chicago's lakeshore.<br /><br />This movie brought it all back for me and I will bet that it brought it all back for a bunch of us "UberNerds" of the late '50s and early 60's.<br /><br />We are in a similar science brain drainage period now and really need this movie as a country. See It! | 1 |
I just saw the movie, through Netflix. I was intrigued by the way the movie was described, but in the end, it was better. I was moved in many different directions while watching this movie. I was filled with hurt, hate, angry, bitterness,pain and finally relief. To look at the young man accused, would break your heart, and convince you that they had the wrong person. The smugness of the police, makes you cring, because just as the Rodney King Beating brought to light, the brutality of the police, this movie brings forth the total lack of moral fiber in these police. And the fact that they beat this boy, and got away with it, only infuriates you more.<br /><br />But, I have to tell you, I fell in love with the attorney, Mc Guinness. One of my favorite lines, when he was telling us what an a**hole on of the cops was... The cop told him, to go on, keep sucking on that cancer stick. Mc Guinness told the cop... 'I always have a cigarette before sex...' I was letting him know I was going to screw him"<br /><br />I have a new respect for some of the law in this country. | 1 |
... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.<br /><br />OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.<br /><br />There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.<br /><br />So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes. | 0 |
The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic. | 0 |
Think you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a "sweeeoooowww!!" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.<br /><br />I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1/2* out of 5 just because it ended. | 0 |
God, I never felt so insulted in my whole life than with this crap. There are so many ways to describe this piece of crap, that I think that if I said everything that came to mind, I would get banned by this site.<br /><br />How do I begin? Well, for one, it doesn't take knowledge of the original series to know that this movie is a slap to the face of people who've seen it. The biggest butchering of a theme song ever made is here, from a metal version, to a freaking RAP VERSION, what were they thinking? How does Underdog and a electronic-heavy musical style match? The story is so basic, that I will do something I don't usually do and not even give a summary. Just think this: A dog gets superpowers, fill in the rest. That's how predictable this movie is. And then comes the jokes....please kill me now. This style of humor that might not even get the kids laughing, it's that bad, well, expect that punch line after the sneezing. That was slightly funny.<br /><br />But what surprises me the most is why Jason Lee(Ny Name Is Earl), Patrick Warburton(Emperor's New Groove), and Jim Belushi(According to Jim) are all here. In the shows/movies I mentioned, the actors, in my opinion, do a good job, and, excluding Lee, are the best actors in this movie, but that says very little. The rest deserve Golden Rasberry nominations for this crap. I am very sad to see such good actors buried by this disaster.<br /><br />All in all, this is just as bad as Doogal, which I reviewed as well, and again, my head would explode if I saw anything worse than this. | 0 |
I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie. <br /><br />It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it. | 1 |
Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.<br /><br />OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.<br /><br />The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.<br /><br />My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.<br /><br />For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.<br /><br />The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.<br /><br />I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.<br /><br />Here Kitty, Kitty...<br /><br />Tom Willett | 0 |
In the late sixties director Sergio Corbucci made four spaghetti westerns in a row--the classics THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE, THE SPECIALISTS, and COMPANEROS. Three of these, all except THE SPECIALISTS, are constantly turning up on ten best lists when spaghetti westerns are rated. Until recently all I had seen was a very poor quality compilation with some English, some Italian, a fuzzy picture, and it was nearly incomprehensible. Now, having seen a beautiful widescreen version with subtitles (still in two languages, however), I can safely include THE SPECIALISTS in that group of four classics. Johnny Halliday is very good as the charismatic Hud, a notorious hand with the gun returning to Blackstone to investigate the death of his brother, who was lynched by the townspeople for losing their savings. It involves a voluptuous beauty who owns the bank, a Mexican bandit leader, El Diablo, who was once friends with Hud, an honest sheriff who dreams of better days, and a small band of hippies--well, it was the late sixties, and hippies were everywhere, even apparently in our westerns. It's not a desert western, shot in the alps somewhere, and is lovely to look at. There is a bit more nudity than I expect in a western, but that's not a bad thing. Sylvie Fennec is lovely as Sheba, who may be Hud's niece, or dead brother's girlfriend...that's never made clear. This film deserves to be seen, and once again, we plea for a nice DVD with all the trimmings--I think THE SPECIALISTS would be as well known as any of Corbucci's other westerns, and that's high praise indeed. | 1 |
