text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Carrot Top's "Chairman of the Board" and his AT&T commercials are living proof that fly-blown fecal matter is available in the color orange. Not FREELY available, however, as HBO charges for such garbage. Blehhh! The saving grace of COTB is that it surely fills suicide hot-lines across the country, perhaps providing employment for thousands of telephone therapists who lost their jobs when recovered memory treatment was discredited, although (sadly) Carrot Top probably contributes to his sponsor AT&T's bottom line with the increased phone traffic from devastated HBO viewers. I can visualize the hordes of traumatized TV viewers, phone in one hand and fully loaded .45 auto in the other hand, dialing out of last-minute desperation before walking off the plank of life to escape the specter of COTB's orange-haired monster echoing in their synapses like the agony of searing, irreversible meningeal swelling. | 0 |
I don't normally go out of my way to watch romantic comedy, and maybe I will in the future after seeing Return to Me. The plot was simple and no secret after the publicity. You don't have to be Einstein to guess what will happen after the first 15 minutes. What you can do is relax and let the cast take you into a world where the "chemistry" abounds and the good guys win and you can just laugh and have a good time. I LOVE this movie....and have the DVD on order! | 1 |
What can I say? I know this movie from start to finish. It's hilarious. It's an strong link to my past and will change the way I view film in the future. Hypothetically speaking :) The down-fall? There's no Socrates Johnson! | 1 |
This is a good movie. Something fun about watching money be blown at a super rate, especially from a kid's point of view. Take it for what it is, a fun little movie about a kid's dream coming true, and what a kid might do with $1 million dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. They make movies for the watchers, not the people that have nothing better to do then complain in their lives. | 1 |
Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this
um
effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.<br /><br />The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.<br /><br />In each episode, the super sextet amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always ALWAYS laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.<br /><br />In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.<br /><br />The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities
.<br /><br />Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers. | 0 |
This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade). | 0 |
Inspector Gadget was probably my all-time favorite 80's cartoon. I enjoyed both the first and second seasons of the series as well as 1992's Christmas special "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas". Some Gadget fans are quick to criticize the second season (1985) of the show, but they need to compare it to DiC's 2002 release of "Inspector Gadget's Last Case: Claw's Revenge" for then, they will find the second season to be absolute gold.<br /><br />Being a Gadget fan, I couldn't resist the opportunity to see the animated Inspector Gadget in something that wasn't Gadget Boy-related. I purchased the film, and I swore to myself that I'd be objective; I knew that sometimes artistic liberties would be taken from the original series. I was not even prepared for what I was about to watch.<br /><br />There was barely a shred of the original show still intact.<br /><br />Here is a short list of just some of the cons for this movie: *The humor is non-existent from the original series.<br /><br />*Penny and Brain (originally having a nearly equal part in the series as Gadget) are missing from the action for fifteen to twenty minute intervals.<br /><br />*The original music by Saban & Levy is not there, and the score that exists is sub-par. (Understood that Saban has his own production company now, but at least "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" had good music, even without Saban.) *Don't expect to see any of Gadget's gadgets which made the show so endearing, such as gadget-copter, gadget-brella, gadget-mallet,gadget-coat (which actually was used but it was not even called the same thing), as well as his standard other hat and hand gadgets. In this movie, his gadget legs were telescopic instead of springs. That kind of stuff annoys true fans of the show, and simply aren't necessary to change.<br /><br />*The gadgetmobile from the original series is now a fast-talking, supposedly "hip" convertible. All the fans from the original series enjoyed the gadgetmobile transforming into the gadget van and vice versa.<br /><br />*Chief Quimby is now very short-tempered and even mean to Gadget. He was always grumpy in the original series, but this pushes the situation a bit much.<br /><br />*Penny no longer has a computer book.<br /><br />Are there any positives to this movie? OK, here goes...<br /><br />*Maurice LaMarche does a good job of taking over for the great Don Adams as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />*In one scene, Chief Quimby alludes to an actual villain from the cartoon series: the Great Wambini (classic "Gadget" villain from the second season, voiced by Louis Nye).<br /><br />Looking for more redeeming factors for this movie? Well, you're out of luck. Life is about making choices and living by those choices. Most situations in life have a purpose even if it is to teach a lesson. The lesson learned here: keep to the original formula! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." True Gadget fans should steer clear from this movie; you will surely be disappointed.<br /><br />Hopefully, DiC and Shout! Factory will continue to release more of the original series after the 2006 release of "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1," containing the first 22 episodes of the series. As a true Gadget fan, lover of 80's animation and many of DiC's programs, I urge you the viewer to purchase "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1" and "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" DVD's which are excellent and sure to bring back good memories. | 0 |
This recreation of the infamous 1959 murders in Kansas, based on the Capote book, is starkly filmed by Brooks and cinematographer Hall in black and white, giving it a documentary feel. There are good performances from Blake and Wilson as the killers and Forsythe as a cop who pursues them. The scenes leading up to the murders, filmed at the actual house where the crime occurred, with a soundtrack of whistling winds, are quite intense and chilling. Brooks directs with a lot of verve and uses several interesting transitions between scenes. The only complaint is that it is a bit overlong, with the denouement dragged out and somewhat preachy. | 1 |
I watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in "Little Germany"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.<br /><br />1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.<br /><br />Now the (few) good ones<br /><br />1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few "what the ef" moments<br /><br />Boll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10 | 0 |
While the David Lynch version of Dune is choppy, awkward, and unfaithful to the novel, it is visually well designed and well acted. The best one can say about the Sci Fi channel's attempt to make Dune into a miniseries is that it's ambitious. Actually, that is virtually the only positive praise one can offer. The actors (with few exceptions) seem happy to recite their lines with the least emotion possible, and the least appropriate accents. The costumes seem to have been designed by someone with a a large surplus of Mylar fabric on hand and an unhealthy love of unflattering headwear.<br /><br />In part, this miniseries suffers from living in the shadow of Lynch's already well known effort. However, it takes elements from Lynch's film which were not present in the novel and copies them nearly wholesale (i.e. the Guild Steersman's navigation sequence), and this only encourages encourages negative comparison to Lynch's film. A for effort. D for virtually everything else. | 0 |
A wide variety of snakes stage an uprising on tourists "invading" their island due their captain's boat damage. The few remaining survivors who aren't caught vulnerable by the snakes will attempt an escape mission, their goal to flee to available boats which can get them safely off the island.<br /><br />Presented straight-faced with injected doses of visual humor featuring lots of snake gags, Wayne Crawford's SNAKE ISLAND features plenty of different breeds of the slithery predators, in striking position, ready to attack their prey. Star William Katt, as an author researching snakes for a forthcoming novel, has fun in his role along with writer / director / co-star Wayne Crawford(..as the tourist boat captain) as put-upon heroes who stare down a most serious crisis. Kate Connor is Crawford's attractive love interest, a lawyer on vacation. The other cast members serve as either tourists or crew, mostly fodder for the snakes. <br /><br />As in many other movies of this type, director Crawford features live snakes with computer generated ones, and the violence is really tame. Crawford even incorporates the point-of-view technique with the camera as the eyes of the snake as it faces the potential victim(..with the actor looking directly into the camera). Never to be taken seriously, the tongue-in-cheek approach was probably the best way to shoot SNAKE ISLAND because the premise is just too ridiculous to accept on it's own.<br /><br />The effects and suspense scenes rarely work because Crawford is often unable to successfully stage the sequences where humans face off with the snakes. The snake attacks themselves also never happen on screen(..one or two tops), or are so limply presented they leave little impression. That's a no-no for a genre such as this. Fans of Katt will probably want to check it out because he does provide some facial comedy that establishes the overall tone of certain scenes where he must defend himself against the snakes. The CGI scenes where we see a large number of snakes in a general area aren't very effective which remove the realism Crawford might've attempted to establish. There are plenty of better horror films featuring snakes as the aggressors than SNAKE ISLAND. Surprising moments of nudity, relegated to a scene where the tourists and crew unwind after a long day with the bubbly, not knowing what danger lie ahead. | 0 |
This Metro film is episodic, but nearly a constant series of chases, mainly trying to escape police, whether real or imagined, as Buster is mistaken for an escaped criminal. It is consistently inventive and entertaining. Its greatest value is in its documenting what Hollywood looked like in the early twenties, since 95% of it is shot outside among the streets and building exteriors of the time. One gem moment and one gem sequence are present here.<br /><br />The great moment is when a train at a great distance quickly approaches the camera and finally stops just short of it - with Buster glumly sitting on the cowcatcher and thus moving from a long shot to a close-up within seconds.<br /><br />The great sequence is with the phone booth next to the elevator - one constantly being mistaken for the other with races from floor to floor - one of the great Keaton gags.<br /><br />Kino's print is sharp and clear - almost pristine. There is a violin/piano score accompaniment. This is one to seek out and enjoy. | 1 |
I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN! | 0 |
Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true! | 1 |
Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.<br /><br />This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny. | 0 |
Great little ground-breaking movie (in 1955) about an important subject.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting much from Sinatra's performance and was pleasantly surprised by it. Loved Kim Novak! She was gorgeous!<br /><br />Loved the jazz score by Elmer Bernstein! As great as that by Lazlo Schifrin for "Bullitt"! I am very surprised it doesn't seem available on CD (if anyone knows about the soundtrack's availability on any other format, they should post it here somewhere!).<br /><br />Preminger's direction was, as usual, borderline flawless.<br /><br />Haven't read Nelson Algren's novel nor have any idea how faithful the screenplay was to it. The subplot of Frankie as a "hot" card dealer was a bit of a surprise, too, as were a few other things. But see for yourself. It's very much worth seeing... | 1 |
A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.<br /><br />I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.<br /><br />This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files. | 0 |
I'm not sure what intrigues me about this movie so. It is grainy, poorly written, bleached out, often ridiculous, and at many points mind numbingly dull (the person I was watching it with fell asleep twice.) And yet there is something in this film that fascinates me, though I am not sure what; perhaps the character of Sam, an enormous former patient who was lobotimized by the former head doctor and who is perpetually sucking on an ice pop), or the marvelously played head doctor (I forget her name).<br /><br />Anyway, watch it and form you're own opinion; it has one of the greatest endings I have seen in film. | 1 |
When HULK hit theaters in 2003, it wasn't long before DVDs of the old Incredible Hulk TV show popped up in an attempt to cash in on the craze. We saw a similar occurrence a year prior when Spider-Man cartoons appeared on DVD to coincide with that hero's big screen debut. Companies leap at the opportunity to ride on the financial coattails of a hot brand.<br /><br />So the fact that this picture never surfaced on the shelves of Wal-Mart as its featured heroes clobbered the box office in the summer of 2005 says a lot. I guess everyone involved would just rather forget. To be fair, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is not as bad as everyone says. Let me rephrase that. It's not as unentertaining as all of its negative reviews might suggest.<br /><br />Veteran television actor Alex Hyde-White (no, you don't remember any of his roles) leads the way as Reed Richards, the brilliant scientist who, along with his crew, gains bizarre powers after an outer space mishap. He's left with the ability to stretch and contort his body to outrageous lengths. His future wife, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab), can suddenly turn invisible, while her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood), may now ignite himself at will. Then there's poor Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith), the lovable lug whose body morphs into a mass of craggy, orange rock.<br /><br />Just as the friends are becoming accustomed to all of this, they are called upon to rescue the world from certain chaos. It seems Reed's old colleague Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) is living up to his name, and that villainous Jeweler (Ian Trigger) isn't exactly helping old ladies cross the street, either. Can our heroes save the day? Of course they can; like any superhero movie, it's just a question of how and when.<br /><br />What's striking about THE FANTASTIC FOUR is how amateurish it is in virtually every aspect. The dialog is so lame and tired it sounds like it was written by a junior high drama class. The acting is so unpolished it makes a third-rate afternoon soap opera look like Shakespeare. The special effects are surprisingly good considering the minuscule budget, but there are still some positively embarrassing moments. When The Human Torch fully ignites his body, for instance, the entire movie briefly turns into a cartoon. I can just hear that production meeting. "Oh, no one will notice. They'll be too intrigued by the action!" I mean really, a cartoon? At least give me a mannequin on fire held up by a string! Prior to that, the scene in which the foursome come to on earth after their spaceship crashes is pure teens-in-the-backyard fare. The crew simply found a field and lit a vaguely-spaceship-like object on fire. That's the only remnant of such a major disaster?<br /><br />Of course there wasn't a whole lot to work with in the script. There is a fairly coherent story here, but it's all so simplified. When Reed and Ben decide to go into outer space, they simply drop by the Storms' house and ask if they'd care to join them. Is it really that easy? Don't these sort of things require, oh, I don't know, years of training and expertise? Not in the world of these writers, who seemed to be inspired by the underrated genius on display in FULL HOUSE reruns. But as bad as that may be, nothing can compare to how painfully clichéd Dr. Doom is. He was pulled right out of those awful superhero cartoons from the 1960s, right down to the evil laugh and slamming his clenched fist down on the table to punctuate his remarks. No comic book, least of all Fantastic Four, has ever featured a villain so obscenely one dimensional.<br /><br />Ultimately, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is saved from being a complete turkey because it's just so damn innocent. You can tell the people involved, as little talent or experience as they had, really tried. They didn't know the final result would be so embarrassing. They were under the impression that this was their big break, that people would flock to the theaters. It bears repeating that they had virtually no money to work with (and I'm sure half of that was eaten up by the cool Thing costume). All things considered, they did well, and for its many flaws, the finished product is a fair amount of fun for comic book fans. | 0 |
Veteran TV director Ted Post treats us to a plodding, confused and ultimately pointless story lifted from Column B of the Harold Robbins Big Book Of Plots. Set against a smoggy Phoenix skyline, post-Charlies Angles Jaclyn Smith takes a star turn as "the woman whose eyes are mysteriously shadowed at all times" while JFK impersonator James Franciscus lounges around the fringes. <br /><br />Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and Bob Mitchum is in there too. Somewhere. | 0 |
William Shatner in small doses is tolerable. Unfortunately, instead of leaving his character as a minor irritation, and in that moderately amusing, it has been seen fit to enlarge his role and overdo it. Just as occurred in the original Star Trek series. I guess I will never understand American humour, which frequently goes 'over the top' to get the message through. I vote with my feet. I no longer watch the show, which is a shame, because the rest of the cast were good. It is pity that Shatner's overdone role also, affects James Spader's performance. But the majority demonstrate the way society is going, I guess. I don't travel the same routes. Frank | 0 |
This movie needs to be put on DVD. It was so funny and I loved it. Really, really cute and funny. Not realistic, but not suppose to be. The only thing I did not like about it was the girl relying on the guy too much. It represents the time period way of thinking though. I have been trying to get this movie for so long and it has been unavailable for US format only in the UK and will not play on US DVD players. It is sadly an over looked Classic film! Believe it or not, but this film could easily become a cult favorite, for all ages. Too bad, we do not legalize certain things that could really save small countries or our own. Lindy is unsinkable, a positive character that makes lemonade out of lemons. She is funny and charming. She stole the show! | 1 |
The true life story of perhaps the greatest football coach the game has ever known. Knute Rockne led the game of football out of the "stone age" with innovations such as the forward pass and offensive formation shifts. But he is probably best known for his motivational locker room speeches. Along the way, he brought fame and glory to a tiny, little, unknown Catholic school in Indiana. Pat O'Brien is incomparable in his role as Rockne. Terrific cast that includes Ronald Reagan who gives a great performance as Notre Dame's first, true superstar, George Gipp.<br /><br />For Football aficionados, this is the greatest football movie ever made. Do yourself a favor and rent the black and white version. (Some versions have deleted scenes for some reason) If you got the good version, look for a brief cameo by the immortal Jim Thorpe as he sticks his head in the locker room telling Rockne and the team they only have a few minutes left before the 2nd half begins. | 1 |
Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.<br /><br />That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like "Bad Day at Black Rock." Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice "Twilight Zone" episode.<br /><br />The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, "Silkwood." For some of the others, their range is limited.<br /><br />But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.<br /><br />Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. "You should never have brought that dog in the first place," remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about? <br /><br />Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.<br /><br />And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.<br /><br />I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me. | 0 |
Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.<br /><br />A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.<br /><br />first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.<br /><br />verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"<br /><br />follow?<br /><br />lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."<br /><br />heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.<br /><br />It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less. | 0 |
Just thinking about the movie, i laugh to myself. Anne Ramsey plays an unforgettable part as 'Momma,' probably the most nasty, yet hilarious matriarch ever captured on film. Danny Devito and Billy Crystal make a fabulous duo, bringing a true warmth to the film. Though not exceedingly complex, the cute story holds your attention, and keeps you laughing the whole way through. It's a fun comedy to lighten things up, and even will entertain the kids. I give it my full recommendation. | 1 |
First things first! This isn't an action movie although there is a lot of action in it! I think you can compare it to American sports movies! Where a team of very bad players succeed in the unthinkable,winning a game or tournament beyond expectation! In this case it isn't about football or baseball,but Taekwondo! In the beginning these street thugs seem to be good for nothing! But soon we will find out that they don't want to be thugs and actually achieve something in life! It is nice to see them struggle and training! I was surprised how funny this movie was! From start till the end you will laugh your pants off! The young korean actors are very convincing! Go see this wonderful feel good movie! | 1 |
Man, was I disappointed.<br /><br />1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends' <br /><br />2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.<br /><br />3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.<br /><br />4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.<br /><br />5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".<br /><br />I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed. | 0 |
This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary! | 1 |
It was dumb. Sort of like an Adam Sandler movie. <br /><br />There were a few funny parts but not that funny.<br /><br />I liked some of the actors in it though. <br /><br />There were some Sat. Night Live people in the movie. But I wouldn't recommend this unless there is just nothing else better on. And it was still better than any Jennifer Lopez movie. | 0 |
In this forgettable trifle, the 40-ish Norma Shearer plays a fluttery, girlish socialite in Monte Carlo, caught in a tussle between George Sanders and Robert Taylor. It would be tempting to blame this movie's failure on the dull, talky script, or director George Cukor, who never seems interested in livening up the film's generally comatose state. Mostly, though, it's the fault of Shearer herself, who desperately wanted to keep playing "young" parts as long as she could get away with it. Inadvertently, this makes "Her Cardboard Lover" a bizarre monument to an aging woman's vanity. | 0 |
Frankly I'm amazed to see that this movie is getting relatively good reviews. I'll be completely honest and say that the only reason I even got through it is because of Ryan Phillippe, and not for reasons particularly connected with his abilities as an actor, though I think over the last years he has proved himself to be a better actor than his first major roles in the late 1990's indicated.<br /><br />As far as action/suspense movies go, this movie fails in nearly every respect. The acting is OK, I guess, but the script is absolutely horrible and makes very little sense, a fact which the filmmakers try to cover up by adding absurd references to Chaos theory, as if it would convince anyone that the film is actually 'clever' - but then again, judging from other reviews, some were. Don't be fooled: the script is a boring, derivative mess and no other element of the movie makes up for it. Wesley Snipes has probably never had a less interesting role in a film, and Statham is a thoroughly dull actor.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 0 |
The early to mid 90s were a high point, in my opinion, for the historical drama. Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Rob Roy - all portrayed a distinctive passion and intensity in their respective time periods.<br /><br />Rob Roy was a unique and intriguing taste of a time and place rarely represented by film. It really has everything - interesting story, great acting, remarkable dialog, and breathtaking scenery. I was particularly impressed by the apparently genuine dialog. I can imagine this is how early 18th century people spoke and behaved.<br /><br />Something else that surprised me was the vulgarity expressed by the characters. I found it to be more repulsive and shocking, albeit often more subtle, than most found in films set in modern times. The movie had a very racy and sexually charged edge to it that was unique and most likely very realistic in the context of the era.<br /><br />The pace was very tight, with hardly a dull moment. There was much intrigue and political subplots that complicated things a bit, but yet did not detract from the main storyline.<br /><br />The action was also very well done and gripping. Something that I will forever find remarkable is that during the highlight action piece in the film, there is no soundtrack whatsoever. It makes for a very tense, exciting sequence, since we have no musical cue as to the direction and resolution of the scene.<br /><br />Rob Roy will always remain high on my list of favorite films. I would recommend it to all. | 1 |
Solo is an action movie about a Terminator-like android that is constructed and trained for the military. When a flaw is discovered, he is issued to be deprogrammed. Rather than face death, he chooses to flee into the jungles of Central America, where he takes refuge in a village. The military chases him into there, leading into a big action feast.<br /><br />Mario Van Peebles does a decent performance the android. His movements and gestures look mechanical enough to get the job done. Actual scientific realism is abandoned in order to make a good action hero. And it works out; the action scenes aren't that spectacular, but they aren't all too bad either. The acting from the other characters is pretty bad, but I was not expecting anything too good. The special effects were decent as well.<br /><br />Solo is decent as an action flick, but very forgettable. It lacks the substance that most movies possess. But if you just want to pass a couple hours without much thinking, this will get the job done. | 0 |
If you are going to make a movie from any book, be sure that the characters are consistant with that book. This movie not only defied the Biblical story that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years to children one way or another, but it clearly took liberties that no adaptation would probably ever try. At least the Lord of the Rings is close enough to the books that people understand the story more if they read the books than this "Noah's Ark" tried to. | 0 |
This movie which was released directly on video should carry a warning label that it is dangerous to human health and may subject the viewer to terminal boredom. It is yet another thinly veiled, evangalizing "rapture" religious movie with the good guys (the believers) suddenly vanishing and the bad guys (the non-believers)left behind. It's an interesting concept, especially since we see it happen on a flight captained by a non-believer who is having a sinful affair with a stewardess aboard (needless to say that sinner doesn't disappear either!). Unhappily, with all the pilots being non-believers, the plane did not crash or the movie would have been mercifully over. Though this could have be interesting without the heavy religious browbeating, as a whole the plodding movie makes one gag, the acting is horrible and the obviously computer-generated simulations are very fake looking. Plus it's yet another movie shot in Canada that purports to be New York City. Spare me...I'll just read the Bible. | 0 |
This is a very interesting acquaintance! "Two-fisted tales" contains three foolish and childish episodes - genre isn't actually horror or action, more like something in between. Where's the suspence? Where's the fun? Where's the common sense? Definitely not in here but if you don't expect to get it, you don't necessarily miss it.<br /><br />First segment is called "Showdown". It's a violent, absurd western. I failed to understand the whole idea of it. "King of the road" is a stupid story starring Brad Pitt. At the time of "Two-fisted tales" he was just a pretty face who really didn't know how to act yet. Luckily he learned the skill later and now he's a fantastic, talented actor - one of the big ones of the younger generation. Story is almost ok in all of it's stupidness. Final episode "Yellow" is the only segment that's almost entirely successful. It's foolish but funny. We have to thank Kirk Douglas for that.<br /><br />This movie is something to watch when you sit in an easy chair and eat popcorn. (I should know, that's what I did) If you loved "Tales from the Crypt", you'll love "Two-fisted tales" too because basically it's all the same. I understand these three episodes are actually extremely rare "piece of art" and very difficult to find anywhere. I have the whole package on VHS but I don't think it's a big privilege. You'll have to be a fanatic Brad Pitt fan to search it out. Otherwise don't bother, it's not worth the effort. Silly crap. | 0 |
It's the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others' success. Here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier 'Dracula' (1931) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) -- in a Germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. Even though shot at Universal (and at the Bronson caves!) it's a Poverty Row feature; it's not fair to compare it with those earlier, more expensively made and superior films.<br /><br />From the familiar and exciting, chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by Mischa Bakalienikoff), through the talky but well done opening sequence, we anticipate the arrival of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. That's the disappointment.<br /><br />We get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing, low budget, not enough of Dwight Frye, the overdone presence of Maude Eburne (Aunt Gussie), and the premise for Lionel Atwill (Dr. von Niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazier) never made very clear.<br /><br />Do not watch the technicolor 'Dr. X' (1932) -- which also stars Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray but as father and daughter -- before watching this the way I did; it's an Oscar winner by comparison. So watch this one first. Structurally, 'The Vampire Bat' still isn't that good. It plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief, without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy.<br /><br />Besides 'Dr. X' and 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' (both 1932 and co starring Fay Wray), Lionel Atwill's most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in 'Son of Frankenstein' (1939) and as Moriarity in 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' (1943). Dwight Frye steals all his manic scenes in 'Dracula' (1931). As the 'young lovers,' Melvin Douglas and Fay Wray have a nice kissing scene, but that's about it. He can be seen in 'The Old Dark House' (1932), and Fay gets dragged around by Joel McCrea in 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1930). Then there's her 1933 classic 'screamer.' Too bad more time, money and rewrites weren't available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye. Sadly, then, this drearily disappointing film only gets a 4. | 0 |
Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8. | 1 |
Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!<br /><br />The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 |
Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.<br /><br />Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.<br /><br />The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.<br /><br />The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.<br /><br />The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.<br /><br />Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma. | 0 |
I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.<br /><br />Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.<br /><br />Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10. | 0 |
What on earth happened to RGV? There are so many things wrong about this movie that one needs to stop and decide where to start- first and worst - the music. Every scene was accompanied with this pretentious background music that was telling you the mood, quite pathetically, I might add. Secondly, the lighting - do we really need such dark scenes where we are wondering if the projector is still working? And finally - if you are going to Indianise the Godfather and Godfather 2 - please realize that a lot of us have seen in. Nayakan was a ripoff of GF1 but better done, and more entertaining. I have seen a similarity in both Company and Sarkar and while RGV's Ab Tak 56 was brilliant, these two movies leave something to be desired. People will not be impressed any more by just corrupt politicians and the lot. Maybe RGV should see Maqbool, which is good enough to be RGV!! | 0 |
I was pleasantly surprised I quite liked this movie. Witty writing (some "inside" jokes I got, others I didn't - maybe due to actors speaking on top of one another), great acting (notably John Cassini), great cameos, interesting and unique directing. I rented it to see Jeffrey Meek (very disappointed he was in it such a short time, blink and you'll miss him!) but found the movie remarkably entertaining. I'll actually watch it again before I send back to Netflix. I think actors and wanna-be actors will thoroughly enjoy this movie. The ending is somewhat expected but wish they'd done something different (and more positive). Too bad the movie wasn't better received except for in the "festival" market. I suggest it to anyone who loves the acting biz. | 1 |
THE RAP, the book this movie was 'based' on was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. Yet I could not put it down. Raunchy, crude, foul, lewd...you name it, it had it. It also had some of the best characterizations of any novel I've ever read.<br /><br />Well, as for the flick...it was deplorable. I mean, Tim Mcintire as Wasco? Wasco was the baddest mutha...talking 'bout WASCO...Mcintire as Wasco is like casting Tim Conway as Charles Manson.<br /><br />What happened to the MAIN character in the book? Little Arv. He doesn't even exist in the movie...Fast Walking WAS NOT the main dude in the book. Why even name credit this thing with THE RAP? None of the spirit, atmosphere, nastiness, or drama of the book was captured in this movie.<br /><br />For me it was not only a disappointment, but a total waste of time and celluloid. | 0 |
We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.<br /><br />The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters. <br /><br />We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.<br /><br /> | 0 |
And obviously I didn't see it! <br /><br />But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?<br /><br />And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.<br /><br />Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.<br /><br />I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD! | 0 |
Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".<br /><br />I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!<br /><br />The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.<br /><br />I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10. | 0 |
A straight-forward X File that shows that action is always the equal of intelligence. Rob Bowman's direction is crisp and sharp, the episode looks just as fresh now as it did almost a decade ago. David and Gillian both give fine performances and both seem to relish the lack of baggage - it's a standalone X File that even non-fans could happen upon and enjoy. Junior Brown gives both the leads a run for their money during his scene with them, he's so convincing that you could believe the crew drove to the middle of nowhere and knocked on the first door they came to. Bryan Cranston is intense and energetic as Patrick Crump, he has since admitted in interviews that he knew next to nothing about the X Files prior to this role, a fact that makes his hit-the-floor-running performance all the more incredible. A brilliantly dumb episode. | 1 |
An extremely dark and brooding show with an excellent cast. One of the few shows that I try to watch on a regular basis. Glad to see Bebe Neuwirth in a recurring role, but feel Andre Braugher is underutilized. He is one intense actor! Hope CBS gives it a better time slot next season. | 1 |
Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp. | 0 |
This movie has one of the worst lead characters ever. I say this because he is made out to be the hero when, in my opinion, everything he does in the whole movie screws up people's lives and causes problems. He can do nothing right, yet the movie makes him seem like the cool dude everyone should be looking up to. He has temper tantrums at all the wrong times, he has all the wrong stances on things that end up making people mad at him and getting people killed, he is too nosy, too pushy, too macho, too assuming, makes all the wrong decisions and has no common sense. <br /><br />It's about a private detective hired by a successful painter to find the woman and son that he walked out on years ago. The detective finds the woman and what he thinks to be her son. However, all kinds of things happen to make this story full of crime, drama and twists. It's made for TV, what do you expect?<br /><br />Anyhow, the movie is fairly entertaining. Johnny Depp is very young in this one and has an awful 80's haircut. He chews gum and tosses a soccer ball around for about 5 minutes and that is all we get to see of him.<br /><br />For some reason, the out of print VHS version of this sells for $40 in online auctions. It must be for Johnny Depp collectors only. It couldn't be because of the plot. It couldn't be.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.<br /><br />I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to "Beyond Rangoon" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.<br /><br />I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle. | 0 |
This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.<br /><br />Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.<br /><br />And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.<br /><br />A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it. | 0 |
All right I recently got a chance to rent this and watch Santa Claus conquers the martains. Although the children were much more sadistic in SCCTM, I would have to say that Santa Claus was a much worse movie. As a spanish assignment in Spanish 5 we all had to watch it. I'll tell you, usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food, but not for this movie. Everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil Mr. Pitch was going to do next. Would Merlin help Santa Claus!?! or would his robot reindeer come and save the day? I would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish I have ever seen and I love it for that. :D | 0 |
Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.<br /><br />Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.<br /><br />Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t. | 0 |
This excruciatingly boring and unfunny movie made me think that Chaplin was the real Hitler, as only someone as evil as him could torture people with this tripe. I saw this movie remastered, which only made the suffering inflicted by this atrocity more severe. This movie is nothing but a pathetic, repetitive movie, which instead of inducing two hours of laughter, it induced two hours of suicidal urges. After the first 10 minutes of this, I began wishing that gas would start seeping from the speakers of the theatre.<br /><br />If I could give it a zero out of ten I would happily do so. Avoid at all costs! | 0 |
Jonathan Demme is such a character-oriented director that, to see him pulling a Brian De Palma (which is to say, aping Hitchcock), it is nearly predictable when he fails to work up much suspense within this tepid mystery. Working from a screenplay by David Shaber, from Murray Teigh Bloom's novel, Demme attempts to strike a chord somewhere between Alan J. Pakula's paranoia dramas and Hitchcock's dangling-participle thrillers. Roy Scheider stars as a retired Secret Agent mourning the murder of his wife who is now busy dodging bad guys who are out to kill him. Takes off right away, but the script is full of flimsy threads and any excitement dies out quickly. There's a visually impressive climax at Niagra Falls, but Demme gets little out of his cast, and even less out of this bummer of a story. ** from **** | 0 |
Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.<br /><br />Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish: <br /><br />1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...) <br /><br />2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?) <br /><br />3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.<br /><br />4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art! <br /><br />5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.<br /><br />6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans! <br /><br />As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.<br /><br />This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...<br /><br />Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me. | 0 |
The Ghost Walks is a nifty little mystery with a great twist, snappy dialog, and best of all a pansy played to the twittery hilt by character actor Johnny Arthur which never demeans or denigrates his character. Mr. Arthur is great in his role of Homer Erskine bringing great comic relief as the secretary of the Broadway producer Herman Wood, played by another great character actor Richard Carle.<br /><br />They play off of each other superbly.<br /><br />Although the acceptable words of the time sissy and cream puff are used to describe the character of Homer, it is never mean spirited or meant as denigration, and are not spoken by the manly males of the film but by his employer, who fires and rehires him every other scene and who displays an almost exasperated affection for his devoted employee.<br /><br />There is a great scene where Homer tells his boss that he has devoted the best years of his life to him and has been everything but a mother to him.<br /><br />The mystery angle of the film is very entertaining, and the twist at the end might just leave you in stitches.<br /><br />For a low budget poverty row picture, this film has superb set decoration and great costuming.<br /><br />Director Frank Strayer ably handles his cast and this film holds together much better than some of his other low budget mystery attempts, but he had a great script to work with and some wonderful actors to carry it through.<br /><br />This film is a must see for devotees of poverty row films, old dark house mysteries (they actually managed to work in the lines "It was a dark and stormy night)and it has the added bonus of being an early representation of a gay character in film where nothing bad happens to them in the end.<br /><br />This movie is available for download in the public domain film section of the Internet Archive at archive.org. | 1 |
I had my doubts about another love story wherein disabled individuals find meaning and redemption through honest communication. And it's still not at the top of my list. But the performances from Helena Bonham Carter and Kenneth Branagh and exemplary, almost stunning, and rescue this from being just another tear-jerker. Carter's depiction of an ALS victim is strong, perhaps even overdone at times (sometimes her dialog dissolves into undistinguishable mutterings). But the overall effect is commendable and rewarding. Branagh may be the perfect compliment to her performance.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's "walk on Moon". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru | 0 |
One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out. | 1 |
There isn't much that comes close to the perfect-paced storytelling and suspenseful action-packed levels as "GoldenEye". When it came out, it was the greatest game of all-time, and even today, it stays strong.<br /><br />I will admit that this game did get boring after a few months of playing, and by not playing it again until two years later, I was thrust back into its greatest, almost as if I was playing it for the first time again.<br /><br />There are 20 action-packed levels, which is probably the most of any James Bond game to date. Probably the most unforgettable one is the Tank level, which was likely the most explosive video game sequence at that time. And the first-person shooting as well as usage of Q gadgets is what James Bond fans are always dying to use.<br /><br />Frankly, as a James Bond fan, I look for aspects of a true James Bond experience, which are now showing up in the PS2 games. So this game, while it has some great action and usable gadgets, I was somewhat expecting a little more, even back in 1997. I also disliked that this game didn't have Q or M or Moneypenny, or anyone from MI6. While watching the movies, Bond interacts with these characters at least a few times throughout each movie, but they are nowhere to be seen in this game. And vocal dialogue would have made the game more lively rather than the text dialogue they wound up using. They had the technology. They just didn't use it.<br /><br />Probably the most annoying feature of this game is that in some ways it follows the story of the movie precisely, and other ways it's incoherent. For example, there are two many levels where you have to protect or save Natalya, even though in the movie she can take care of herself. There are also some unnecessary levels, like the Boat level where you have to disarm some bombs (which is not in the movie), which adds nothing to the storyline whatsoever. There are even some levels where you rescue Natalya, but at the beginning of the next level, she's captured again. How?<br /><br />Oh well. Even those little things can't really put this game down. And while I do prefer the newer games, this Bond experience is definitely one you won't forget.<br /><br />8 out of 10 | 1 |
Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".<br /><br />Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with. <br /><br />This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places. <br /><br />A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date! | 0 |
Once upon a time Quentin Tarantino was a relatively successful filmmaker.<br /><br />Now, unfortunately, he not only makes terrible films, but puts his names to ones like this.<br /><br />A supposedly cool retro flashback to biker movies of the 60s and 70s, this plumbs new depths.<br /><br />Believe you me, I enjoy it when a blouse falls off in a film more than the next man but even I felt kind of sleazy watching this. To use a word I never thought I would, its msysoginistic (you see, I can't even spell it.) The plot (in the vaguest sense of the term) is as incomprehensible as Vinnie Jones' accent, the fact his terrible acting does not stand our particularly is as damning a testament as one can think of.<br /><br />This is just terrible. Shocking. It almost made me cry. In horror. | 0 |
I do miss the company Vestron, they sure had their finger on the pulse of unique and unusual cinema back in the 1980s. This is very apparent with the astonishing Paperhouse, a film that touches me deeply each and every time I watch it.<br /><br />The idea of a girl manipulating a dream world with her drawings (thusly the dream world manipulating reality), and also connecting with and affecting the life of a boy she's never actually met, is fascinating and never disappoints. Charlotte Burke at first seems quite precocious and yet you warm up to her because by being a bit of a mischievous child, it makes it hard for the adults to believe what she is experiencing. She becomes very self aware and strong towards the end, even finding she doesn't "hate boys" as she so defiantly claimed at first. Through this we are treated to many touching moments and some immensely scary ones, all visually stunning with a grand score from Hans Zimmer. I'm quite proud to be an owner of the soundtrack on CD when it was released in the United States on RCA Victor. At the time of this writing there is no DVD of Paperhouse yet available in the U.S. (only in Europe), here's hoping one of my wishes will come true as I truly cherish this beautiful film and a DVD of it would be very welcome!<br /><br />It's satisfying watching the girl work out her thoughts like a puzzle game trying to make the dream world work for her and her newfound friend Marc (Elliot Spiers). Both Charlotte Burke and Elliot Spiers do a magnificent job throughout, I find the editorial comment on Amazon.com about it being "hammy acting" quite perplexing -- I found every aspect of Paperhouse to be exhilarating. Even in minor scenes of brilliance like when Charlotte and the girl in the classroom are staring at each other through the glass on a door, it's quite powerful.<br /><br />You don't have to be an arthouse type to enjoy Paperhouse, just be a person that enjoys a film that stimulates and has you wanting more. There is enough in this film to invite repeated viewings and I'm still in awe of the cinematography and sets. For me, it's never like watching the same film twice, as there are so many details to absorb and savor. A very emotional experience indeed.<br /><br />While there are many films I adore, there are only a few specific ones that strike a great emotional chord in me: films like Paperhouse, Static, Resurrection, and Donnie Darko. When I see so much drek out there passing as films that will easily be forgotten and in bargain bins, all I have to do is watch Paperhouse and my faith in wondrous storytelling is renewed. | 1 |
I've never made one of these before, but this movie was literally so bad I had to say something about it.<br /><br />I'm all for independent film-making as the past year has seen of the worst (in my opinion) of Hollywood's showings, the mainstream just seems to have lost touch with what making good films is all about. That being said movies like this really give independent film a bad reputation.<br /><br />The characters are boring and too stupid to empathize with. The direction is horrible, the plotting is horrible, the plot itself is horrible, stay away, far away. