text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all. | 0 |
This quirky and watchable film is the story of a deluded dentist who starts out on his mission or crusade to fight tooth decay in the back and beyonds of Patagonia. Hailing from Northern Ireland, via New Jersey, the main character, Fergus, sees his crusade as a mission of mass importance and approaches it with all the enthusiasm, vitality, discipline and attention to detail one would expect from a trained dentist. Which adds to the hilarity, as his grand plans unravel and gradually fall to pieces as he goes from disaster to debacle in the Patagonian outback on the back of a customised motor bike or his, er, mobile dental unit. We never get to meet his wife, nor the rich philanthropist who is sponsoring the ill-fated mission, but, we do get a solid display from Lewis. Fans of his work will not be disappointed with his very believable performance as the deluded dentist who is gallantly adored by the, innocent but sexy, 18 year old female lead who tags along on for the *ahem* ride.<br /><br />This film is not for everyone and I can understand why it wasn't pushed by the suits. It's a low budget, sometimes charming, always disarming, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable film that sets out with low expectations and almost succeeds. | 0 |
This movie is not for those expecting a martial-arts extravaganza. As for historical accuracy, I will leave that issue to those better informed on that subject. I thought the performances were wonderful. Gong Li never disappoints as the resourceful and (initially) loyal consort of the King of Qin. Fengyi Zhang showed a lot of flexibility portraying a ruler descending into madness. He chose the "Hannibal Lector" route, rather than resorting to ranting. For me, the best performance was from Zhiwen Wang as the supersmooth Marquis. The character came across as very oily, but in a subtle "Sir Humphrey Appleby" - Yes Minister kind of way.<br /><br />The cinematography is the standout feature of this film. The scene when the Marquis and his men stormed the palace was breathtaking. There are also a number of wonderful battle scenes. Therefore, this film is highly recommended on the big screen. | 1 |
Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree. | 0 |
As a Sci-fi movies fan I also like Alien. But Pitch Black is definitely better than Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. It maches well into Alien series. But it isn't alien, it's something else. OK, enough comparisons. This movie but me think: Why people are afraid of dark. You can't run away from dark. It's impossible. You have to be faced with darkness and with that, what's in dark. In this movie I also liked that the Vin Diesel character Richard B. Riddick wasn't typical good-boy. He had a secrets and he has done bad things in the past. To the other people he is a hero who tries to save them all. First of all he want to get out of that planet himself. There is also other metaphors in this story. Every big sci-fi fan should see this picture. | 1 |
You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"
During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts
" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one. | 0 |
The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends. | 1 |
The mod squad gets started 'after' the formation of the 'Mod Squad' without even bothering to develop any of the characters or show us why anyone is doing what they are doing.<br /><br />Moreover, most of the events in the movie seem ancillary to the plot. Without even a smack of character development, the plot meanders from Gen-X club scenes to action scenes and back again.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.<br /><br />This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.<br /><br />Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film | 0 |
I have no idea how IMDb sorts reviews but I do know that, as happens often on Amazon.com, there are a striking number of very negative reviews for this movie which repeat the same, somewhat obscure talking points, almost verbatim. A campaign? Only IMDb knows.<br /><br />As for this movie: it's fine. It's a funny, cute and very straightforward movie.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since I worked in Brooklyn, lived in Queens and visited relatives in the South Bronx. But I found nothing inauthentic or exploitative about these kids. Is the grandmother a bizarre character? Yup. Do the dialogue and plot acknowledge this? Yes, thankfully, they do. Are other movies set in the LES and featuring Dominican / Puerto Rican kids possible? You betcha. Does that make this movie a crime as some of the (to my eyes, astroturf) comments would suggest? Hardly. Let a thousand plastic flowers bloom.<br /><br />This is better than any episode of Degrassi JR. High or Degrassi High. Scoff at the comparison but _we've never had that_ and I'm touched, to the core, by this movie's humility of purpose and tender spirit.<br /><br />That said, I'd love to know the backstory behind all this backbiting! :-D | 1 |
A few years ago, a friend got from one of his other friends a video with the Michael Mann film 'Heat' on it. After we finished that movie, and were about to stand up, we saw that there is another film just after, tough on the cassette's envelope the owner didn't write it up. Yet we were all glued back to our seats by its distinct opening, which lacked credits.<br /><br />Some two hours later, I just sat there wondering: how could I not have heard of this masterpiece before?...<br /><br />This film was Europa. Lars von Trier woke film noir from the dead, deconstructed reality with intentionally obvious sets, yet often there was haunting similarity with post-war German photographs I saw. And then the tricky cuts!<br /><br />The story itself is a hard-to-take moral odyssey that has no happy end. A young American pacifist of German descent comes to post-war Germany, intent on doing some good to pay for the bombs his countrymen dropped. But he mostly meets distrust and self-destructive defiance. He hires with Zentropa, a dining-and-sleeping-car company (modeled on Mitropa), whose owner is one of the Nazi collaborators the Occupiers whitewash. Our hero falls in love with his daughter - who later turns out to be a member of the Werewolf, Nazi post-war terrorists. When he doesn't understand the world (or just Europeans) anymore, in his rage he blows up a railroad bridge under a train which he just saved.<br /><br />As a final note, for historical correctness: in the real world, the Werewolf were nowhere as important as the film implies, they were mostly a final Nazi propaganda coup. After an SS unit assassinated the major of Allied-occupied Aachen, two months before the capitulation, the Nazis announced the creation of whole legions of saboteurs and terrorists who will be ready to fight behind the lines, the Werewolf. But only a few hundred of mostly Hitler Youth received some training, and while two or three times some were deployed to murder suspected communists or forced-labourer foreigners in Bavarian villages to imprint lasting fear on inhabitants, with Hitler's death and the war's end it all fell apart.<br /><br />However, the Werewolf propaganda had a profound effect on the occupiers. They feared the Werewolf everywhere, suspected it behind any serious accident - but without exception another cause was found later (ignored by some recent pseudo-historians). For example, when a gas main exploded in the police HQ of bombed-out Bremen, or when the Soviet military commander died in a motorbike accident in Berlin. The effect was strongest on the Soviets, who arrested tens of thousands (in large part children!) 'preemptively' on suspicion of being Werewolf, and closed them off in prison camps where a lot of them died. | 1 |
Now i like Johnny Vegas which is a good start, I also enjoy toilet humour<br /><br />Such as Young Ones and Bottom etc. This however failed to bring even a<br /><br />small smile to my face. The story follows Johnny around after his wife<br /><br />chucks him out (how he got his good looking wife and kid i dont know) <br /><br />as he attempts to shag anything that moves. Failing normally. I was looking forward to this but found it to be totally boring and a waste<br /><br />of my time altogether. Unless you are stuck for something to do for 90 mins apart from wash the car then dont bother..... <br /><br /> | 0 |
Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including "Rear Window", "Dial M For Murder", "Vertigo", and "To Catch A Thief", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, "Yes, dear", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.<br /><br />There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder). <br /><br />Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in "To Catch A Thief"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of "Spellbound", also).<br /><br />All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films ("Vertigo", "Strangers on a Train"), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces. | 1 |
A hilarious Neil Simon comedy that evokes laughs from beginning to end. The late Walter Matthau is the grouchy ex-comedian who is persuaded to join together with his ex-partner (the late Oscar-winner George Burns) for a final reunion show on stage.<br /><br />Benjamin Martin is Matthau's agent and nephew, and the two have just as much chemistry as Matthau and Burns. I love Matthau's grumpy character--he's just the same as he always is, and yet also very different.<br /><br />Burns, as the absent-minded old man, is just as funny as Matthau.<br /><br />Matthau: Want some crackers? I've got coconut, pineapple and graham.<br /><br />Burns: How about a plain cracker?<br /><br />Matthau: I don't got plain. I got coconut, pineapple and graham.<br /><br />Burns: Okay<br /><br />Matthau: They're in the cupboard in the kitchen.<br /><br />Burns: Maybe later.<br /><br />Or how about this:<br /><br />Matthau: When I did black, the whites knew what I was saying!<br /><br />You've got to see it in the movie to understand it!<br /><br />All in all, a refreshingly hilarious, sweet, heartfelt, warm, belivable character comedy with a heart and some of the most memorable quotes of all time. <br /><br />They just don't make them like this anymore! In a time when all the newest comedies are crude, juvenile and stupid, this leans back towards the tender core of what comedy really is--funny characters, smart and funny dialogue, and grand entertainment.<br /><br />One of the best buddy comedies of all time, right up there with "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Lethal Weapon," and "The Hard Way."<br /><br />You may have a hard time finding this for rent or on TV, but trust me, it will be worth your time!<br /><br />4.5/5 stars.<br /><br />- John Ulmer | 1 |
Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much "gossip" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered. | 0 |
I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).<br /><br />Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.<br /><br />Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.<br /><br />Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.<br /><br />The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.<br /><br />So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.<br /><br />This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.<br /><br />Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...<br /><br />Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ... | 0 |
This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see. | 1 |
It is cheese. If all you want is a video game, complete with what look like straight-from-the-computer cutaway sequences for action the film was too cheap to actually make special effects for, this is it. My friend and I actually had a great time seeing it, since the theatre was mostly empty and we could heckle a bit. This movie REALLY requires heckling.<br /><br />Plot? There was a plot? OK, some stupid college or later types get invited to "the rave of the year" and go to one of the San Juan Islands ("If they'd only stayed back in Seattle, they would have survived." - direct quote, or nearly.) to attend. They get there and everyone is gone, and the site is somewhat wrecked (but hey, the keg is still full!). With the help of a crusty old captain and a coast guard woman (who acted only slightly less tough - and slightly less well - than Cynthia Rothrock), they fight lots of zombies (some which spit acid), get an earful of freaky legends, and mostly get killed. That's about it.<br /><br />It's not quite as BAD as Demonicus, but not by much, and still better than Severed (they are sort of my own personal alpha and omega for bad movies - the former is bad but fun to heckle, and the latter is just too freaking bad to watch more than once). On the other hand, if you're expecting a video game movie as excellent as Resident Evil, run away!!! run away now!!!<br /><br />OK, some real big questions (without too many spoilers): Since when did Spanish ships of the 18th century venture into the Pacific Northwest????? Why is anyone in the Pacific Northwest smuggling guns, and to whom - CANADA, for crying out loud??? Why is a rave on an unnamed (oh, excuse me, it's called "isla del muerto", shya, right) San Juan Island - and outdoors, still keeping in mind this is THE PACIFIC NORTHWET. And the rave has about 30 people in attendance - "the rave of the year," my patoot.<br /><br />Lucky thing there's lots of hatchets around. Lots of them. Everyone has them. Must be a hatchet sales outlet nearby.<br /><br />Finally, while the movie started out playing with a little "parody" (with nudges at I Know What You Did and Jaws), it didn't carry it through near enough.<br /><br />OK, really finally - when the introductory comments (in a voice-over, no less) casually mention that one of the characters "gave up her boyfriend to focus on her fencing" you can be darn sure there'll be some fencing by the end of the movie. Not GOOD fencing, but a couple of people hacking at each other with swords, anyway. | 0 |
Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.<br /><br />In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...<br /><br />Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.<br /><br />(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol) | 1 |
In my opinion, this film has wonderful lighting and even better photography. Too bad the story is not all that good and Mr. Cage sometimes loses his accent. But two thumbs up for lighting and the DP! | 1 |
Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.<br /><br />It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars! | 1 |
This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.<br /><br />Seeing "Sailor Beware" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing "Fireman Save My Child", now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten. | 1 |
House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.<br /><br />Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing. | 1 |
If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.<br /><br />I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.<br /><br />Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).<br /><br />The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.<br /><br />If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.<br /><br />Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.<br /><br />I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try. | 0 |
When one watches romantic comedies, one knows what to expect; we've seen enough of them over many, many years to know how they go. There's a formula, one which almost always begets movies that become popular with the genre's audience... not always in relation to their actual quality. How to play around with that, and create something more interesting? This movie has a suggestion... and it works relatively well. Instead of simply following a lead, we follow him skillfully helping the unfortunate men, those who lack the attractive facade that would allow them to reveal the unseen good qualities that they possess to the women they are in love with. The plot follows Smith as he works on his self-proclaimed most difficult such case; Kevin James. Alongside his aid of James, we also follow Mendes, who is fed up with men who lie to get what they want(one particular scene that inspires great respect of Smith's character is him meeting one such jerk, and putting him in his place). After seeing Smith helping the disaster that is James, we see him with Mendes... and in spite of his talent for helping others, he messes up... badly... with her. Making a marvelous point about love, and how falling in love affects us. For a romantic comedy, this mostly avoids the pitfalls of such(at times almost bordering on feeling like a spoof of the genre), though the last few scenes has the sweetness and the emotions of this type of films. Whether or not they follow the formula will not be revealed in this review. The pace is quite good, it never really slows down, and seldom moves too fast. The acting is great, as far as pretty much everyone goes. The characters are nicely developed, and come off as real people. The humor doesn't always work... there are occasional gags that are less than fortunately executed, and one or two jokes that seem forced. However, for the most part, the film was funny. I recommend this to anyone who likes romantic comedies and anyone who is or have been in love. Those who do not believe in love will have a difficult time with the last few scenes. 7/10 | 1 |
It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes! | 0 |
These are excerpts from a nine-page "Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles", written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out): <br /><br />"...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the "theme"--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to "Please Don't Kiss Me" for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as "Disney". In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a "falling down" sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny "dramatic" sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, "I want you to kill him." This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. "Please Don't Kiss Me" is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to "Please Don't Kiss Me"...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture."<br /><br />All of these edits from Orson were ignored | 1 |
Well, i could nt get into the plot, but thats just me maybe. Listless camera-movements at times, nevertheless this movie has got a charming vintage quality.The acting is genuine at times and entertaining with the occasional chase sequence involving scantily clad ladies, which was nice. The climax is confused and disjointed, but still ...err riveting, thanx to Stella Stevens.<br /><br />The stunts are interesting, specially because of the 70's las vegas backdrop. There are a few jerky hand-held camera-movements at the end, which keep me guessing, for a while. But i don't think I ll b chasing the DVD, just yet. | 0 |
I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.<br /><br />It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...<br /><br />This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.<br /><br />Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.<br /><br />This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop! | 0 |
While researching Susan Harrison (The Ballerina) in reference to a Bonanza Episode, I was reminded of this gem.<br /><br />This episode is the inspiration for Dylan's "All Along the Watch Tower" (Hendrix's cover is probably as well know and is one of his best) which is one of HIS best.<br /><br />Thus this episode is responsible for several 'bests' - not bad for approximately 22 minutes of television.<br /><br />But this is "The Twilight Zone". Further comment of the series is unnecessary.<br /><br />'5 Characters' is typical Serling. Intense, dramatic, barreling toward an end that is as inevitable in hindsight as it is surprising the first time you see it.<br /><br />This episode is spoiled in one sentence and is too good to spoil for any who have not seen it.<br /><br />But you will feel ambushed. And you will never listen to Hendrix with the same ears again. | 1 |
This movie is about a side of Ireland that Americans don't normally see, the narrow-minded religiously prejudiced side of the 'friendliest race in the world'. The movie, by the admission of the inhabitants of Fethard who are old enough to remember the events, is fairly accurate (though they insist that the film-makers invented some of the more violent scenes just to spice up the action).<br /><br />The movie was very unpopular in Ireland as it portrayed the Catholic church in a bad light, but the simple fact is that representatives of the Catholic church *did* organise vetoes of minorities (before Protestants it was the Jews).<br /><br />The film is a fascinating insight into the whole issue of religion in Ireland | 1 |
Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done! | 1 |
After seeing this movie, I came to the realization that Drew Barrymore is a great actress. This movie wouldn't have been watchable without Drew. The fact that somebody as attractive as Drew, could actually gross me out, and she did when she was "Josie Grossie". Her attempts to "transition" as the cool girls called it were hilarious, especially her trying to dance at the night club.<br /><br />We also had SNL favorite, Molly Shannon, playing a great part as Anita, Josie's best friend. One of the funniest scenes in the movie was Anita trying to teach the class sex ed. This was one of Mollys funniest performances and best.<br /><br />Leelee Sobieski also had a great part and I really felt for her, because I know people like her that got tortured like that.<br /><br />This movie is a must see for Drew Barrymore fans, because Drew makes the movie. | 1 |
I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.<br /><br />I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.<br /><br />Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!<br /><br />I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.<br /><br />But then, I'm just a big kid... ;) | 0 |
From 1936-1939, Peter Lorre made a string of highly successful Mr. Moto films. While technically B-films, they were much better made than typical films of the genre. However, Lorre tired of making these highly repetitive films and told friends he wanted out of the series. When it was canceled in 1939, Lorre was thrilled but his plans of getting more complicated and satisfying roles did not materialize when he moved to Columbia Pictures. ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN is one of these films and it's pretty obvious the studio isn't putting much effort into the movie, as I think the plot was written by penguins. Talented penguins, perhaps...but still the movie made little sense at all.<br /><br />It begins with a guy agreeing to be an undercover agent for the government. He is to infiltrate an island in the US where something strange is amiss. Now they easily could have just got a search warrant to do this. But, given that penguins were writing the film, the agent takes the rap for a murder he didn't commit and spends a year in prison for this. He apparently hopes that he'll be paroled to this island, as many parolees are sent there when they finish the term.<br /><br />There are some more serious problems with this idea. First, they only have him serve a year before getting paroled--but he was convicted of MURDER and he refused to divulge who he really was. They would never parole anyone in a case like this. Second, what if he wasn't paroled to the island? He would have spent an entire year in jail for nothing! Third, why not just have scuba divers or paratroopers or cops in boats come to the island?! Talk about a contrived plot! <br /><br />Once on the island, the agent discovers that evil Peter Lorre has set up his own private prison and staffed it with guys on parole as slave labor. What about the men having to report to their parole officers? This was never explained, but Lorre was using them to mine for diamonds and they were treated abominably. Now, another question I had was that if Lorre was discovering huge diamonds there, he was a very wealthy man. So, why not just PAY people to mine for the diamonds?! Why set up your own version of Devil's Island and savagely beat and kill the men?! <br /><br />Eventually, Lorre gets what's his and the island's slaves are released. Unfortunately, by then, I really didn't care. Overall, watchable but rather dumb. Lorre's career only took a turn for the better when he moved the following year to Warner Brothers. With films like ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, I could see why his stay at Columbia was short. | 0 |
I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though. | 0 |
The opening flourishes left me purring with delight at their inventiveness - the altered version of the Archers' logo, the introductory disclaimer, the way the camera pans over the cosmos. It's strange to think that `It's a Wonderful Life' came out in the same year. No great coincidence: the 1940s was awash with heaven-and-earth films; but the glowing cotton wool nebulas and cutesy angels of the competition look tattered, something best passed over in silence, when placed next to Alfred Junge's vision.<br /><br />It continues to look great all the way through, as more and more striking ideas are sprung upon us. I'm not a great fan of mixing colour with black and white in general. One of the two visual schemes almost always looks ugly when placed next to the other. Not so here. Powell dissolves colour into monochrome and monochrome into colour as if it's the most natural thing in the world, a mere change of palettes. Both the colour photography and the black and white could stand on their own.<br /><br />As for the story ... this may be Pressburger's best script, or at least it would have been had the conclusion been a more logical outcome of preceding events. Other than that it's tight, yet with more going on than I can possibly allude to here. Was the heavenly stuff real or imaginary? (Or both? Perhaps Carter dreamt up a fantasy that was, as it so happened, true.) Everyone says we're meant to neither ask nor answer this question, but I don't see why. I'm sure we ARE meant to ask the question. The film even gives us clues as to what the answer is - indeed, the problem is that there are too many clues and they seem at first to be pointing in different directions. The fact that other things ought to occupy our attention as well doesn't mean that this shouldn't occupy us as well. There is, as I've said before, a lot going on.<br /><br />Consider the scene in which Abraham Farlan (Heaven's prosecuting lawyer) plays a radio broadcast of a cricket match, and contemptuously says, `The voice of England, 1945.' Dr. Reeves (the defence) acknowledges the exhibit with a great deal of embarrassment, and then produces one of his own: a blues song from America, which Farlan listens to as though he's got a lemon in his mouth. Reeves looks smug.<br /><br />Snobbery? Well, I don't see why it's snobbish to condemn blues music - and that's not what Powell and Pressburger are doing, anyway. As the song is being played, we get a shot of the American soldiers listening to it: several of them nod their heads to the rhythm, perfectly at home. THEY don't find it incomprehensible. There's something valuable about the song and neither Reeves nor Farlan knows what it is. Reeves probably realises as much. All English audiences (and all Australian, Indian, etc. audiences as well) know without being told that there is something of value in the cricket broadcast, too; and that while Reeves understands THAT, he is unable to explain it to Farlan - hence the blues broadcast, which shows that people can understand each other without sharing an understanding of everything else. It's a clever scene.<br /><br />One last thing. I found David Niven a bit cold, without the charisma he would acquire later in his career; but even so, I don't think a film has grabbed my heart quite so quickly after the action began, as this one did. | 1 |
I saw this film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and there was not a dry eye in the house. It is incredible to see not only what a great person Darius is, but how admirable the rest of the team is too and at such a young age.<br /><br />It also made me think how disgusting MTV was, and how on being given an opportunity to involve and inspire in a positive way, they declined. Shows you whether they really care about the youth and their viewers at all.<br /><br />It's a wonderful and heart warming true story...take your tissues but it's great to see how caring and inspiring youth of today can be. | 1 |
...a good script or director couldn't fix.<br /><br />The original 'Poseidon Adventure' was a story of human courage triumphing against terrific odds and personal tragedy. The survivors were led by a charismatic figure of great spiritual strength who would take anything God threw at him.<br /><br />The follow-up tries to recreate the mix but fails through a formulaic script and pedestrian direction. Irwin Allen may have been a great producer of disaster flicks, and done a fine job directing the action scenes in 'Towering Inferno', but he just can't bring any human depth to his characters. If the characters aren't credible any danger they face also falls flat.<br /><br />The script also tries to copy the original too obviously. So we have Peter Boyle doing the Ernest Borgnine thing by being tough and obnoxious (but he has a tender heart); Karl Malden is the Red Buttons moderating influence (and is terminally ill for good measure); Slim Pickens does the comic relief for Shelley Winters, and so on.<br /><br />To make the story more contemporary we have a rogue arms dealer ready to flog weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder. A really nasty piece of work who ruthlessly abandons wounded men (the actors playing his henchmen were presumably paid as extras because they don't seem to have any lines) and has a woman shot in the back - what a cad! Thank goodness the French rescue services made the hole in the Poseidon's hull twice as large as in 1972 (and on the other side of the propeller shaft) so he could he get his goods out. And while we're on the subject, how did they get the crates *to* the... oh, forget it.<br /><br />I actually paid good money to see this when it was released. Given the film's current reputation this may seem odd, but it actually got quite mixed reviews at the time. Some said it was junk, some said it was as exciting as the original. Never mind, nobody can be right all the time. | 0 |
I have seen this movie 4 times in 5 months and i never get tired of it just because it is perfect. And it has also got the best film music ever and the best supporting roles ever written for a movie. I mean you just have to love Robert Duval , Marlon Brando , Martin Sheen and Lauerence Fishburne in this movie but specially Duval. I can not believe that Kramer vs. Kramer did win an Oscar in stead of this amazing war movie. So this is my conclusion if you take the director of the worlds greatest movie ( The Godfather ) and the best of Hollywood actors you can only succeed. Now I just have to writhe something to get this preview so do not read this except the last line. This movie rules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
I've never been to Paris, but after seeing "Paris, Je t'aime" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York? | 0 |
This movie is just plain dumb.<br /><br />From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.<br /><br />Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.<br /><br />Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.<br /><br />To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10. | 0 |
Although I live in Minnesota, I have been studying in France lately and came across this bizarre gem of a film.<br /><br />This movie was amazing, to say the least. A creative and unique film, the different directors each lent something different to their interpretation of love in the City of Light. The first instinct is to attempt to fit each one of these little stories into an overall storyline, much as can be done with 2003's Love Actually. This attempt, however, renders the magic of each individual segment obsolete. When taken at face value, with each of the short segments taken as its own individual film, the love stories together tell a beautiful message.<br /><br />The film is strikingly bizarre at times -- often to the point of confusion -- and each individual segment can be hard to follow. Still, to a watcher who pays close attention to each of the segments, the short plot lines become clear after a short time. The confusion is almost intriguing; it keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for what will come next. It leaves the viewer wondering "Did that really just happen?" yet also leaves them satisfied that it did, indeed, occur. It's the kind of movie where the viewer, upon leaving the theater, can't actually decide whether they loved it or they hated it. The initial reaction is to go and watch it again and again, just to see these individual lives blend together into a cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />The interesting decision to make the movie multilingual adds something to the spectrum of people who can relate. It adds to the reality of the film -- here, the American tourists speak English, the Parisians French, and so on. The number of people that the film encompasses leads to an understanding of the international language of love.<br /><br />From sickness to the supernatural, the love of parents to the love of husbands, this film covers all the bases of romantic storytelling. In its beautiful and quirky way, each unique event somehow falls into place to tell a story: that of all types, sizes, nationalities, and shapes of love. | 1 |
Kevin Spacey is my favorite actor of all time, he is without a doubt on other's lists as well when it comes to great actors. He even pulled off a good Irish accent in Ordinary Decent Criminal as well. But Kevin Spacey, as a Mafia leader? Or even a burglar? I'm not so sure he could go that far. The movie to me just didn't make any sense and the some of the story just didn't feel solved to me.<br /><br />I know once again that IMDb is going to make me write ten more lines. But I'm not so sure on what I could say about this movie because I am still trying to figure it out. Silly, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure that more than a few of you IMDb users have been in the same predicament as I am in right now where you just want to say a line or two about a movie, but now you have to do ten lines? Wow, that should do it. :D <br /><br />3/10 | 0 |
In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. "Webs" is a watchable plagiarizing of "Sliders", only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Na Teia do Terror" ("In the Web of Horror") | 0 |
In & Out was a funny comedy with good performances by Joan Cusack, Tom Selleck, Matt Dillon, and Kevin Kline. The thought of Kevin Kline being gay was very funny. If I was him, I would hate to say I'm gay at his own wedding with his family, friends, and his going to be wife there. Very seldom would that ever happen. I also loved when he was dancing around when the voice on the radio was talking to him. I'd say that In & Out was a silly comedy with a lot of laughs and giggles. This is a recommended comedy and Kevin Kline had a great performance as a gay guy. Trust me you'll like this movie.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
It was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations. | 0 |
The biggest mystery of Veronica Mars is not one that she had to tackle on screen.<br /><br />Rather, the mystery is why this perennial ratings disappointment is still on the air. This week marked a nadir for Veronica Mars: it ranked 146 out of 146 shows in the big 6 (soon to be Big 5). Yes, you read right. Veronica Mars was beaten by every show of the now-defunct WB and every show on UPN. It was beat by all the shows on Fox and of course by all the shows on ABC, CBS and NBC.<br /><br />Now, the hip hypesters are going to say: but this was a re-run. But everything on TV that week was pretty much a re-run! It boggles the mind why CW would choose this proved ratings disappointment as one of the few shows it saved from UPN.<br /><br />Clearly something is going on behind the scenes. Favors are being exchanged and influence peddled.<br /><br />Sorry to be so cynical, but what other explanation is there? The "Veronica Mars has potential" line is clearly dead now that it's had two years to establish itself and failed to do so.<br /><br />Maybe it's Joel Silver's influence and clout, but frankly, I am at a loss why anyone would choose to spend their clout on a bad show that no audience is watching.<br /><br />A great mystery and a very inauspicious debut for CW. | 0 |
I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.<br /><br />This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.<br /><br />Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability. | 0 |
Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP. | 0 |
This film gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.<br /><br />The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.<br /><br />The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie. | 0 |
Yeah, I guess this movie is kinda dull compared to some of Pam Grier's other films. The plot is overly familiar, the dialog stilted, and some of the acting isn't too good. But it's worth seeing for the lengthy stretch near the end of the film, where we see Ms Grier in a sexy blue wetsuit, with the zipper half unzipped. Yeah, it seems like a frivolous point when discussing an actress of Pam Grier's talent, but she also happens to be an extremely gorgeous woman, and back in the day, she had a body that wouldn't quit. It's nice to see it being showcased in a tight wetsuit. Rent the DVD, and then tell me I'm wrong. Can't, can you? That's because you know I'm right! :-) And yes, I really did give a 10 just for the wetsuit scenes! ;-) | 1 |