This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because "Angels and Demons is worth it." Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.<br /><br />The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.<br /><br />Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT. | 0 |
Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!<br /><br />There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).<br /><br />The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).<br /><br />The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!<br /><br />Good when you are so tired you can't sleep. | 0 |
This has to be one of the most outrageously stupid movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Just when I think I have seen the stupidest scene in history, along comes an even dumber and more bizarre scene. I think the transvestite poodles did it for me, or better yet, her talking tongue...or perhaps the guy getting the virgin mother statue mounted to a jeep windshield caught in his throat. Decisions, decisions... | 0 |
I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.<br /><br />There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.<br /><br />When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.<br /><br />If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted. | 0 |
I kind of like JAG. It do have it´s charm but lately it´s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.<br /><br />I don´t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.<br /><br />I still watch the show, so it´s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don´t save the world in the future. | 0 |
. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today. | 1 |
OK, I got the DVD set last week and I am finally getting around to posting my reviews, but I sure liked this sequel in many ways.<br /><br />Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead. OK. This one movies at a fast clip, has some really good gore effects and some really well done atmosphere and style. I would actually go on record as saying this may be one of the most stylish DV shot flicks that I have bought. Most of the time, I get rather angry at DV movies for being boring and looking like soap operas. Even a movie like Bone Sickness that I like, has incredible stretches of DULL. Not this movie. It never stops long enough to let you catch your breath. Although I wouldn't say I liked it better than the first film, I will say that Sheets certainly improved technically in the two years in between films. This one has better gore, the inevitable zombie feeding scenes, scumbag characters, and a few returning actors (although their roles are different) mainly Jerry Angell as a pretty good psychopath with a killer mullet from hell. The shots are more ambitious as well as the script this time around because you can tell Sheets is trying to pull a lot more off than he did in the first film. Some of it works and some of it doesn't, but I have to say that at least he wasn't just trying to do a larger version of the first film. There was no mention this time around of a power plant of chemical spillage, just Satanism and the occult that brings the undead back to life. So I say kudos to Mr. Sheets for trying to do something different with this one. I give this film two bloody thumbs up! | 1 |
I found this on the shelf and swooned with joy !! I danced up to the counter, slapped down my money and ran home! You know what?! I fell asleep less then half way thru! Tried again the next day...YAWN!! What the heck !?!! I could NOT watch it! I love all the other stuff he's done (I didn't see the one with the monster in it yet). What gives? Is it me? Or him? So sad. Boo hoo. P.S, I did like the camera work. | 0 |
I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.<br /><br />I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.<br /><br />All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time. | 0 |
