text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work. | 0 |
I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.<br /><br />The American cop has a German accent! The "police station" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign "Police Station" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.<br /><br />This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening! <br /><br />The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review. <br /><br />Absolutely WORTHLESS. | 0 |
Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.<br /><br />I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.<br /><br />Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.<br /><br />I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.<br /><br />Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.<br /><br />If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby. | 0 |
Giorgino can to some people look a bit long but it's one of rare real romantique adventure film. It could be compare to Docter Jivago with a bit of Sleepy Holow. You must see it. | 1 |
The movie Haggard is one of the funniest movies of all time. It features the cast from CKY (the movies) and also has a GREAT soundtrack. If you have seen any CKY or Viva La Bam you will notice that everybody (from those two) are in it. Including Bam's parents and many other people.<br /><br />The story is about Ryan Dunn's girlfriend Glauren (Jennifer Rivall) cheating on him, and him trying to get back at her. He does this by having Valo (Bam) and Falcone (Dicamillo) vandalize her house. There are many different characters with many different stories.<br /><br />There is great music on the soundtrack. Bands such as Him & Her, CKY, Gnar Kill, Daniel Lioneye. Iggy and the Stooges Pop, and New Order. <br /><br />If you do not like Viva La Bam or CKY (the movies) I doubt you will like this. If you DO like that stuff...this movie is great. | 1 |
I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end. | 0 |
One can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.<br /><br />In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.<br /><br />This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.<br /><br />Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.<br /><br />It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.<br /><br />The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies. | 0 |
What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other. | 0 |
Sure, the film is full of black militant stereotypes and much of the jargon of the time. In that sense, the movie has indeed dated. But as a satirical look at America's number one parasitical industry, advertising, it's still on target. But just as important is the counter- message, namely the effect of big bucks on those who would make the industry more socially responsibleno promoting war toys, alcohol, etc. Thus, the movie's also about the allures of capitalism. Note, for example, how Putney's garb suddenly changes to resemble Third-World revolutionary Fidel's, just before he pulls out of the firm. For a moment, it looks like Swope's mini-revolution has succeeded among his staff, and he's moving on, maybe to spread the movement. But then, the former militants succumb to the allure of big bucks and he departs shaking his head, perhaps to hijack a plane to Cuba. Downey's final word, however, is an ironical one as the Arab (I believe) burns down the money tower leaving the metaphorical structure of (advertising, capitalism) a smoking ruin. To me, this looks like change can only succeed as a cleansing act of destruction and not as a process of reforma message consistent with the radical spirit of the time.<br /><br />Whatever the subtext, there are some genuinely funny moments, especially with the commercials that play as well now as they did then. Those who compare the anarchic style to that of the Marx Bros. make a good point. The throw-away lines fly thick and fast along with the outrageous set-ups. Forty years later, it's still a hard movie to get a consistent handle on. Despite the crudities, however, the film remains a work of daring originality with some genuinely telling moments. | 1 |
This is a nice movie with good performances by Paz Vega and Leonardo Sbaraglia . Of course Vicente Aranda is a legend in Spanish Cinema and surely one of the great directors in Spanish cinema but I don't think this is one of his greatest movies even if it's fine. The screenplay plays with the introduction of Merimeé as a character , it's a nice touch but it's unbelievable. The music is composed by Jose Nieto , National Spanish Prize in Cinema. I mean this movie is very good in all the technical aspects .There are very good actors in supporting roles like Antonio Dechent , Maria Botto and others . I give it 7 out of 10 cause I think this could be a better movie but as it is it is not boring at all. | 1 |
I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show "Batman" at that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about, like "Bat-Mite" for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be surprised. | 1 |
The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's "going mad". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.<br /><br />This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film. | 0 |
Cult starts 20 years ago on the 'Quinling Mountain Range, Southern China' as a guy called Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) finds an ancient amulet said to have magical powers, cut to California where Quinlin has set up a cult & the members are about to sacrifice themselves when one of them (Cazzy Golomb) foils his evil scheme... Jump forward to the present day as five college students, Mindy (Rachel Miner), Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) & Morgan (Victoria Venegas) are researching the events of twenty years ago that have become know as the 'Quinling Massacre' for a school project. Unfortunately Morgan decides to kill herself which unleashes the evil spirit of Owen Quinlin for reasons that are rather tenuous, he sets about completing what he started all those years ago by claiming souls so he can finally inherit the magical powers of the amulet for his own evil use...<br /><br />Edited, co-produced & directed by Joe Knee this is not a good film & that's being kind to it. The script by Benjamin Oren which seems to take itself very seriously is a dour supernatural tale about a cult leader who comes back from the dead to finish what he started a few years prior, as you would expect the character's involved now have links to what happened all those years ago & it's as dull as it sounds. The character's are bland & forgettable, the dialogue just as much so, there's no proper horror or exploitation in it, it's slow going at times, it's predictable, it's clichéd, it goes completely off the rails at the end & doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The story never grips or engages you, it's never exciting or particularly interesting & I'd struggle to even call it average. There is very little here by which I could recommend Cult, don't bother with this one.<br /><br />Director Knee does alright but the film has that bland shot-on-video made-for-TV look about it, it's utterly forgettable & flat stuff throughout. There's no scares, there's no atmosphere & it lacks any tension. There is no gore either, sure there's a fair amount of blood splatter but no proper actual special make-up effect gore scenes.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $950,000 Cult looks cheap although it's not as badly made as some low budget horror films I've seen recently. The acting isn't even worth mentioning.<br /><br />Cult is a poor film that didn't do anything for me, I'd struggle to call this average. There are much better horror films out there. | 0 |
This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me. | 0 |
Some giant scorpions are on a submarine and kill everybody. Two months later, some Marines and the scientists in charge of the scorpion project go to the sub to retrieve their cargo. After finding 200 dead bodies, the Marine commander tells the doctor "I need to know if there's anything down here that could be a danger to my men". Uh, gee...ya think? She refuses to tell him what is down there, citing "need to know". Yup, that pretty well sizes it up. One of the scientists is apparently some sort of idiot savant - real heavy on the idiot, light on the savant. He's given the task of fixing the lights. He finds the control panel for the lights, cuts a wire, and shrieks like a banshee. Then he does it again. Then he takes a hammer and smashes the control panel to pieces, which causes all the lights on the submarine to start working.<br /><br />And so it goes. Apparently this was made in Sweden; I'm not sure if the Swedes have a really weird sense of humor or if they're just really awful movie makers. I'm inclined to think they're awful movie makers. If you guessed that there's a huge explosion at the end of this thing, well, sorry, but that's on a need-to-know basis, so I can't tell you.<br /><br />If you've absolutely got to see a giant scorpion movie, let me suggest Tail Sting, which is a cheesy and fun movie about scorpions on a plane, or Bugs, which is a fairly descent B movie about scorpions in a tunnel. Look at this movie as an absolute last resort. Oh, it's watchable, it's hard to turn it off just because of the sheer lunacy of it, but that's about all it's got going for it. | 0 |
The movie is incredible, it has a sound track which sets the tone for the movie. THe lines in the movie are great, such as "Nothings to good for out friends" and "Its collection time Charlie collection time." I can watch this movie over and over again and still laugh because the lines and action are one of a kind. I feel that when i watch this movie I want to go out and shoot down bad guys, If there is a movie that you don't want to miss its this one. "They killed the Giggler man, they killed the Giggler" "They had no right in doing that, hes on our turf ill take care of it." The lines just keep on coming in the movie. Deff. go out and not rent but buy this movie its worth the money trust me. | 1 |
Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad. | 0 |
My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.<br /><br />Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.<br /><br />But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".<br /><br />The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love. | 1 |
Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.<br /><br />When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."<br /><br />1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.<br /><br />This is what you're in for. | 0 |
I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Although I have definitely read this particular Agatha Christie book at some point, I didn't remember anything about it except the name "Abernethie". Which is a good thing, because seeing this story unfold without knowing how it will play out allowed me to appreciate once more the sheer GENIUS of Agatha Christie: the way she misleads you and then pulls the rug out from under your feet is the main reason for her success and timelessness. In addition to her stories, the excellent production values, beautiful locations, wonderful music, top-notch acting, elegant directing, etc. are the reasons for this series' success and timelessness - and all those virtues are present in "After the Funeral". A word of advice: be alert right from the start - there are clues dropped all over the place even in the opening sequence! There are some quite unnerving moments as well, in contrast to the peaceful-looking English-countryside locations, and some small touches of humor. A must-see for mystery buffs, and just a very good film in general. (***) | 1 |
The movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as: <br /><br /> When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher ON THE MOUND or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.<br /><br /> The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.<br /><br /> Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak then is the starting pitcher THE VERY NEXT DAY.<br /><br /> Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.<br /><br /> "AL" the angel says at the end "Championships have to be won on their own", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.<br /><br />I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.<br /><br />For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout. | 0 |
Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given "three" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...<br /><br />The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time. | 0 |
Yes, at times "Unconditional Love" overwhelms as it bounces -- no, as it ricochets -- from one story element to another in the most unconventional use of thematic elements and characters. In fact, it wasn't until I watched the film for the second time that I began to understand what I think P.J. Hogan might have been attempting to do with this quirky, unconventional flick. Perhaps the entire film itself is a metaphor for the unconditional love for which Grace (Kathy Bates) yearns and describes in the later part of the film. Grace insists that unconditional love is just that, without condition and without qualification. So I watched "Unconditional Love" again with that in mind. I laughed much more than I did the first time, I became more involved with the characters, I began to understand the, at times, absurd turns the story takes. The performances are often over the top but no more than they need to be to fit Hogan's weird and whacky vision, a vision which moved me to tears, yearning and outbursts of side-splitting laughter. Yes, Hogan is asking a great deal of his audience. But I for one have come to truly love his film -- unconditionally. | 1 |
Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown. | 0 |
I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.<br /><br />I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. <br /><br />Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.<br /><br />And now I'm going to watch it all over again.... | 1 |
If you are a fan of Altman's large ensemble casts, as evidenced in major films like M.A.S.H., Nashville, Gosford Park, and lesser seen films like A Wedding, then you will no doubt be entertained by HealtH. Centered around a Health Convention where two women are running for President, HealtH contains many of Altman's latter 70s regulars like Paul Dooley (who helped write the film), Carol Burnett, and Henry Gibson, while also including top star Altman newcomers like Lauren Bacall, James Garner, and Glenda Jackson. Like a lot of Altman ensemble films there are numerous subplots in this film, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as films like Nashville or A Wedding, rather it has a more centered feel, perhaps like M.A.S.H. or Gosford Park. The whole thing is an obvious satire on the Health movement, filled with over-top, outlandish, contradictive characters, with guest stars like Dick Cavett providing a wry commentary on the whole thing. Underlining the whole election process is Altman's characteristic pessimism about politics and public appeal but what is most appealing about this film is the sheer fun most people seem to be having. This would be one of Altman's last films like this for a while! | 1 |
Film follows four friends from the 1950s (when they're in high school) up to 1981. They are Danilo (Craig Wasson) a Yugoslavian immigrant; Georgia (Jodi Thelan) a "free spirit"; David (Michael Huddleston) who has no personality and Tom (Jim Metzler) a big, strong, handsome, rugged guy. All three of them are in love with Georgia but she only loves Danilo. The film mostly focuses on those two--it chronicles their lives, love and attraction to each other over the years. It also gets into Danilo trying to win the love of his tough immigrant father. <br /><br />I love this film but it's not without its bad points. Thelan's high, squeaky voice is annoying (but you get used to it); the story jumps around very quickly; Tom and David's lives are never explained (Tom shows up with a Vietnamese wife and kids and David has a wife we never meet until the end); some crucial scenes are badly written and there's some obvious pre-release cutting (probably to keep the film at 2 hours).<br /><br />But everything else is so good you can easily forget the problems. The story is compelling--you really get to know and understand the characters and always get caught up in the lives. With a few exceptions, the script (by Steve Tesich) is good--in fact, Tesich was a Yugoslavian immigrant himself and based much of the script on his own experiences. All the acting is great--especially Thelan and Wasson--also Reed Birney throws in a strong, likable performance as Louie, Danilo's college roommate. And Lois Smith is very interesting in her role. And look quick for Mercedes Ruehl and Glenne Headly!<br /><br />Basically, it's a real great story about immigrants, coming of age, love of America and covers the 50-80s perfectly.<br /><br />This film was (unjustly) maligned on its release. The studio didn't know how to advertise it (it IS a hard film to market) and the critics stomped on it (Pauline Kaels' review in "The New Yorker" was particularly harsh). It barely played in theaters (I was lucky enough to catch it in 1981 in its short theatrical run) and has simply disappeared. That's a shame. This is a movie that is just ripe for reissue. I'm not betting on it--but you never know! A definite 10 all the way! | 1 |
This movie was rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available. | 0 |
I experienced Nightbreed for the first time on television a year ago and i was pleasantly surprised with the results.<br /><br />Clive Barker is said to have revitalised horror with Hellraiser but this is a film that effectively stalled his cinema career somewhat. What an unfortunate thing to happen because, like the inhabitants of Midian, this film seems to be misunderstood.<br /><br />Barker has created a cross-breed of genre staples in this story - it begins as a traditional horror film but soon becomes a fable regarding mans inhumanity to man. Evoking sympathy for the devil is tough at the best of times but when the characters are as visually demonic as they are in this film it becomes nigh on impossible (cue the child!). The practically Klan-like human insurgence (pitchforks and holy wrath!) at the films conclusion becomes doubly upsetting in the face of what has gone before. As a parable of ethnic tension and white supremacy this film can be quite evocative.<br /><br />I pity those who will not see the film from this angle and think of it as Barker's fantastical indulgence gone too far. We have a genuine forgotten gem here and the sooner the studio and Mr Barker make nice and devote some time to it - the better. | 1 |
I saw this film before two weeks. It's kitsch, boring and totally unintelligible for people, that haven't read the original book. There are many fact mistakes too... actors plays rather poor, you must laugh even in the sad moments. It was a totally waste of time. | 0 |
Look,I'm reading and reading this comments and there's a lot of it that I wanna say but I will try to make it short but clean...<br /><br />First of all, lets forget all of the things how bad this movie was made...How it didn't show anything of Notorious and I agree with the most people here saying that it was "Hollywood", I mean, what did you expect a real life story? When will people wake up and see that u will never ever find the real truth about 2pac and Biggie... Its all covered up and buried deep down.<br /><br />Second, I'm not against neither 2pac or Biggie I love them both but 2pac and Lil Kim DID get embarrassed in this movie for sure...<br /><br />Next, for all of ya that are saying that the movie is awesome and cant see the truth, either u are too blind too see it because u think u know something about BIG or you don't know anything about him at all and u love this Hollywood teenage movies. Use your mind and see though the clouds... There is a lot of it you could say when it gets to this topic, I did not say 60% of what I have to say because its a very wide topic but for the movie I can only say that it could have been a little bit, I mean a much better done. But anyways I'm just some person giving her opinion....No hard feelings...<br /><br />Look, I love hip hop and I live for it but after seeing this movie every person with a little intelligence could see that this is not how someone is suppose to live. With all do respect for 2pac and BIG, like all the other artists who are making for a living like this should turn the other page because u are ruining the youth....Bringing the wrong message to the children and that is: not going to school but living from the streets, hustling and just grabbing for the paper....<br /><br />The true hip hop is suppose to be about love and intelligence, be smart and all.<br /><br />OK I know that many of you will think that I'm crazy, but this is just my point of view. Look I am maybe wrong about something and Im not saying this is a completely bad movie because even if I'm in hip hop for 17, 18 years I still don't know anything bout 2pac or Biggie no matter how many articles I read or how much I support them and listen to their music...Like most of you all out there. Only people who were really close to them and the killers know the truth behind all this.<br /><br />And for the end I just wanna say for all of ya Biggie and Tupac fans and family, this two men were and will be the greatest of all time, no matter how they lived their lives but PLEASE IN THE FUTURE TRY TO BE BETTER, LEARN AND LOVE EACH OTHER, THINK GOOD EVEN FOR THE ONES THAT Don't LIKE YOU, BECAUSE AT THE END...ITS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY OR FAME U COULD GET AND HOW FAST U COULD GET TO THE TOP, ITS ABOUT ACCOMPLISHING YOUR SELF TO THE FULLEST AND FEEDING YOUR SOUL, YOUR BODY AND MIND...BECAUSE IF U MANAGE TO DO THAT, YOU WILL BE LIVING A LIFE EVEN AFTER DEATH!!!! PEACE AND LOVE TO YA ALL!!!! RIP BIGGIE,2PAC,AALIYAH,LEFT EYE,JAM MASTER JAY AND THE OTHERS WHO MAKE A CHANGE IN THIS WORLD!!!! | 0 |
Usual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way. <br /><br />Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives: <br /><br />the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...<br /><br />In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke... | 0 |
This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man! | 1 |
Unlike some of the reviews written here, I didn't hate this movie. It is a movie that COULD have been much better than it was. Not Oscar material, true, but much better than it was.<br /><br />I thought the plot had a good hook and through line. Granted, this movie was badly written. And TERRIBLY directed and produced. I mean, how many irrelevant flashbacks can you have? Why were we there? What exactly is the point of the opening sequence? It seems like the producer(s) watched American Beauty a few too many times and thought 'I'll use that in an action movie!' I thought the movie wasn't that badly acted. Wesley Snipes did a credible job, he just ran afoul of some bad direction. And once this movie hit the production room, things just got worse. The main actress, I think, had the same problems. Some of the other acting was suspect, yes, but it was a low-budget flick. Again, I would say it is the director's job to pick that up and correct it.<br /><br />As an overall recommendation, I would agree with the first review I read that this movie is not worth seeing. Or maybe it is worth seeing, if you are a film student and want to see what NOT to do.<br /><br />3/10, and that's giving it praise. | 0 |
I stumbled onto this movie when I was eBay'ing Caesars Palace stuff, as I'm enamoured with its rich Vegas history as the last of the original luxury resorts still standing in good condition (unless you count Bally's, the original MGM Grand). In that respect, this movie delivers full-force. You're given a grand tour of the Caesars property,which in spite of all the renovations and additions they've done over the 40 years it's been open, looks alarmingly similar. As a film overall, the plot is somewhat difficult to follow, thanks in large part to the horrendous editing. And when I say horrendous, I'm not using that word lightly. There's a lot of spliced-in, second-long snippets of Vegas traffic, casino crowds, and even a scene where the Robert Drivas character is having a conversation with his father about how much he's grown up, and without any explanation, he (Drivas) goes (in those infamous snippets) from being himself, to a baby, to a little boy, and then back to himself while talking back and forth with his father. (That doesn't give away any plot details; if anything, one can be prepared for it and maybe they won't be as flabbergasted as I was by the editing.) The film has aged well otherwise, and has a good message about the inherent differences between a father and his son that most guys could relate to in some form or fashion. | 1 |
It is a nice comedy. It has the great features of the childhood, lying or trying to get away from own generated troubles. The casting is great, great acting. And the special effects ? Well, some stunts are really impressive. Watch it! :) | 1 |
For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human. | 1 |
This movie was very, very strange and very, very funny. All of the actors are quite real and very odd. The overall "look" of the film was different, too, sort of dreamy and bleached-out, which only added to the spacey, fumbling, weird vibe of the whole thing.<br /><br />It's not for everyone, I mean, it's not what you would call "mainstream" but that is what I liked about it. It's unlike anything I have ever seen before . . . unpredictable, with a weird rhythm and punch lines in the strangest places. The kids are so heartbreakingly goofy (and pimply) that you can't help but feel for them. In other words, these are far from "hollywoodized" versions of teenagers.<br /><br />All of, which for me, makes it a good thing. | 1 |
For the record, I hate spoof movies. Except for Mel Brooks and AIRPLANE! because those are classics and make fun of the clichés, not the actual movies itself. I think that spoof movies are the bottom of the barrel for both comedy and film. I especially hate things created by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the "geniuses" behind DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, and MEET THE SPARTANS.<br /><br />I decided to give THE COMEBACKS a look. Since Friedberg and Seltzer had nothing to do with the production, I was as objective as possible. It was just like one of their movies. It was basically every sports movie rolled into one with lame kindergarten jokes, and disturbing images of bodily injury that's supposed to make me laugh and failed.<br /><br />Only someone high would laugh at these jokes. Toilet bowl? Who wrote this? an 11 year old? I was surprised to see that this was the creation of the producers of WEDDING CRASHERS, which was actually pretty decent. But there attempt at the spoof genre was about as funny as a burning orphanage. The only reason that I gave this two stars (when it clearly deserved one) was because Friedberg & Seltzer had nothing to do with this. | 0 |
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film. | 0 |
This film is one of the more risqué black and white films of this time in the early 1930's before the Hoyts Code was enforced. It's the story of a young beautiful woman moving to New York and making her way to the top of the business by using her body as a tool to get there.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck plays the young and beautiful Lily Powers who indeed does a fairly well job with her performance. Lily moves to New York and makes her way up the business place by sleeping with all the men. Stanwyck does an outstanding performance as being a strong woman who uses men as one time deals, hardly any emotion towards them playing them as if they were pawns. Lily Powers is a woman who doesn't have love on her mind just power and money.<br /><br />I thought this movie to be a little bit different then other films I have seen because there is hardly any background music heard. I believe it is only because this is when people were first introduced to live sound and dialogue between the people of the film. The few times the music is heard is during the beginning as we are shown how she makes her way up the chain. The filming and different scenes were something fantastic! The director of this film did all the right angles and all the right tricks, making this film full of realism.<br /><br />This film was all together an alright movie.The ending to this movie wasn't as good as it should have been, but it didn't entirely ruin it. Baby Face had its slow moving scenes throughout the movie, and perhaps a few predictable parts such as who she will sleep with next. But this is a lovable movie that can be watched more then once, and suggested to some people and friends. | 1 |
For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries "I, Claudius". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by "religious" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.<br /><br />Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore. | 0 |
Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.<br /><br />I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).<br /><br />Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.<br /><br />I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.<br /><br />Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool. | 0 |
Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk<br /><br />I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.<br /><br />Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right. | 0 |
I just finished watching Disappearances at AFI FEST 2006 with about 30 other people in a mostly vacant 1000 seat auditorium. The festival programmer, after seeing the lack of audience, started his opening comments with, "Well at least a few of those attending the festival have good taste in film". Well Mr. Programmer, after watching this film I must answer back "No we don't, and either do you!" This "back-woods" period piece follows young (not so) Wild Bill as he and his mystic family dangerously run illegal Canadian whiskey across the border during America's prohibition. The old-time outlaws (Kris Kristofferson and company) not only need the money to save their ramshackle Vermont farm but want to introduce little Wild Bill to the virtues of manhood.<br /><br />Although handsomely photographed, this adventure story lacks what makes films of this sort good, "tension" and believability. Kristofferson's lackluster performance and dry monologue reminds me of a dream I once had where Al Gore was playing the role of Willy Wonka. I just didn't care and when Wild Bills mystic grandmother appears out of thin air to give him advice it just didn't fit. Yes, I almost fell asleep more than once.<br /><br />Gary Farmer does do a good job as the Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller character; brother-in-law of Big Bill while the teenage Chris McDermott does uses those piercing blue eyes to his acting benefit.<br /><br />But overall expect to see Jay Cravens Disappearances playing at a Block Buster $2 Bin near you. | 0 |
It's funny how your life can change in a second... To attend ''The Waterdance'' for the first time it was an unforgettable experience, the way you need to get used to a new way of life it can seem frightening, and to notice that there are other people going by a similar situation it can help you to go on. <br /><br />Eric Stoltz's performances and mainly of Helen Hunt (oh man!, Helen is the purest and graceful woman in earth...) are wonderful, Wesley Snipes also surprises in one of your last serious roles. A film simple and at the same time deep that doesn't get to leave us indifferent to the message that is transmitted: enjoy each moment of your life...<br /><br />Really to a film as that the any hour is not attended!!! (sorry, it's a Brazilian expression...). | 1 |
Two sisters, their perverted brother, and their cousin have car trouble. They then happen about the home of Dr. Hackenstein whom conveniently needs the body parts of three nubile young women to use in an experiment to bring his deceased lover back to life. He tells them that he'll help them get home in the morning, so they spend the night. Then the good doctor gets down to work in this low-budget horror-comedy.<br /><br />I found this to be mildly amusing, nothing at all to actually go out of your way for (I stumbled across it on Netflix instant view & streamed it to the xbox 360), but better then I expected it to be for a Troma acquired film. Most of the humor doesn't work, but their are still some parts that caused me to smile. Plus the late, great Anne Ramsey has a small part and she was always a treat to watch.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Bambi Darro & Sylvia Lee Baker got topless <br /><br />My Grade: D+ | 0 |
The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.<br /><br />The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.<br /><br />Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces. | 0 |
First off I am in my mid 40's. Been watchin horror films since I was a kid so I have seen A lot of variety. IMO,this is not as bad as the multitudes that gave this a 1 or 2. <br /><br />Yes,it is a low budget horror flick. The dialog is soso and acting tolerable,sometimes. The basis of this film plotwise is actually pretty good. For those of you old enough to remember or lucky enough to have seen them on DVD. This is very much like a 1970's movie of the week. Just add in blood and minor gore,minor T & A and swearing, without big names. That is it to a T. I would rather watch this than Jason vs Godzilla or whatever other continuois crap is out there. Tho not as good, EVIL DEAD was a LOW budget film. At least give these guys credit for trying. With acouple MIL budget this could have been a pretty good flick. My score a watchable 4. | 0 |
'Wicked Little Things' really separates itself from other zombie movies.First off, all of the zombies in the movie don't exactly starting biting at you and tearing your flesh apart with their bare hands.They kill you with either a pickax or shovel and eat you after wards.Second, they can't die.In most zombie movies, you can shoot a zombie in the head and kill them, but these simply won't die.Third, which is the biggest reason why this movie separates itself, all of the zombies are children.How did they die exactly to become zombies? They were working in a coal mine when suddenly they were all killed in a collapse.Now they wander the forest carrying their pickaxes and shovels, waiting for someone to come by so they can kill them and eat them.Oh, they also come out at night.Yep, only at night.That makes the movie even more fun then it would be if they came out in the morning.Despite all of the violent and gory mayhem in this movie, 'Wicked Little Things' is a great choice if you're looking for a movie about zombie children.Don't expect anything great like 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Land of the Dead', but do expect lots of gore and violence that makes this movie a real zombie fan pleaser.Everyone give Scout Taylor-Compton from Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' a big hand for delivering a great performance like the one she did in 'Halloween'.She really needs to start starring in more horror movies. | 1 |
Ok, maybe Posse can't compare to other popular cowboy/western movies. But that's because it didn't have the FUNDING those movies had. Obviously, whenever you want to produce a story such as this one, focusing on African American historical involvement (and NO, servants and 'mammies' are not historical involvement), Hollywood isn't going to be too supportive. And believe me they weren't. The producers and actors sacrificed a lot of 'out of pocket' expenses to make "Posse", just so that the story could be told. I think that alone is commendable. Posse may not be Oscar material (and they don't like Black media too much either), but it is a start. It is entertaining, and it introduces us to the black cowboy, a character most of us are unfamiliar with. | 1 |
I bought this cheap from the rental remnant at our local store. It was in almost mint condition, and I'd never heard of it before. Clearly nobody else had either.<br /><br />I can't believe my luck. You go through the whole realm of emotions and it attempts to get over a complex message - the very moral and non-triumphalist stance of the Mandela Party, undoubtedly. Despite its enormous length (I had to watch it in two sittings) - it was like a book one couldn't put down. Perhaps the songs are not all that memorable, but the spirit of the thing glows on forever. I cannot understand comments that a musical (clearly designed for stage) is not realistic! I've seen "South Pacific" and read the book too, and can guarantee that musical is not realistic compared to the book. I'll treasure this little find until it wears out. One day they'll make this again on a better budget.<br /><br /> | 1 |
The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.<br /><br />Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.<br /><br />Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.<br /><br />I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.<br /><br />The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.<br /><br />While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach. | 0 |
What garbage, is there actually no part II? If this movie actually ends the way it did, everyone involved with this movie should be ashamed. This movie is nothing close to a movie like Outbreak, which was actually a fairly decent movie. This movie was rushed in hopes of being able to gain a few easy dollars. I started watching the movie under the assumption that it would be bad, but I never imagined it would be this bad. This movie was nothing more then a way to exploit the fears of the American people for profit! If you have not seen this movie, don't bother. Movie is full of poorly developed characters and poor acting. I really hope the production of this movie was only a couple of weeks. Stay away! Don't be fooled by the hype! | 0 |
I really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little "too" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :) | 1 |
Forget every spy movie you've ever seen - this is what life was like in the USSR, and still is in many places in Russia and the ex-Soviet countries. Vera dreams of life of leisure, as she imagines the West to be; her reality is very different, with a bitter mother, a violent father, and the ever-present alcohol. And her prospects for the future are not much better. She finds a man and they try to patch up a life together, but he is afflicted by the same environment, both socially and physically - the scenery in this movie is brilliant, sitting comfortably in the company of post-apocalyptic movies but obviously done with no special effects; they have just walked in and shot whatever happened to be in front of the camera.<br /><br />Forget your stereotyped, cold Russians of spy movies. This is the Real Deal: people are passionate, vibrant, and present in a way you'll never see in a drama from the West. | 1 |
Having enjoyed Jean Arthur in "The Devil and Miss Jones", my interest was peaked, so I tried sitting through this second-string screwball outing about an investigation into the death of a jockey--but I didn't make it to the end. Arthur, photographed in a gauzy, movie-magazine fashion, either wants alimony from ex-husband William Powell or another shot at marriage, but I never felt for her because the character is just a string of wisecracks (she's the type of heroine prone to comical curiousness, but once inside a morgue--like all women in these '30's comedies--she faints). William Powell reportedly had a high time working with Miss Arthur, but you'd never know it from the end result; they look awkward standing next to each other, hesitant over their banter. The actor playing Powell's valet is excruciating, and the pauses for viewer laughs are pregnant with unease. | 0 |
I'm not prone to ranting and my expectations were low to start with, but how did this seem like a good idea? Just because you have a camera, some big ugly friends for actors, and delusions of talent, does not mean that you should go out and make a film. This should have been the cinematic equivalent of singing in the shower, i.e. it should never have seen the light of day. However, somehow this rubbish found a distributor to help it escape the confines of a 3 by 4 foot cubicle. It goes from bad to worse. Talk about low budget, one torture scene consists of a guy getting a mug of coffee thrown over him while he's tied to a chair. Evidently this is very painful because the big baby proceeds to scream in agony....maybe he ordered decaf!! The acting is worse than wooden (I could possibly watch a tree for 30 seconds before becoming completely bored, if you can look at this rubbish for that long you're a better man than I!) and the fight scenes would be at home on a kindergarten play yard. Do not touch this movie, unless you enjoy pain (in which case you should try spilling lukewarm coffee over yourself). I'd like to say it's so bad it's good, but really this is just awful. | 0 |
Supercraptastic slasher fare, which feels overly long at 80 minutes. Years ago, a bunch of "gypsies" who lived in the caves of a mountain, were burned up in a forest fire. Years later, campers are going missing from the area of the fire. A bunch of horny kids are, of course, en route to this area for a debaucherous camping trip of there own. Despite an ominous welcome from the forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) the kids troop up to the mountain any way. Before long, the kids start to get picked off by the monster, who remains unseen to the very end of the movie, probably because the makeup was so embarrassingly bad. No surprises to speak of: they get killed in the exact order that the formula for these movies dictates, leaving the "final girl" to fend for herself, although in a refreshingly downbeat denouement, the final girl ends up imprisoned and impregnated by the monster.<br /><br />The story itself couldn't hold the weight of feature length, so it was padded out by seemingly endless shots of wildlife and insects, which were obviously shot for another film and inserted here haphazardously as a means of making the movie long enough for a video release. On the plus side, the wildlife footage is rather nice. Also among the highlights are Bostwick talking to a baby deer, a decent rock-climbing death sequence, OK gore, and the Great Jackie Coogan in his final film role, as the bumbling local sheriff. This is a far cry from Charlie Chaplin, but it was still nice to see him. This is for slasher completists only. | 0 |
(Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)<br /><br />Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).<br /><br />The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old "Midsummer Night's Dream". Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.) <br /><br />This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).<br /><br />The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.<br /><br />The actor playing the German "grand marshall" is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)<br /><br />A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.<br /><br />After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.<br /><br />Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?<br /><br />Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. "Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword". | 1 |
A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!<br /><br />Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax. <br /><br />Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.<br /><br />Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed. <br /><br />Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching. | 0 |
Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.<br /><br />The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.<br /><br />This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment. | 1 |
Ineffectual, molly-coddled, self-pitying, lousy provider Jimmy Stewart is having a bad marriage to Carole Lombard. After falling on hard times, he endures a demeaning job, a fault-finding, passive-aggressive, over-bearing live-in mother who is in dire need of an epic smackdown, and an endlessly-crying baby. The movie trowels on failure and squalor to no discernible end. Do you want to watch a couple bicker with his mom for ninety minutes? Many scenes feature a shrieking baby. The movie fails to elucidate why we would want to endure the mother from hell, or why Jimmy Stewart can't grow a pair. Who wanted to see this? Who wanted to see Stewart and Lombard without laughs or charm?<br /><br />It's absolutely depressing and unendurable. | 0 |
Very heart warming and uplifting movie. Outstanding performance by Alisan Porter (Curly Sue). I saw this movie when it was first released and enjoyed it immensely. I just caught it again on the Mplex channel, and Curly Sue touched my heart again. | 1 |
I was raised watching the original Batman Animated Series, and am an avid Batman graphic novel collector. With a comic book hero as iconic as Batman, there are certain traits that cannot be changed. Creative liberties are all well and good, but when it completely changes the character, then it is too far. I purchased one of the seasons of "The Batman" in the hopes that an extra bonus feature could shed some light on the creators' reasoning for making this show such an atrocity. In an interview on the making of "The Batman," one of the artists or writers (I'm unsure which) said that "We felt we shouldn't mess with Batman, but we could mess with the villains." So, they proceeded to make the Joker into an immature little kid begging for attention, the Penguin into some anime knockoff, Mr. Freeze into a super-powered jewel thief, Poison Ivy into a teenage hippie, and countless other shameful acts which are making Bob Kane roll over in his grave. <br /><br />To sum it all up: I wish I had more hands so I could give this show FOUR THUMBS DOWN. It squeezes by my rating with a 2 out of 10 simply because it uses the Batman name. Warner Bros...rethink this! Please! | 0 |
Most who go to this movie will have an idea what it is about; A man loses his entire family and even his dog in a flight from Boston that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. What you probably won't know before seeing this film is this: How that would feel; What do you do with that; and how would that affect you and the way you relate to every waking day? The story unfolds painfully slow from the gate and then warms up nicely as it gains a little speed while the recently renewed relationship between dentist Alan Johnson, (Don Cheadle) and ex-college roommate Charlie Fineman, (Adam Sandler) solidifies and begins to take shape. Characters appear in this film whose presence initially seem obligatory and not well developed but in fact, stay with this story, and you find that the simplicity of each character is what makes this story believable - and accurate. Real people inhabit a real situation whereby they can do little but stand aside while one amongst them disintegrates. The pain inside Charlie's soul is subtly evident from first introduction and grows as we learn more about his character brilliantly revealed by Sandler, as layers of an onion one layer at a time with lightness and weight combined. It's so subtle a performance that he sneaks up on you and gets inside your head while you are watching him on screen. Cheadle's Alan Johnson is equally subtle and very Don Cheadle. Always watchable, the ease that's apparent when Cheadle's on screen speaks to his consummate acting skills. Alan's relationship with Charlie Fineman is delicate in texture, just as the situation would demand. Fineman doesn't want friendship, nor anybody intruding into his cloistered life and yet, the likable quality that Alan owns is simple and honest enough to intrigue even a recluse like Charlie. It is Alan who has the task of gingerly opening up Charlie's carefully sealed life. There is inherent danger in the process. The more Alan nudges Charlie to open up, going so far as engaging the services of friend and psychologist Angela Oakhurst, (Liv Tyler) the nearer the danger of pushing Charlie over the edge. It's an abyss that Charlie teeters on each and every waking moment and one he has learned to navigate through sheer dint of denial. He has denied everything that priorly existed for him in order to exist with his loss. Unfortunately, his grief is one thing he cannot deny. Sandler withdraws so deeply into his character's pain during the story's unfolding that, by the time he meets his demons head-on, the viewer shares his pain almost equally. Alan stands beside Charlie throughout this exacting process at the risk of lousing up his own perfect home-life - run with admirable grace and efficiency by wife Janeane. (Jada Pinkett Smith) While tending to Charlie's recovery, Alan looks inward and recognizes his own silent screams at the death of the independence he once owned and the boy he has lost becoming a man. His reward for helping Charlie is helping himself reconnect with what he has lost. The theme is much like The Fisher King; another story of a man who isolates himself to the point of madness from sorrow and loss. Like The Fisher King, the story concludes with the traditional, there is someone for everyone theme. Reign Over Me's Lidia Sinclair, (played by the wonderful Amanda Plummer in The Fisher King) is Donna Remar, (Saffron Burrows) a woman on the verge of breakdown and sketchy patient of Johnson's, who turns out to be the just unstable enough to complement Charlie's borderline insanity. It's a good ending to the story, but the one element probably least likely to ring true. Then again, maybe there really is someone for everyone. Devorah Macdonald Vancouver, BC | 1 |
I wished I'd taped MEN IN WHITE so I could watch it again<br /><br />" What ? You mean you really enjoyed it Theo ? " <br /><br />No I mean I could watch it again to see if it was as retarded , stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as I can remember it <br /><br />A lot of people have claimed it was made for children . May I suggest it was also made by children ? because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time <br /><br />The cast don't help but I genuinely started to feel sorry for them . Honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . To give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time BAYWATCH babe Donna D'Ericco disappeared from the narrative I waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later I forgot she was in the movie . Got that ? A star from BAYWATCH appears and seconds later you forget they're in the movie . This tells you all you need to know about the standard of MEN IN WHITE <br /><br />Fair enough it's trying to be a live action cartoon similar to THE GOODIES ( Although THE DISMALS would be a better adjective for this movie ) , though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour , but considering this is a kids movie ( This didn't stop ITV broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway | 0 |
In another one of Bugs Bunny's hare-raisingly wacky shorts, the famous leporid* works in a department store display case, when owner Gildersleeve decides to stuff him. Of course, this proves nearly impossible, as Bugs apparently knows the store better than Gildersleeve (and knows when to cross-dress). As always, they keep everything coming at top speed, and so you have to wonder how hilarious this cartoon must have seemed when it first debuted! Among other things, "Hare Conditioned" is a fine example of how the Looney Tunes looked in the '40s before the Termite Terrace crowd polished them. But don't get me wrong, the cartoons were still really good after the refined forms arrived.<br /><br />Anyway, this is a great one.<br /><br />*Leporids are rabbits and hares. | 1 |
Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.<br /><br />I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?<br /><br />I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.<br /><br />FART JOKES. | 0 |
But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, "It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie." or "We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY. | 0 |
I saw this film many years ago, and absolutely hated it -- I could not wait for it to end, and would have walked out, but there was a girl sleeping on my shoulder. You know what? I have never forgotten this film, and more, I would say that it continues to haunt me with its images and music over the years. How many movies have I wept over and laughed over in the moviehouse, then forgotten as soon as I hit the street, like ... you see, I can't even think of one! Rarer are films like Death in Venice that enter your consciousness and work sea changes. The French like to say film is an art, and movies like this one prove they are right. I give it 10 stars, up from the 3 I gave it the night I saw it. | 1 |
Ti%s and As*, lots of boobies. Some great characters, fun filled pranks and well put together teen action in this spin off of the Amercan Pie franchise. This feels like really OLD SCHOOL. It feels a bit like Porkys for the 2000's. Some great funny characters combined with some very humorous situations make this one a real surprise for me.<br /><br />Whilst the original cast is all but gone except for one, this movie I found really entertaining. Lets not get too excited, you have to take it for the booby teen comedy that it is, but for what it is, it excels. The characters are likable and funny, the girls are hotter than hell. The fun and games are hilarious, with some stuff I've never seen before in comedies, they make me cringe but laugh at the same time.<br /><br />So ignore the haters and give this a run and see what you think. Don't expect the classic American Pie, but expect something that should make you laugh and spark your attention for an hour or so. | 1 |
I give this nonsense a 2 instead of a 1 because there is a worse show called Haunted Homes. But this kid and his buddies conduct their investigations like total idiots. They assume that there are ghosts from the get go and if they ever find rational explanations behind the experiences they have to be drug kicking and screaming into admitting it. But beyond that, the show's whole format is incredibly annoying. Even though a lot of it seems scripted, the college educated kids who make up the the cast can barely speak English but still insist on trying to use "big" words they obviously don't understand. And head investigator Ryan's ridiculously self important voiceovers make me just want to throw the TV through the window. (and he looks stoned all the time). In short, this group make the guys from TAPS on Ghost Hunters look like MIT scientists! | 0 |
This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked. <br /><br />What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor. | 0 |
This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I really can't recall when I've seen a worse one. I thought this would be about an aircraft accident investigation. What it really was is a soap opera, and a bad one at that. They overplayed the 'conflict' card to the extreme. The first hour or so seems like a shouting match, with some implausible scenes thrown in.<br /><br />*Possible spoiler*<br /><br />The 40-or-so minute 'memorial' scene (with requisite black umbrellas and rain) to fictitious crash victims was lame, and I thought it would never end. <br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs, unless you revel in 'conflict'.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This was a truly epic production that had all the elements that one would want in a fantasy film. The costuming, the music, the cinematography - all artistic elements of this film were absolutely beautiful and provided a rich experience.<br /><br />Ted Danson, best know for his TV roles in "Cheers" and "becker," was excellent in the role of Gulliver. Mary Steenburgen (Time After Time, Cross Creek) performed equally well in her limited role as his wife.<br /><br />Other performances I really enjoyed were James Fox as Dr. Bates, Alfre Woodard as the Queen of Brobdingnag, and Peter O'Toole as the Emperor of Lilliput.<br /><br />This would make an enjoyable children's film, but it also would definitely appeal to adults for it's deep social commentary. | 1 |
I can't believe how anyone can make a comedy about an issue such as homelessness. Of course, Brooks has not made a comedy about _real_ homeless people. No mention of drugs, prostitution or violence on these streets. The people we meet in this movie are homeless in Fantasy land so the only difference between them and us is that they don't eat quite as often. Brooks' movies have become worse and worse over the years. This is just another nail in the coffin . | 0 |
TEP is like a long cool drink of water after crawling across the Sahara to classic film buffs who have been too long deprived of that certain cinematic magic! Not only is it beautifully photographed, but the characters are perfectly portrayed. If you're looking for the film to be a mirror of the book, you will be seriously disappointed. Instead, it is an excellent "companion" to the book, and I think that is what Anthony Minghella intended. Ralph Fiennes is probably the most beautiful man in the world; not to mention a brilliant actor. Juliette Binoche is the posterchild for vulnerability and childlike enthusiasm. And, of course, I'll go see any film in which Kristin Scott Thomas is featured. She simply must be THE best actress since the likes of Deborah Kerr. So much was promised with this film, and so much is delivered! | 1 |
It would appear that some previous reviewers may have had their expectations set a bit too high going into this film. I found it scanning the satellite channels for something (not knowing what) and happened upon it. I thought by the title it might be one of the myriad soft-core porn flicks appearing regularly on the movie channels but I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was some male frontal nudity (in fact, more than your typical soft-core title -- go figure!), this was not the focus of the film. It was just fun.<br /><br />Don't be deceived by my tastes: my recent screenings have included Before Night Falls and Europa, Europa (both geat, IMHO). But I also enjoy total mental shutdown when watching a movie. Virtual Sexuality did this for me and that's not a bad thing! | 1 |
This movie was beautiful and touching. It touched a place deep inside me and I'm not sure why. I am a happily married woman and I've never had lesbian tendencies, but my, this movie almost made it something I crave. The choreography, the storyline, the dialog... the movie was a work of art. <br /><br />The synopsis without spoilers is that a woman gymnast unsatisfied with her life and looking for... something, anything. She is with a man who does not want a baby, but she does. He's not mean to her, but he doesn't treat her the way a woman should be treated either... I guess he doesn't really appreciate her. All these years she has stayed in shape and decides to go back to the gym. She meets another woman during her acrobatic training and an intimate and beautiful relationship unfolds. Throughout the movie she has another woman friend that she trained with in her younger years, and they have stayed close friends.<br /><br />The relationship that unfolds is.. I don't know quite the word, but very understanding, comfortable, intimate but sexy... something that could only exist between two women. The kind of relationship that could really bring meaning back into your life. Someone that makes you feel special, exciting, beautiful, confused even.<br /><br />The relationship with her close friend is beautiful in an equally different way. They have a close and intimate relationship. Her friend showed me what a true friend really is. Someone who is understanding, easy going, REAL, fun to be with, someone who is there for you no matter what. Someone who is supportive, and you can huddle with and tell your deepest secrets. Someone who shares your past but does not share your secrets. <br /><br />The story is simple in the fact that it was not overdone, but not underdone in any way. It leaves a lot of sensual imagery to capture it's moments. The dancing and choreography was stunning. I could watch it over and over. The way the artist captured the main character's feelings and emotions was. The dancing and the imagery was very dazzling and mesmerizing to watch. What a cozy a wonderful story! I fell in love with this movie. If you have a chance, rent this and watch it!! | 1 |
Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents. | 1 |
A wonderful movie! Anyone growing up in an Italian family will definitely see themselves in these characters. A good family movie with sadness, humor, and very good acting from all. You will enjoy this movie!! We need more like it. | 1 |
Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.<br /><br />The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.<br /><br />We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.<br /><br />When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.<br /><br />In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break. | 0 |
If you read the book by Carl Hiaasen, the movie follows pretty much true to form, with a few minor changes for Hollywood. In my opinion this is a great family movie. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko)pretty well steals the show from an all-star cast that includes Robert Wagner and Jimmy Buffet. The kids in the movie do a great job led by Logan Lerman, Brie Larson, and Cody Linley.<br /><br />Brie Larson is maybe a little too petite to play Beatrice. I pictured a bigger girl, maybe 6 foot, 175 lbs, in the role of Beatrice. This might have made her more believable in her role of beating up Dana. They should have developed her "tough girl" character more, and had her bite through a tire, or kick a soccer ball through a person. She is very pretty, and I understand why she was cast, she is a box office attraction.<br /><br />This is about as PG as a movie gets these days, no sex, and very little violence. This movie is a parents'dream come true, a movie with a strong environmental message, with kids that have deep appreciation for the beauty of Florida and its wildlife. It shows how adults have fallen short in the stewardship of our planet, and that our children can demand better. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Mullet Fingers says, "Florida could use some mountains like Montana. Florida is so flat there is nothing to stop developers from clearing it coast to coast". Also, the photography of Florida wildlife spoke volumes without dialog. As a family movie with kids ages 5-15, this is a great movie! As a bonus parents' will be entertained, especially if they're "parrotheads". | 1 |
This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the "wife" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit "campy"...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8! | 1 |
First let me say that Before Sunrise, like all movies, is NOT a movie for all tastes. It appears some folks are less smart to acknowledge this fact, but it is remarkable to contemplate the kind of outright dislike this small harmless movie generates from some people. For me, like most folks here, Before Sunrise struck a deep chord in me, I was truly stunned, moved, inspired by it. This is a movie that ultimately benefits from more than one viewing. It creates some of the most awesomely unforgettable feelings and emotions you can possibly imagine. It is impossible to imagine this world without ever thinking about the kind of inspirational feelings I got from it.<br /><br />The movie works as a communion of two fragile souls that are starting to get to know each other. It is very intelligent and inspiring, not so much in how one conversation necessarily ties into the next or the significance of the topics of Jesse and Celine's discussions, but rather the little nuances, the perfectly articulate responses they provoke from each other. It captures an honest, romantic, yet fleeting human emotion that is starting to blossom in the awesomely sublime Viennese milieu; it convinces us that their evanescent relationship might be the greatest compliment in the world. And what happens after that night is open for debate, but I never doubt that they won't each other again.<br /><br />The facile comments by RockytheBear and the below user are hopeless examples of a doctrinaire dissenter unwilling to accept and respect those who love this movie.<br /><br />See it and it may change your way of life. | 1 |
Original Claymation Rudolph: Pretty good. Original Frosty cartoon: Needs a little work, but could be worse. But Frosty and Rudolph together on the Fourth of July? C'mon! Give me a BREAK!!! This was one movie that shouldn't have been made. It was bad. It didn't really go for any holiday in particular, except July 4. That made it especially bad since Frosty and Rudolph are usually associated with the Christmas season. And any movie can be ruined by too much singing. The frequent songs made this movie seem a lot longer than it really was. The movie tried mixing two familiar Chirstmastime characters with an American traditional holiday (which almost seems to "limit" it to America), too many pointless songs, and a lousy plotline. The result? A bad movie that can't really be watched at any time of year. I would suggest you forgo this movie even if you like Frosty and Rudolph. | 0 |
One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made. | 1 |
Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter. | 1 |
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this misrepresentation of Canadian history, particularly the disservice done to the history of the Mounted Police in the Yukon.<br /><br />I'll leave it to Pierre Berton, noted historian, born and raised in Dawson City Yukon, and author of the definitive history of the Klondike gold rush, Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush, 1896-1899 to express my exasperation with this silly movie: <br /><br />The American idea of an untamed frontier, subdued by individual heroes armed with six-guns, was continued in The Far Country, another story about a cowboy from the American west - Wyoming this time - driving his herd of beef cattle into gold country. The picture is a nightmare of geographical impossibilities, but the real incongruity is the major assumption on which the plot turns that there was only one mounted policeman in all of the Canadian Yukon at the time of the gold rush and that he could not deal with the lawlessness. When James Stewart and Walter Brennan reach the Yukon border with their cattle, the customs shack is empty.<br /><br />"Where is the constable? asks Brennan.<br /><br />"Up on the Pelly River. Trouble with the Chilkats," someone replies. He's got a real tough job, that constable. He patrols some ten or twenty thousand square miles. Sometimes he don't get home for two or three months at a time." <br /><br />The historical truth is that the Yukon Territory during the gold rush was the closest thing to a police state British North America has ever seen. The Northwest Mounted Police was stationed in the territory in considerable numbers long before the Klondike strike. They controlled every route into the Yukon and they brooked no nonsense. They collected customs duties, often over the wails of the new arrivals, made arbitrary laws on the spot about river navigation, and turned men back if they didn't have enough supplies, or if they simply looked bad. In true Canadian fashion, they laid down moral laws for the community. In Dawson the Lord's Day Act was strictly observed; it was a crime punishable by a fine to cut your wood on Sunday; and plump young women were arrested for what the stern-faced police called "giving a risqué performance in the theatre," generally nothing more than dancing suggestively on the stage in overly revealing tights.<br /><br />In such a community, a gunbelt was unthinkable. One notorious bad man from Tombstone who tried to pack a weapon on his hip was personally disarmed by a young constable, who had just ejected him from a saloon for the heinous crime of talking too loudly. The bad man left like a lamb but protested when the policeman, upon discovering he was carrying a gun told him to hand it over. "No man has yet taken a gun away from me," said the American. "Well, I'm taking it", the constable said mildly and did so, without further resistance. So many revolvers were confiscated in Dawson that they were auctioned off by the police for as little as a dollar and purchased as souvenirs to keep on the mantelpiece.<br /><br />In 1898, the big year of the stampede, there wasn't a serious crime let alone a murder in Dawson. The contrast with Skagway on the American side, which was a lawless town run by Soapy Smith, the Denver confidence man, was remarkable. But in The Far Country Dawson is seen as a community without any law, which a Soapy Smith character from Skagway he is called Gannon in the picture can easily control. (In real life, one of Smith's men who tried to cross the border had all his equipment confiscated and was frogmarched right back again by a mounted police sergeant).<br /><br />{in the movie the lone Mountie says} "Yes I'm the law. I represent the law in the Yukon Territory. About fifty thousand square miles of it."<br /><br />"Then why aren't there more of you?"<br /><br />"Because yesterday this was a wilderness. We didn't expect you to pour in by the thousands. Now that you're here, we'll protect you."<br /><br />"When?"<br /><br />"There'll be a post established here in Dawson early in May."<br /><br />"What happens between now and May? You going to be here to keep order?"<br /><br />"Part of the time."<br /><br />"What about the rest of the time?"<br /><br />"Pick yourselves a good man. Swear him in. Have him act as marshal
"<br /><br />The movie Mountie leaves and does not appear again in the picture. His astonishing suggestion that an American town marshal, complete with tin star, be sworn in by a group of townspeople living under British jurisprudence is accepted. Naturally they want to make Jimmy Stewart the marshal; he clearly fits the part. But Stewart is playing the role of the Loner who looks after Number One and so another man is elected to get shot. And he does. Others get shot. Even Walter Brennan gets shot. Stewart finally comes to the reluctant conclusion that he must end all the shooting with some shooting of his own. He pins on the tin star and he and the bully, Gannon, blast away at each other in the inevitable western climax.<br /><br />To anybody with a passing knowledge of the Canadian north, this bald re-telling of the story passes rational belief. <br /><br />
excerpt from Hollywood's Canada, by Pierre Berton, 1975. | 0 |
An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10. | 1 |
Comedy works best when it relates to stuff that's true. But even as such, some effort is required to make jokes that everyone likes and even the most grumpy of viewers can crack a smile. When I look at the Daily Show, I see the whole "it's funny because it's true" thing, but I don't, however, see the effort and often times I don't if they're being funny or just trying to make a point(I notice this mostly in the interview segments). The Daily Show started off as a news parody, by definition they poke fun at how the media plays it's own news by pretending to be inept and dumb news reporters and anchormen and they tackled tons of subjects from science to movies and sometimes politics, then Jon Stewart came along...and it all went to Hell. Thr first years of Jon Stewart's reign were arguably golden, I though he was so funny, but then 2004 came along and it's where you start to notice a huge chance in the show from there on. The show's humor has gone stale, Colbert left, Steve Carell left, many of the show's best anchors left and now it's mostly about Jon Stewart and the show's gone from a parody to a semi-serious news show, essentially Evening News but with some gags here and there. For those who haven't seen the show and are having trouble finding out what to watch on cable, I'll give you a brief description of what the show's about(at least until 2009): -Bush, Cheney and all Republicans(unless they happen to embrace an opinion shared by Democrats as well) are stupid, evil, corrupt and hypocrites, anyone who stands by conservative beliefs is also evil, corrupt and a hypocrite; -people who doubt the man-made global warming theory are evil and stupid; -vote Democrat; There, I saved you 25 minutes of your time, go watch something else. At first, I though that the producers hijacked the show for their own personal political agenda, but when I actually see the interviews, it becomes crystal clear what this show's about(what I mentioned above), but I'll get to that in a moment. Frist off, the humor in The Daily Show according to Jon Stewart expects you to find a random filmed quote said by either Bush, Cheney or a random republican humorous because well, because. Jon sets up the joke, setting it in writers specific context and expects that the random quote somehow delivers the punchline. So, unless you «get» the context, it's entirely useless as bankable humor. Also the Daily Show expects you to laugh when they show a montage of one politician talking and in another separate video saying another thing, again putting into a context that the writers expect you to understand, thus making it funny,why? Well, because Jon said so. Now imagine The Daily Show using that formula countless times for years every week, and you'll start to understand of what used to be a laugh-fest that is now 25 minutes of just silent stares(yes, even in the Lewis Black segments). At first, some decent amount of effort was put into these jokes, but now much less of that is apparent. And the interview have the most odd sense of bias that I've ever seen. Jon Stewart calls Bill O'Reilly a bully, but what does that make him, when he sucks up to every single actor and democrat(John Kerry before, Obama today) that appears on the show and looks down upon respected republicans and accomplished conservative newsmen such as Weekly Standard's own Bill Kristol? He puts them in some sort of people's tribunal as if they're being charged with a crime, often times any person on the show who stands up for Bush is portrayed as delusional, as if that person's out of touch with reality and assumes he speaks for the majority of America, that's the de facto treatment for anybody conservative, unless they happen to share a similar point of view with Democrats, if so then's it's an endless love fest. But still, it doesn't matter, in the eyes of Jon you are already wrong before you walked into the show and are still wrong afterwords. That's the kind of treatment you get if you are anything remotely right-wing. Now you have to wonder what that could possibly have anything to do with humor. One wonders what'll happen if Democrats win the White House... | 0 |
I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, "Choy Huk").<br /><br />Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.<br /><br />Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)<br /><br />For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.<br /><br />Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine. | 1 |
This zippy and fun short from 1916 - the time when Charlie Chaplin and Fatty Arbuckle were the big names in comedy - features the young Oliver Hardy as a ne'er-do-well who has to quickly impress his wealthy uncle by producing a wife and baby for his visit.<br /><br />Of course this does not go smoothly and soon there are rather more wives and babies than he can cope with; plus the mandatory chases and misunderstandings that are the hallmark of early movie slapstick.<br /><br />Restored well it can be viewed as part of 'The Early Films of Oliver Hardy' and is now available on DVD, a fine addition to the available corpus of the big screen favourite comedy duo. | 1 |
Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.<br /><br />The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances. <br /><br />Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.<br /><br />I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name "Brotherly love". "Country dance" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such. | 1 |
I married a Japanese woman 14 years ago. We're still together.<br /><br />However in the 1950's it would never have been as easy.<br /><br />Life in the military had been mined for action, drama, and comedy for years by this point. Mined to death. The mixed relationships gave it new ground to cover. This is old hat today, but then...? Marrying an Asian back then meant you either owed somebody something or you were a freak of some sort. This touched on both possibilities along with the third. Maybe it IS love? <br /><br />Brando did his usual good job. Garner did a better job than he usually does. He's good, but this showed how good he could be. Umecki-chan had a helluva debut here and while I think she earned her statue, she didn't really stretch. It was a role that no one who hadn't been overseas would have recognized and the newness was the corker.<br /><br />The real scene stealer was Red Buttons. Red was the best thing in this film. Bank on it. And the Japanese lifestyles were shown in an admirable light as well.<br /><br />A classic. | 1 |
Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you. | 1 |
Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with "First Kid", which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway. | 1 |
I am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.<br /><br />From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.<br /><br />Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.<br /><br />Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT "Covert-one". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.<br /><br />To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of this film. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.