If you're watching this without an inkling of an idea what the story is about, then you're in for quite the surprise. Even then the synopsis has painted a picture of a rather sane storyline, but the actual film is anything but.<br /><br />As the synopsis went, it tells of an obsessed mountain climber, which you'll see as the prologue before the opening credits and text crawl, which tells you of the presence of Chronopolis, an imaginary city that exists in dreamy manuscripts of the mind (note to self this spells trouble with flashing lights), where its inhabitants are immortals yearning for a change in their omnipresence. They can see our world, and notice of all persons this mountain climber, and the synopsis explained that they decided to contact him through alchemy, creating an intelligent sphere to meet the man.<br /><br />What that translated to, is a repetitive piece of animation that a 5 year old kid could produce. Have shapes created, though credit goes to the stop motion style, and put it through a mind-numbing loop. And repeat until your eyes start to close, then move on to the next scene. If anything, the Chonopolisians (if this term exists) really love their sticks and balls, constantly playing at conjuring up that magical sphere, and having a field day playing with it before releasing it to the "other" world. It gets no better as well, when the man interacts with the sphere in yet another hypnotically boring and sleep inducing sequence.<br /><br />Thank goodness of course that the run time is shorter than what's advertised, which is 57 minutes (or less) against the 70 stated. While firmly dated, its dull colours, non-existent story, scratchy soundtrack and repetitive pictures will win over no fans. Don't waste time. | 0 |
Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.<br /><br />Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.<br /><br />This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0. | 0 |
CONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a "talking" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom. | 0 |
I saw this short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.<br /><br /> Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least once. | 0 |
The first of five St Trinian's films (although the last is usually discounted) was based around artist Ronald Searle's schoolgirl characters, and features the wonderful Alastair Sim in drag as Millicent Fritton, headmistress, as well as her own brother. Much of the humour is dated, yet curiously touching and outrageous in today's PC world - the girls drink, gamble, smoke and are later sold off to rich Arabs, yet always remain in charge, defeating bureaucrats, police, judges and other establishment figures as they maraud across England. Perhaps because the films have been so regularly seen on TV, St Trinians still inspires fancy dress parties and club nights. The films have recurring characters that include PC Ruby Gates (Joyce Grenfell) and Flash Harry (George Cole). The precursor to the entire series is a charming film called 'The Happiest Days Of Your Life' (1950). | 1 |
Im usually wary of movies hovering around the 6/10 mark on IMDb. Id like to think people know what they are talking about and know what they like. I guess the trick with reviewing is to take an approach of "Hey, if i liked types of movies like these- would i give it a higher score than i am about to give it now since I don't like these types of movies" Then again people judge differently , basing more value on acting, or perhaps story or directing. Anyway, landing the plane here- i had rented this movie out before and hadn't had time to watch it, this morning i did.<br /><br />Wow! See this movie. I am personally interested in the paranormal/have read a bit about near death experiences, so automatically i was hooked. I am unsure about some of the comments here saying that a quality cast here was wasted - i disagree- the acting here was superb from all- i think this is the only time i didn't mind Julia Roberts, it was good to see 24's Kiefer Sutherland (Currently at the time of this review, serving a jail sentence for DUI), and Kevin Bacon sporting an interesting hair style.<br /><br />Overall- i liked the direction, the atmosphere, the acting, and the story line most of all- particularly the idea of karma, and , to quote Nelson Wright "Everything we does matters" So true.<br /><br />10/10! | 1 |
I had no idea what the film is about before I saw it because Tashan only had teaser trailers while it was being promoted. So I asked my friends if they knew anything about it and they said that "It is the directorial debut of Vijay Krishna Acharya who wrote the screenplays for Dhoom 1 & 2 and Saif Ali Khan's son Ibrahim makes his debut in the film by playing him as a child in his flashback".<br /><br />After watching it, I understood that why their wasn't a proper trailer because there wasn't anything in the film to show. The story was extremely dum and even a 10 year old child can come up with a better story-line. There was hardly any action and the camera shook at every possible angle there is and it's difficult to figure out that who is killing who. Also the action was daft & unrealistic e.g. 1 man with a handgun managed to kill about 100 men with machine guns.<br /><br />While I was watching Tashan it reminded me of 3 films:<br /><br />Sin City: During the opening credits.<br /><br />Koyla: Anil Kapoor's terrible English like Amrish Puri in Koyla.<br /><br />Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: The outrageously ridiculous jokes that are not even a jot funny.<br /><br />I also heard the budget is 40 crores which is the same amount as Dhoom 2 and I don't know where all the money went to. Anyway if you did not like Dhoom 2 then there is absolutely no chance that you will like Tashan. Race was hot on heels and that is a million times better.<br /><br />The only 2 good songs are Dil Haara & Challiya and both songs are shot in Greece at good locations but what is the use of it in a rubbish film? Even Anil Kapoor's terrible English couldn't save this discomfiture. | 0 |
... ever! (I always wanted to write that:) Many years ago (in 1993 as I recall it) one of my former classmates persuaded me to watch what he called "a epic masterpiece". To this day it stands out to me as the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting, the story, the effects - everything is bad. Unless you are one of these people who just loves to appreciate trash, you should pass on this. However chances are that since you are reading this, you've already seen it.<br /><br />Out of almost 500 movies this is the only non-short I've given a 1/10.<br /><br />I haven't seen any other low-budget Asian warrior flicks, so I guess there's even worse things out there! Scary... <br /><br />:P | 0 |
This film is one of the best memories I have from childhood. Having always loved Tigers my Mum took me to see it. <br /><br />It is absolutely amazing. Its is one of those films that leaves a lasting impression on you. The image of Tigers running through the snow with it all spraying around is still in my head some 25 yrs on, not many films have managed that, As other comments have said photography is stunning. A must see. I have also been looking for the film for some time with no luck at all. :-(. Checking Amazon every now and then reveals nothing, not even listed. If anyone does know of a source, please contact me or post here. Tim | 1 |
"The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.<br /><br />It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.<br /><br />The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)<br /><br />It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance. | 1 |
Most Christmas movies have a "redemption" theme but most are a variation on a very similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I enjoyed it. <br /><br />BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a business trip? | 1 |
turned out to be another failed attempt by the laughable sci-fi channel. i am not sure who wrote the script, and interpreted the poem, but i am sure it was by some 17 year old teen who thought it would be awesome to a have a scoped crossbow in the movie. AAAAAAAH! when i saw that part, I lost all hope. Then...they set off for heorot in a what looks to be the ship that Christopher Columbus sailed in! when they reach Heorot, (which is supposed to be a Norse mead hall) the sci-fi group of idiots decided to make heorot look like a big stone castle. when i saw that part.. i wanted to scream. i really wanted this movie to be good, but sci-fi has yet to produce a good movie, so i don't know why i got my hopes up. Oh..and Grendel and his mother, are stupid also. (this comment is off topic about "Grendel")If anyone from the sci-fi channel is reading this..here is some good advice. NOT EVERY MOVIE YOU MAKE HAS TO BE ABOUT A BIG MONSTER THAT CAN RIP PEOPLE IN HALF, THATS NOT WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS ABOUT! AND ALSO, STOP CASTING LOW-GRADE ACTORS LIKE STEPHEN BALDWIN TO BE IN YOUR FILMS! ITS NOT HELPING THE MOVIE, BUT MAKING IT WORSE!!! | 0 |
This is the movie that, pretty much, sounded the death knell for the auteur in Hollywood. At over 40 million bucks, Heaven's Gate is so poorly conceived and executed it would take a lifetime to break down every area of failure. What really galls me the most about it is that technically it's very bad, an unforgivable sin for the money that went into it. John Hurt's commencement speech at Harvard is inaudible, as is a conversation between Kris Kristofferson and Richard Masur at the train station. Some people seem to think Cimino intended this as a "style". He didn't. It's just bad sound recording. The characters are not particularly well-drawn, except for the four or five leads; in the climactic battle scene, it's difficult to tell who's the bad guys and who's the good guys. Even on that level, it's impossible to enjoy the movie. The casting of Isabelle Huppert as the town madam is a joke, her French accent renders the whole character a fraud. The acting is generally stiff, without any range or depth of feeling; even Christopher Walken is bad. John Hurt's character is the only one with any swagger or vitality (although Hurt, in his 40s, playing a fresh-faced Harvard grad with bags under his eyes is patently ridiculous). <br /><br /> I guess to say that it's overlong is overkill. The roller-skating sequence could have been easily cut, the cockfight scene is rapidly becoming a movie cliche, and the final scene on board the ocean liner is right out the Twilight Zone. Having Rod Serling appear before the camera at the end to explain what we just watched would have been the perfect finale. Actually, those scenes in and of themselves are not bad, but Cimino has not earned the right to include them, because what he's given us as the "meat" of the picture IS so incompetently bad. The editing is poor, especially in the grand battle climax. At one point, the same explosion with the same wagon wheel flying from the blast is used three different times. I wish could I say something- anything- nice about this movie: a great scene, a great performance, even one memorable line of dialogue, but I can't. It is all just one big unholy mess. About the only thing I did like was the cinematography and the Montana locations, which are stunning. Even Cimino couldn't screw that up. This is a long, boring, bad movie by all standards. And the people who say that it gets bashed only because of the cost overruns are just kidding themselves. 1/2 * out of 4 | 0 |
The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she "wants one more than anything else in the world") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from **** | 0 |
When "Girlfight" came out, the reviews praised it, but I didn't get around to seeing it. I finally saw it when it got released on video, and understand the glowing reviews.<br /><br />The movie opens in a high school in the middle of a ghetto. We quickly get introduced to student Diana Guzman (Michelle Rodriguez). She has a bad-ass expression on her face, and any idea about Diana that we might derive from this expression soon gets corroborated when she gets in a fight. As Diana gets in trouble for this, we then meet her father, an aggressive type in his own right; clearly we can't totally blame Diana for her attitude.<br /><br />But then the movie really picks up, as a new thought germinates in Diana's mind: boxing as a way to escape this grim existence. Her older brother has already gotten into boxing, but her father most likely won't approve. Only Diana herself can decide what to do.<br /><br />Just the first few minutes alone identified that I was in for a very gritty, non-Hollywood movie, but the brief appearance of John Sayles in a supporting role truly affirmed that. Even before they get to any boxing scenes, you feel like you're getting pounded in the face at seeing the ugly life that Diana lives. And when they finally arrive at the film's main story, there's no turning back.<br /><br />All in all, I definitely recommend this movie. I will admit that using boxing as a means to show someone trying to make something of himself/herself has been sort of a cliché in cinema for many years ("Rocky", "Million Dollar Baby"), but I still think that they did a great job with it here. In fact, this may have brought the genre to its apex. Really good. Too bad that Michelle Rodriguez wasted herself in Hollywood movies after this one. | 1 |
So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, "what about the effects?" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.<br /><br />There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.<br /><br />There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word "battle" in it. Ugh.<br /><br />I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars. | 0 |
I'm normally a sucker for romantic films which are well-filmed and well-acted out. This is a romantic (period) film set in 17th-century Italy, but filmed in French with English subtitles. The fact that it is a period film means it will inevitably be slower-paced than films set in the modern day era, so it Will bore some. If you can overlook that fact, it is actually a really good film. The scenery, the costumes, and the cinematography are beautiful, and the main actors and actress are very compelling in their portrayals, projecting the intensity of the emotions that are running through the plot. The story is like a sad love story with an unhappy ending. Its easy to believe that this is an accurate portrayal of the real-life characters. In spite of the fact that I was really moved by the main characters and the storyline, I decided to check out the validity of the story and found out that the main theme of the movie's story - that of an sad unfinished love story - was completely fabricated. <br /><br />In real life, Artemisia was raped by Tassi initially, rather than submitting to his advances willingly and passionately as the movie had portrayed. She continued to have sexual relations with him only because he had repeatedly promised to marry her. When they were in court, he had *not* admitted guilt of rape out of pity for Artemisia's torture (unlike what the movie portrays). In reality, he had tried to portray Artemisia as a loose, promiscuous woman with insatiable sexual urges. In the movie, his sister testified in court that Tassi had a wife and had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, and Tassi's character was all the while made to appear as if his sister had been slandering him regarding his alleged affair with his sister-in-law (although he admits to having had a wife back in Florence). Needless to say, in reality it wasn't really like that at all. In fact, far from it. Tassi was really responsible in the planned murder of his wife, whom he had begotten from rape. And to add to that, Tassi really had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, impregnating her in the process, but all this wasn't really mutual as well - again, he had raped his sister-in-law before. <br /><br />So now we have a clear picture of the real Tassi as a multiple sex offender, what do we make of the film Artemisia's portrayal of him as a lover? We take it as an attempt to make this movie into a romantic film... that this film was never made to be historically accurate... Apart from these points just mentioned, there were other historical inaccuracies like in its interpretation of Artemisia's art (in real-life, she was never really influenced by Tassi's painting style, and she was actually considered a much better painter than Tassi ever was.) One thing remains true and its the fact that Artemisia Gentileschi has been credited as the first woman painter in history, and although her mastery of the art rivalled many of her male peers, she had always experienced difficulty in getting enough credit for her work because of her gender as a woman, in 17th century Italy.<br /><br />Enjoy this film for its own sake, for it is a pretty good romantic drama, but take its historical references with a grain of salt. | 1 |
Great movie. Post-apocalyptic films kick ass. This one is no exception. Kept up the pace and interest without a speck of dialogue (mainly through some good character development). The fight between Reno and the Hero was tight. I also liked the use of cave paintings and medieval-like weapons to show how primitive and savage mankind had become without their technology and guzzaline. The connection between the beginning and end was a little spacey, that is, I had a hard time understanding the distances between the hotel and the opening sequence. In sum, kick ass character progression, design, story without the cushion of dialogue, and most importantly, the always appreciated desolate scenery of a post-apocalyptic wasteland. | 1 |
Like another user I got this cheap - I thought. 85 kroners (£8). Although not worth that amount of money it is a total classic that I - like the other users - first saw when I was a kid and was looking forward to seeing again some 20 years after. The story is amazingly thin (which is why it might have worked for kids), but all the radio language and trucker stuff makes up for it. It'll look good on my DVD shelf in years to come. First viewing (1980): 10/10. Second viewing (2002): 4/10 | 0 |
As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed. | 1 |
How can't you rate this movie with 10/10? I admit to say that this movie is not very entertaining but the goal is not to tell you a story but History! This is the first `real' movie of cinema history (`le Prince de Galles' was first but it was not technically perfect enough
) and it has an undoubtedly huge international value. These people that you can see finishing their working day in the movie had the chance to participate to a historic moment, becoming the first persons to be able to see themselves moving! And above all the shot is a beautiful shot! And it's very moving when you think about the first persons to have seen that! What a moment! Historic for science first (because the Lumiere brothers first invented the cinematographe for scientific reasons) and for art later. A movie to venerate! | 1 |
Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning. | 1 |
The premise was intriguing, but sadly this film just doesn't do any justice to it. The casting was quite good, and it was shot beautifully - but stylistically much of the direction was inconsistent (overstylized fast editing been there done that to no effect.... I was waiting for Steven Bochco to run in the credits followed by a commercial), characters were identified exclusively by on-screen coke usage (and pretty much everything else left to Boogie Nights for character development), and no personable characters to draw the viewer into the story. A very forgettable film. | 0 |
How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.<br /><br />Send it back to sender as soon as possible. | 0 |
Believe me, I wanted to like "Spirit". The idiotic comments people made at the time of its release about how quaint it was to see old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation again, as if the last pencil-animated cartoon had been released twenty years ago, and the even more idiotic comments about how computers had now made the old techniques obsolete, had got my blood up ... but then, the insulting, flavourless banality I had to endure in the first ten minutes of "Spirit" got my blood up even more.<br /><br />The character designs are generic, the animation (partly as a result) merely competent, the art direction as a whole so utterly, boringly lacklustre that you wonder how it could have come about (we know, from "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Road to El-Dorado", that there are talented artists at Dreamworks), and the sophisticated use of CGI is in every single instance ill-judged. (Why do they bother?) There's not a single thing worth LOOKING at. In an animated cartoon, this is fatal.<br /><br />But it gets worse...<br /><br />The horses can't talk, but they're far more anthropomorphised and unconvincing than the deer in "Bambi", which can. And it seems that, in a way, the horses CAN talk. Spirit himself delivers the prologue (sounding for all the world like a 21st-Century actor picked out of a shopping mall in California), and from then on his laid-back, decidedly unhorselike narration is scarcely absent from the soundtrack, although it never once tells us anything that we didn't already know, or expresses a feeling which the artwork, poor though it is, wasn't capable of expressing twice as well. That prologue, by the way: (a) contains information which Spirit, we later discover, had know way of knowing; (b) expresses ideas which Spirit would lack the power to express even if he COULD talk; (c) includes new age rubbish like, "This story may not be true, but it's what I remember"; and (d) will give countless children (the production is pitched, I presume, at six-year-olds) the impression that horses are native to North America, which is sort of true, in that the common ancestor of domestic horses, zebras etc. WAS native to North America - but all horse species on the continent had gone extinct long before the first humans arrived, and the mustangs of Spirit's herd (which allegedly "belong here like the buffalo grass") were descended from horses introduced by Europeans.<br /><br />So the prologue rather annoyed me.<br /><br />As often as Spirit talks, Bryan Adams sings, sounding as usual as though he's got a bad throat infection - and it's not THAT he sings or even HOW he sings, it's WHAT he sings: maudlin narrative ballads which contribute even less, if possible, than Spirit's spoken narrative, and which sound as though they all have exactly the same tune (although I was paying close attention, and was able to discern that they probably didn't). If only Bryan Adams and the guy-pretending-to-be-a-horse could have SHUT UP for a minute or two, the movie might have been allowed to take its true form: mediocre and derivative, rather than jaw-droppingly bad. | 0 |
During my trip in a youth leadership forum, I was channel surfing until I found "Tommy Boy" on TBS. Since I have never seen this film before, I wanted to check it out. My roommate, who have already seen this, told me, "This movie is a classic." After seeing the whole movie, I came to the conclusion that he was right.<br /><br />"Tommy Boy" is constantly funny from beginning to end, thanks to the comedic duo of Chris Farley and David Spade. Farley is a riot as the title character, a spastic doofus who just sails through life as if it wasn't important. His slacker-esqe ways soon come to a halt when his father (Brian Dennehy), a wealthy "Break Pads King", dies of a heart attack on his wedding day. This leads Tommy, with the help of his sarcastic childhood friend Richard (David Spade), to hit the road to sell enough break pads to save the company.<br /><br />The main reason "Tommy Boy" works are the funny performances from the lead cast. Farley is the funniest person in this movie, the second funniest person being Spade and the third being Rob Lowe as the film's villain who has bad luck. Another funny guy is Dan Aykroyd as Ray Zalinsky, a well-known auto parts extraordinare.<br /><br />Another reason the movie works is the large amount of jokes. Chris Farley has hilarious slapstick moments, and David Spade has funny snide comments and one-liners. The gags in the movie (some which involves a deer and a airplane bathroom) are laugh-out-loud funny, thanks to director Peter Segal (Naked Gun 33 1/3), writers Bonnie & Terry Turner<br /><br />(3rd Rock From the Sun, That 70s Show), and the cast.<br /><br />"Tommy Boy" is a really funny movie, although for some unknown reason most film critics (including Roger Ebert) find it horrible and unfunny. (I wonder when their sense of humor died.) I recommend "Tommy Boy" for those who are great fans of comedy. Thank you very much, roommate. | 1 |
I finally managed to see this movie...after so many years of expectancy...<br /><br />I was so curious to see if this movie it is as bad as some people say..<br /><br />And my opinion is that this movie it wasn't bad at all,on the contrary it was AMAZING...<br /><br />I enjoyed every second from it...from the beginning until the end...<br /><br />The actors were great they sent me the feeling that i was living the story at the same time as the movie was playing...<br /><br />The landscapes were so beautiful were the film was shot...and it did charmed me.. Also the music was extraordinary and i have nothing<br /><br />to reproach..<br /><br />I think that the plot was very original i don't think that i saw a movie like this...<br /><br />It is a shame that it isn't recognized all over the world..to bad for those who didn't get the chance to see it. i give this movie 10/10 | 1 |
Why am I so convinced there's actually another film version of this novel out there somewhere? I saw the film again this year as I am teaching the novel and find the changes in the film annoying - there is no appearance of the little boy in the novel and the ending has been changed. They kill him off in the film but the whole point is that he is haunted by the events at Eel Marsh House for many years but does remarry and eventually put the events behind him. Mr. Bentley is a far more sympathetic character in the novel, the scene in the film where Kipps sets fire to the office is plain daft, and the constant appearance of the toy soldier to signify the presence of the child is genuinely creepy but pointless - Kipps is haunted by the woman seeking revenge, not the child. I am sure I've seen a film which is better and closer to the novel and actually scarier. Have I just imagined this? | 1 |
About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...<br /><br />Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).<br /><br />Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.<br /><br />The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.<br /><br />All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys? | 0 |
I am fifteen years old and have seen thirty-three of Sinatra's films (not counting videos of TV shows and documentaries) and have been unimpressed by only two of them. ''Till the Clouds Roll By," and "The Miracle of the Bells" don't really count, however, considering that in the first all he does is sing a magnificent "Ol' Man River," and in the latter he's not half bad-only the picture is pathetic. My favorite records, radio shows, TV shows, and movies concerning Sinatra change virtually every day-everything taking on a different connotation at each viewing and occasionally seeming the best thing he ever did and occasionally the worst until the cycle comes around again, but there are a couple things that are beyond comparison. When it comes to movies, "The Man with the Golden Arm" heads that list. Everybody who knows anything about Sinatra knows he thought this was his best-ever performance; he was Oscar-nominated; it was the first serious look at drug addiction; etc.,etc. The jazz score is unforgettable, Kim Novak's likable despite a ludicrous accent, Eleanor Parker is annoying and waaaay too dramatic, the turtle-like Arnold Stang is amusing the first time but more embarrassing every time out, and Darren McGavin makes a wonderfully slimy drug dealer, the sets are unconvincing - at first glance it seems a peculiar mixed bag tossed together by the great Otto Preminger with an off-center charm. <br /><br />Then you come to Sinatra. Like everything else in his life - other than music - reports of his acting are alway divided in half. Directors like Fred Zinnemann, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, and Otto Preminger, all agreed that had Sinatra worked as hard on his films as he did on singing, he'd have been among the greatest actors in the world - if not THE greatest. Humphrey Bogart even said,"This guy has the most natural acting talent I've ever seen." Not bad for a man who never took an acting lesson in his life, was at the same time producing the discography that would make him "the greatest singer of the 20th Century," and did almost all his scenes in one take. <br /><br />In direct conflict with all of this are those other reviews and biographies that sniff haughtily about what a lousy actor was this Mr.Sinatra, and how many "bad" movies he made. The question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction because controversy was among Sinatra's greatest assets, and both arguments were in a sense playing into his hand. In any case, at this time, in this role, Sinatra is magnificent. A reviewer said in the late fifties,"Sinatra may not be the greatest actor in the world, but there is none more fascinating to watch." No matter what Sinatra is doing in a film, it's hard to take your eyes off him. This, of course, is a "charisma," that I've only seen in a handful of other people-Orson Welles, Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift-perhaps James Cagney. There's no real definition for it and it often makes it hard to figure out whether you're really enjoying a performance or just spellbound, but that quality on display here is what makes the movie. Sinatra is downright riveting, real, intense - transcending decades and thousands of paper-doll pop stars with something called quality. Like it or not, this is a one-man show with a few character actors hanging around in the background. He covers every emotion with remarkable subtlety, from sweet, lonely tenderness with Kim Novak to the terrifying shock of Frank Sinatra (Frank Sinatra!) whimpering and screaming in the agony of "cold turkey." Sinatra was right - this is his best performance. No question. <br /><br />I was eight when Frank Sinatra died. I wasn't around for all the years of bobby-soxers and ''Anchors Aweigh,'' Mr. Ava Gardner and ''From Here to Eternity," albums with lamp posts and ''swingin' lovers," Kennedy, Vegas, ring-a- ding ding. Basie and Mia and Reagan and concerts from Madison Square Garden to South Africa to the White House to the Sands. I can't say I like Sinatra because I heard him at the Paramount or because I hear "September of My Years" autobiographically-the usual excuses. And my excuse? When I was eleven I watched a movie called "On the Town"... | 1 |
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: <br /><br />The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.<br /><br />This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.<br /><br />The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.<br /><br />This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.<br /><br />Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much. | 0 |
This is a pitiful movie. What makes it even more pitiful is the time, effort and money put into a super predictable script and action.<br /><br />It's about some kind of monsters, by the way, and some kind of insects. Don't expect an explanation of the plot. There is none. That might work, if there was something of interest, or characters we could care about. There isn't. Everything that happens to any person is as predictable as the other movies Sci Fi channel does.<br /><br />Don't try to understand what some of the characters are saying. They speak gibberish, especially the annoying lead woman, whose accent is a sort of thick British that is harder to understand than any old British movie you may have seen. She's unintelligible.<br /><br />A lot of money is spent on some great sets and scenery, and that is the major crime of this movie, because it just isn't worth it. | 0 |
Here is a favorite Tom & Jerry cartoon perfect for Halloween. I know it dosen't have much creepiness, but has the 'trick' as in "Trick or Treat," as Jerry did to Tom with the window blind and the vacuum-cleaner with a collared-shirt hanging on it to make it like a ghost; but still like to put it on my list of Halloween cartoons. In this short, Tom was listening to the "Witching Hour," a ghost-story program on the radio, and being frightened by the horror story being told. Halfway into the story, the dramatics (hair standing on end, heart leaping into throat, icy chills on spine) begin happening to Tom . . . literally. And Jerry has been observing the whole thing and laughing to himself, thought he highen Tom fears by scaring him.<br /><br />I love the ending, it was a little funny. And you know, This short is the first of four cartoons in which Tom attacks Mammy Two Shoes; the others being The Lonesome Mouse, A Mouse in the House and Nit-Witty Kitty. And also This short is the first of twenty-five cartoons where Tom speaks. The others are The Lonesome Mouse, The Zoot Cat, The Million Dollar Cat, The Bodyguard, Mouse Trouble, The Mouse Comes to Dinner, Quiet Please!, Trap Happy, Solid Serenade, Mouse Cleaning, Texas Tom, Mucho Mouse, and The Cat Above and the Mouse Below directed by Chuck Jones. | 1 |
I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs "lesbian" movies these days: murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get w/ each other to turn men on, etc.<br /><br />Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins.<br /><br />I have also seen TIPPING THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in character/conflict development and the quality of the acting.<br /><br />FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND. | 1 |
Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts. | 0 |
This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone. | 0 |
I just watched "The Last Wave" in my school's fine arts library. It's intriguing, like all Peter Weir's stuff, but it's not always as attention-holding as I would have liked. I found myself fascinated by the ideas being thrown at me (because they are very well handled by the film's director Weir)but at the same time I was not stimulated enough by them. AKA I got a little bored in spots.<br /><br />The plot surrounds an Aussie lawyer who becomes obsessed with certain dreams he has which link him to an Aborigone group he is defending.<br /><br />It starts out with an intense weather sequence and has some very awesome mood effects throughout (most notably the bizarre, "belching" sound design)and strong direction; but it just didn't entertain me like Weir's later films do. I might just need to watch it again though.<br /><br />Good film about obsession and mystery. Because, in the end, the mystery that exists between the whites and the Aboriginies offers some very severe consequences.<br /><br />God bless Peter Weir, though. For him alone this film is worth watching ... very organic director. Like an Aussie response Malick! I'd give it a 7 because it's got enough great ideas to overcome its boring moments. | 1 |
The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.<br /><br />I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".<br /><br />The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.<br /><br />The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong. | 0 |
*some spoilers*<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.<br /><br />The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic. | 1 |
Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions. | 0 |
I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10 | 1 |
There is more to this movie than meets the eye. If you're looking for groundbreaking originality or easy comedy, you'll be disappointed. But for an entertaining 90 minutes, this is just fine.<br /><br />The cinematography is careful and precise. The sex scenes, which one comment decries as gratuitous, are anything but - every gesture contributes to the development of the characters.<br /><br />Yes, some of the main characters are not exactly lovable human beings. But the movie makes an honest effort at showing their interactions in an honest light, without being sensationalistic (at least not for early 21st century urban standards). And there are many very amusing moments. | 1 |
I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music. | 0 |
Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller "The Sixth Day" (a.k.a. "The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger"). However, "Air America" has to be one of his most inept projects.<br /><br />It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.<br /><br />Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.<br /><br />The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic "Love Me Two Times" for the soundtrack.<br /><br />The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film. | 0 |
Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence. | 1 |
The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for "emoting" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one. | 0 |
Documentary about nomadic Persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. Watching this silent, black and white feature, marred in part by a twink-twink-twink Oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition, is even duller than it sounds. The spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen, and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. I loved Nanook of the North and March of the Penguins, but despised this movie, notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. Physical hardships alone are just not that interesting. | 0 |
I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary/drama about a future "grand tour" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.<br /><br />The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would/will be separate missions.<br /><br />They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.<br /><br />I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones "it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...".<br /><br />Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.