This film took up three hours, including commercials, on the History International Channel last night. But it felt like three weeks. It wasn't the cheap, stagy and unintentionally funny depictions of the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't that the film is stripped of almost all context surrounding World War II. It wasn't even that the bombing itself was often made to appear as nothing more than a major inconvenience for a goofy love story. No, it was the wooden featureless characterizations that sucked the life out of the story. Oh, and the fact that if it is possible for a movie to be obsequious, then Dresden is that movie. Perhaps a better title would have been DRESDEN--AS URIAH HEEP WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.<br /><br />It is especially the latter point that so irritates. Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? The makers of this movie believe so. But in the typically emasculated way that Germans have come to approach World War II, they can't bring themselves to say so without braying about "peace" and "no more wars--anywhere" like they're Mother Teresa. And, also typical of German obsequiousness towards the British in particular, there is an unwieldy effort to grovel before "Britishness", while loading all the "guilt" for Dresden on to one person, Arthur Harris.<br /><br />Did I say one person? Well, not quite. At the beginning of the movie, there is an exclamation from the leading character, Anna, with whom we are all supposed to sympathize. "Damned Americans!", she screams, while watching as far off bombs fall. And a few minutes later, a radio voice intones warnings about the "American Terror Bombing" being inflicted upon Germans.<br /><br />Note the word, "terror". Got that? It's really the Americans behind the inhumane targeting of German civilians. No matter that the American strategy for almost all the war in Europe was the "precision" bombing of industrial and war manufacturing sites. No matter that it was the British who enthusiastically adopted "area" bombing of civilian targets in Germany--before the Germans had themselves even targeted English ones. No matter that the Americans bombed during the day, suffering more casualties in the process than the British, in order to hit precision targets, while the British bombed civilians under the cover of night. No matter that the Americans, essentially, were brought into the RAF's true terror bombing campaign kicking and screaming against it. No matter that most American officials, from FDR to Gen. Dolittle, opposed targeting civilians, while Churchill and his generals couldn't wait to do so.<br /><br />No, in DRESDEN, both the Germans and British, except for "Bomber" Harris, are innocent of a doctrine, it is intimated, created by the evil Americans. And only the might and power of a love story between a German nurse and a downed British bomber pilot can adequately explain the "truth" of the atrocity. Right.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, for the younger and likely less well read readers of IMDb, the first and still so far only major literary effort to give a thoughtful voice to Dresden's bombing was the pacifist novel penned by Kurt Vonnegut--an American POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. I guess Germany's ZDF couldn't find a pretty nurse for Billy Pilgrim. | 0 |
Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those "I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.<br /><br />There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.<br /><br />edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an "obvious hater" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)<br /><br />Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again. | 0 |
This telecast of the classic musical "Sweeney Todd" does not do the production justice, but is still quite enthralling.<br /><br />Firstly, the most enjoyable aspect of this version is the production design, from the wheeling multi-set to the startling trapdoor. Then, the staging is excellent, right down to the slashing.<br /><br />The main failing here is in the performances people give. Oh, they're believable, all right-- but it is quite frustrating when nobody seems to be hitting their cues on time in a song as fast-paced as, say, "Kiss Me." In fact, the actress playing Johanna is not only off-tempo to a dismal degree, but also slightly off-key. And Angela Lansbury's slightly overdone cockney accent is a bit irritating. One more thing, too-- what, exactly, is so bad about Judge Turpin's performance of "Johanna" that it is banned from the American theatre, but not the cannibal anthem "A Little Priest"?<br /><br />Otherwise, this is an excellent production. It's a thrill to watch people do what they love-- and I'm not even peripherally talking about "meat pies with a twist". | 1 |
I'll say one thing about this film: there are no lulls. You can't get bored watching this. The problem is that it is TOO intense. There is too much action and it NEEDS lulls! That is the risk you take in modern action films. You want it interesting but not overdone. This is way overdone.<br /><br />Even though the acting is fine and features a couple of "names" in Gary Busey and Roy Scheider, it still has the feel of a "B" film. The best part of it is Scheider's dialog: the only "A" part of this "B" film.<br /><br />The rest of the story is strictly Rambo mentality but did have a few standout scenes. One in particular was a very innovative scene featuring land mines. That was memorable. Not enough of the other scenes were to make this a keeper for long. | 0 |
Every generation fully believes it is living in the end times. This has been true for thousands of years now. And movies like this feed on this. How did they get the great Orson Welles to narrate this train wreck? This is a documentary about the biblical prophecies of Armageddon. It tries to link the prophecies as well as it can to what was happening in the times it was made, making it obviously dated and kind of silly.<br /><br />The reenactments look like they are out of "Unsolved Mysteries" but without the high production values. People should have been embarrassed to take part in this.<br /><br />In short, the movie is dated, silly, reactionary, and useless. Good if you want a good laugh, but not good enough to actually look for. | 0 |
The opening of Imamura's masterpiece avoids mere sensationalism in its depiction of the unfathomably horrifying events of August 6th, 1945, in which 90% of Hiroshima and tens of thousands of lives were annihilated in an instant. Instead, Imamura emphasizes the unprecedented strangeness of the catastrophe, focusing on such portentous images as the diabolic mushroom cloud louring silently in the distance and the black rain that spatters a beautiful young woman's face. The rest of the film traces the ramifications of the latter incident, bringing the atomic holocaust and its aftermath (over 100,000 people died of radiation poisoning) down to the intelligible level of the plight of Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka) and her small "community bound by the bomb."<br /><br />The survivors strive for normalcy and continuity, most notably by attempting to find a suitable marriage for Yasuko, but the imminent possibility of radiation sickness shadows every aspect of their lives. Yasuko's potential suitors, naturally enough, shy away from a young woman, no matter how attractive, who might suddenly grow sick and die. Genuine love, when it finally does appear, does so unexpectedly and ambiguously. We are left wondering if love across class lines is more a token of Yasuko's status as "damaged goods" or of a common humanity, thrown into bold relief by harsh circumstances, that transcends class divisions.<br /><br />The film's classically restrained style intensifies the impact, the spare, eloquent interior shots reminding us that Imamura began his career as an assistant to the great Ozu. Imamura's mastery is evident, for example, in the paired scenes of Yasuko bathing, the first emphasizing her lovely back and legs, the second how her hair is falling out. The shots stand almost as bookends to the narrative's trajectory, distilling its tragic essence. The film's documentary-style realism is violated for expressive purposes several times, perhaps most notably in a scene that lays bare the troubled interior life of a shell-shocked veteran. Both the score by the renowned avant-garde composer Toru Takemitsu and the stunning black and white photography contribute greatly to the film's brooding atmosphere. When, in the final shot, Yasuko's uncle (Kazuo Kitamura), the film's laconic narrator, looks to the vacant sky for a rainbow as a sign of hope and regeneration, the black and white imagery suddenly becomes so poignant that it is almost unbearable. Few films from Japan (or anywhere else, for that matter) could be compared to the great, humanist Japanese masterpieces of the 1950s. This film is one of them. When I finished viewing it for the first time, I sat stunned, unable to move for at least five minutes, overwhelmed as I was by the emotions great tragedy should inspire: terror and pity. | 1 |
This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic. | 1 |
EA have shown us that they can make a classic 007 agent and make you feel in the 60's world. The graphics of the game are outstanding and also the voice recording is very professional. I got this game April 2007 (two years after release), and I am still impressed with the gameplay. It's a shame that EA will no longer make 007 games.<br /><br />I give this game 10/10 for the levels it contains, especially the "consulate" level. I would recommend this game to anyone from the age of 13 and over. The only thing I didn't like in the game is the Russian boat level, it was too much pressure. On the whole I like the game A LOT!! | 1 |
honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.<br /><br />Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!! | 0 |
Unlike what one reviewer said this is NOT a ripoff of Magnum Force. In that one Lieutenant Hal Holbrook put together his own little squad from Academy rookies to dispatch repeat offenders. In Extreme Justice this operation has the sanction from the higher ups of the LAPD. Just how far they sanction the exact methods used is open to question. <br /><br />This Special Investigations Squad seems to be quite the haven for the misfits of the LAPD, those that have forgotten their first duty is protection and service. Which is why Scott Glenn thinks Lou Diamond Phillips, a detective with more than his share of beefs with Internal Affairs for excessive use of force, is perfect for the squad.<br /><br />What should have sent him running from Phillips is the fact he's got a nice live-in relationship with a reporter, Chelsea Field. That one certainly threw me in this film, you'd think that Lou would be the last guy he'd try to recruit for his team.<br /><br />And what his team is, is a death squad. They target perpetrators follow them and wait to catch them in the act. Then it's open season.<br /><br />Extreme Justice went very overboard in trying to make a point. There sure would have been no harm in waiting for a gang of bank robbers to finish the robbery and taking them down outside. No civilians got hurt when the citizens of Coffeyville did that to the Daltons. Or waiting until three rapists finish the job before moving in. That's what were asked to believe here.<br /><br />And frankly I couldn't buy it. A lot of good players get really wasted in this one. | 0 |
The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two.... | 0 |
What a silly movie. While it looks nice, it doesn't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, the film suggests that Juana's "madness" was that she was just a woman ahead of her time. On the other hand, she has an obsession that is right out of the worst Victorian novel of the wronged woman, and that does seem a sort of mental problem, like Miss Havesham in a castle. This movie is what Elizabeth would have been if Elizabeth had not been able to get past Essex's sexual attraction. | 0 |
Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker. <br /><br />Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room. <br /><br />In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling. | 0 |
There's not that much to say in the end. One would have expect much more from a director who made way better movies in the past. It just seems like he did it without actually caring. The actors are doing their job (though Belmondo is far from amazing), but you just don't get hooked. In a word, it's boring. This is even more disappointing since I heard several time that this movie could be considered as a reaction to all the big American blockbusters, which are considered to be a threaten to the French exception by those who just can't admit they should turn to another job. I tell you, if that's the best reaction we're supposed to get, boy, I'm going to be really depressed soon... | 0 |
A short review but...<br /><br />Avoid at all costs, a thorough waste of 90mins. At the end of the film I was none the wiser as to what had actually happened. It's full of cameos (Stephen Fry (3mins), Jack Dee (30 secs), the "Philadelphia" girls) and some vaguely recognisable people but it just doesn't make any sense. Whether the story just got lost in the edit I don't now but jeez...<br /><br />Put on a DVD instead or go to bed and get some rest!!!<br /><br />2 out of 10 (for the cameos and a Morris Minor car chase)<br /><br /> | 0 |
I really like this movie because in Australia, Chinese movies like these never get shown during prime time. I must say this is one of the best serious movies ever, which outlines the difference between the Hong Kong people, and mainland Chinese. It really shows that there's discomfort between the two, but can only get better as HK are learning Mandarin. It also showed me how in mainland China the indie rock scene exists, and that Chinese people do know how to strum the guitar and get the house funking! Whoever said China isn't ready for rock music? Daniel Wu is absolutely superb, with his clean and crisp voice, honest acting, and a total chick magnet. I recommend this movie to those who don't know much about Asian people to cleanse themselves from the typical Western stereotypes, and people who just love Chinese/Asian cinema like myself. Check it out! | 1 |
This scene shows how Wallace's experiment by using his brain manipulation invention goes terribly wrong, creating the "Were Rabbit". His desire as a social entrepreneur is to improve society for the better, therefore, created a "Brain Manipulator" machine. He risked his own life to help solve Tottington's pests' rabbit problem and more importantly to overcome the overcrowding of rabbits being collected and stored in his basement. Though he thought his experiment worked, however, it resulted in placing more pressure on him and Gromit to find a solution before the Annual Vegetable Competition again risking his life. Gromit, who is a silent faithful dog and a loyal helper finds himself continuously thinking of innovative ways to save his master, from his radical crazy inventions going terribly wrong. What is interesting in this movie, is trying to identify: who is more entrepreneurial, Wallace or Gromit? | 1 |
Dull one-note characters with next to no development, unimpressive performances by people who sound like they're simply reading lines, and ludicrous special effects combine to make this a genuine stinker. The story begins with eminently bland commando Russo and his fellow soldiers attacking an Al-Qaeda training base. The scene tells us that Al-Qaeda has recently come to seek an ultimate weapon, and also serves to illustrate Russo's only character trait, a tendency to eschew teamwork. With the help of a collection of blank slates and walking stereotypes, including a Russian spy, Russo travels to Chechnyan territory to catch a mad scientist working for the terrorists. Along the way, they encounter vast hordes of flesh-eating bats that fly in broad daylight for some reason. From there, the movie becomes nothing more than a dragging morass of ridiculous action, including a scene in which a swarm of bats slices a soldier's arm off! | 0 |
All Kira Reed fans MUST see this. The film's premise has struggling romance novelist Kira unable to come up with any new ideas. She's also getting over a divorce. However, she meets this guy at a restaurant and he helps her out of her shell (and clothing). They go into a corner room and they do it. Thankfully, Kira gets a condom out (Now don't ever tell me these Playboy films are worthless piles of soft-core fluff. Remember kids, safe sex). Later, she marvels to her publishist how great it was, but she didn't get his name. Despite this, the guy finds her and they continue their kinky games. But eventually she tires of his sneakiness and wants to know more. When she does, all hell breaks loose, and I'll leave it at that. This is easily the best of these soft-core Playboys films I've seen. Check this out, and marvel at the greatness of Kira. | 1 |
That's a snippet of choice dialogue delivered by the evil, ballbusting lady assistant of a famous scientist to her prim maid just before she lures three incredibly dumb college girls to a mansion for behavior modification experiments. Meanwhile, at the local bar, people drink and dance to lame 80s rock songs. A biker punk has sex with a cycle slut on a pinball table in front of a crowd of people, then tries to rape the scientist's virginal daughter Jessica (Debra Hunter), who is in love with another biker (Dale Midkiff, from PET SEMATARY), who, in turn, is in cohorts with the assistant! Back at the house, the sorority bimbos swim, shower, change clothes and have sex with men from the bar. A small silver ball (part of the experiment) flies into victims mouths and turns them into drooling, killer zombies!<br /><br />If that isn't enough to entertain you, there's a hilarious theme song ("Nightmare Fantasy"), roller skating, some serious daisy dukes and a psychic hand puppet (!?) that warns "DANGER! DANGER!" just like the LOST IN SPACE robot and recommends hitchhiking as one of the best ways to pick up men!<br /><br />This filmed-in-Florida mess is so mind-numbingly awful that multiple viewings are recommended to soak it all in. And, hey isn't that NYPD Blue's Detective Jill Kirkendall turned CNN newscaster Andrea Thompson as one of oft-nude bimbos? Sure is! Supposedly this was started in 1982 and new footage was added later for the video release in 1985.<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10 (and I mean that in a good way!) | 0 |
Chan is in New York and he gets involved with an attempt to sabotage a new aircraft design.<br /><br />The war was over a year away from reaching America but the second world war was already raging everywhere else in the world and so it colored everything since most people probably realized that war was coming. Here the War isn't mentioned but the fact that the film deals with the production of planes at the very least alludes to it. The mystery itself is pretty good, it the notion of plane sabotage lends itself nicely to a couple of rather tense moments. To be certain we are talking about Charlie Chan so we can be certain that he would live to fight another day, but there was no guarantee what condition he would be in, not whether anyone around him would survive.<br /><br />I really like this film a great deal. Its not one of the nest, and far from the worst. It is one of the truly rare things, a truly enjoyable one. Definitely worth a look or six. | 1 |
A drama at its very core, "Anna" displays that genuine truth that all actors age, and sometimes, fade away. Anna is a character that believes America is her safety net, her home, and it can do her no wrong but she refuses to belittle herself to do work she doesn't believe in. She is hard-nosed, optimistic, stubborn, and arrogant when it comes to her life, yet not afraid to let others in, yet drop them at a moments notice. Anna flip-flops between personalities, which makes this film ideal of an aging star, but not idea of the viewing audience. "Anna" has been praised for its star Sally Kirkland, and her ability to get "grungy" for the role, but a month into 2008, "Anna" does not remain a staple of film culture. It is dated, dull, and formulaically chaotic.<br /><br />Director Yurek Bogayevicz has a message hidden within "Anna" about the falsehoods of Czechoslovakia, both politically and socially, but Kirkland refuses to let them upstage her. Bogayevicz is not afraid to play with the camera, to use wooden frames to allow Kirkland to stand out, and he is not afraid to lessen the surrounding characters so that when you walk away from the film, it is Kirkland you remember. If it isn't obvious, this film didn't sit well with me. From the opening of the first act and deep within the second, "Anna" felt like a high school theater production. The characters were non-existent, there was no enlightening pre-story, and there was no definition of time or place. There was Sally Kirkland, stubbornly saying that she is better than the other actresses vying for the same lifestyle that she wants. Randomly she encounters a friend, a young girl that has also traveled a long distance to get to America for the glitz and glamour, and two of them (within the span of 20 minutes) build a friendship that could break all walls. It is emotionally boring and unbelievable. Again, randomly, we meet Anna's boyfriend Daniel (played by the weak Robert Fields), who brings nothing to the table in terms of definition or character only to boost the attention onto Kirkland's Anna. Through the course of nearly two hours, we watch as more random acts coupled with unnamed characters intertwine together to feebly create a story that is held together by loose threads and SALLY KIRKLAND. Arg, it pains me to continue to say this but "Anna" could have been a fantastic film had Bogayevicz presented equal time between Anna, Daniel, and Krystina, but instead we are forced into a one-sided game where emotional scenes speak louder than plot.<br /><br />Is this where Charlize Theron found inspiration for her beauty-less role in "Monster", or Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball"? Was Sally Kirkland one of the early actresses discover that by letting themselves go for a character Oscar will shine in their direction? Throughout this film I was disgusted by Kirkland's portrayal of Anna, and Bogayevicz's lack of excitement for anything else fluent. Bogayevicz gives us an Anna that doesn't work hard for her parts, doesn't care for others, and is generally mean spirited yet we are to feel sympathy for her? Near the beginning of the film, she forces what she wants to do onto others, and gets upset when she doesn't get her way. Sure, aging actresses my have that appeal to them, but Kirkland creates a more childish character instead of a mature one. That is where "Anna" could have improved. If this was a mature Kirkland, I would have gobbled it up, but this stammering childish Anna was impossible to believe. While my favorite scene was near the end where Anna goes to watch one of her older films playing (included is absurd make-out characters) and the film burns, this scene is also one of my least favorite. Anna has made a phenomenal life for herself, creating films and building the dream, yet when anyone else wants to enter that spotlight, she gets jealous and outraged. This didn't make for a character I wanted to stand behind nor win Oscars. Coupled with the classic 80s background synthesizer, the outrageous over-the top wardrobe, and the displaced ending (where did that come from and what happened??) "Anna" slipped far in the scope of amazing cinema. It was a show-piece, an opportunity for an aging star to yell at the world one more time. In this one it worked, but I don't think I will be fooled again.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot say that I was impressed with this film. "Anna" is not a film about an aging film star; it is about Sally Kirkland, and ONLY Sally Kirkland. Bogayevicz tries to do more with the story, but fails either because Kirkland will not allow him or he just realizes that there isn't enough to support a full story. There are one or two decent scenes in this film, but nothing that promotes this film as innovative or influential. Bogayevicz did not create a character that audiences would believe, tear up for, or dedicate a Sunday afternoon with he created an annoyance. Kirkland wasn't Anna, she was an actress playing her a bit overdone and crusty on the sides. Perhaps I missed the scope of this film, but what makes films like this work is the cooperation of everyone involved. That wasn't the case here. In "Anna", Kirkland orders Daniel to act like a dog (apparently as a symbolic act) and yet during the entire emotional scene, I couldn't help but think that was what Kirkland was like to those on the set. She didn't make this into a film, she transformed it into her own production, and because of it "Anna" failed. I cannot suggest this to anyone from one Czech to another skip it! <br /><br />Grade: * ½ out of ***** (for that pesky theater scene that creeped me out) | 0 |
I usually like hongkong - martial arts - fantasy movies but I hated this one. Once Upon A Time In China, Shogun Assassin, A Chinese Ghost Story and even Big Trouble In Little China are my favorites but this film sucked! Too much fancy tricks and stupid story.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Most of us kids growing up in the 40's or 50's were western buffs but this was one that had escaped me until seeing on the Movies for Men Channel today. I loved the film's story, cinematography as well as the superb casting of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. in the lead roles along with the ever dependable Ward Bond. Apparently this movie was the inspiration for the later television series 'Wagon Train' which featured Bond once again as the boss of the wagon trains heading west. Johnson steals the film with his horse riding skills and it's nice to see an actor doing his own stunts like Ben does in this movie. Other notables include the lovely Joanne Dru as Denver and an early non speaking role for James Arness who later became famous for his Marshal Matt Dillon role in 'Gunsmoke.' If you like films of this genre you can't fail to like this one. | 1 |
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly missed. God bless you both. | 1 |
Charles McDougall's resume includes directing episodes on 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', Queer as Folk', 'Big Love', 'The Office', etc. so he comes with all the credentials to make the TV film version of Meg Wolitzer's novel SURRENDER, DOROTHY a success. And for the most part he manages to keep this potentially sappy story about sudden death of a loved one and than manner in which the people in her life react afloat.<br /><br />Sara (Alexa Davalos) a beautiful unmarried young woman is accompanying her best friends - gay playwright Adam (Tom Everett Scott), Adam's current squeeze Shawn (Chris Pine), and married couple Maddy (Lauren German) and Peter (Josh Hopkins) with their infant son - to a house in the Hamptons for a summer vacation. The group seems jolly until a trip to the local ice creamery by Adam and Sara) results in an auto accident which kills Sara. Meanwhile Sara's mother Natalie Swedlow (Diane Keaton) who has an active social life but intrusively calls here daughter constantly with the mutual greeting 'Surrender, Dorothy', is playing it up elsewhere: when she receives the phone call that Sara is dead she immediately comes to the Hamptons where her overbearing personality and grief create friction among Sara's friends. Slowly but surely Natalie uncovers secrets about each of them, thriving on talking about Sara as though doing so would bring her to life. Natalie's thirst for truth at any cost results in major changes among the group and it is only through the binding love of the departed Sara that they all eventually come together.<br /><br />Diane Keaton is at her best in these roles that walk the thread between drama and comedy and her presence holds the story together. The screenplay has its moments for good lines, but it also has a lot of filler that becomes a bit heavy and morose making the actors obviously uncomfortable with the lines they are given. Yes, this story has been told many times - the impact of sudden death on the lives of those whose privacy is altered by disclosures - but the film moves along with a cast pace and has enough genuine entertainment to make it worth watching. Grady Harp | 1 |
I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery. | 0 |
an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of "lumumba film censor" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even "ali" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa. | 1 |
This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.<br /><br />I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.<br /><br />I hope that he finds her.<br /><br />Take a look and be entertained.<br /><br />KirbyEF | 1 |
I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.<br /><br />In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy. | 0 |
I read the reviews for this and while not expecting a saving private Ryan I was expecting a film of some substance.<br /><br />The film starts off very lob-sided with the usual intro of history and how the unit came into being. But immediately it's 1944 and you are not sure where everyone is. The accents etc are very poor as this unit is supposed to be Hawaiian/Asian American but everyone speaks in a very poor take on Harvard English imitation of a Japanese person.<br /><br />I gave this film 3 out of 10 as after 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more of it. The characters were 1 dimensional and even though they were most likely based on real people I had no feeling for them and this left me not caring about them. Very poor direction of a very average TV movie which will be shown at midnight on some cable channel. I'd avoid and look out for better efforts.<br /><br />This is a good story but it was deserving of a better telling. You got a sense the director had seen band of brothers and thought that that was enough to sell his movie. My advice, avoid and watch band of brothers, Tuskegee airmen, Glory or any other movie like when trumpets fade... | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.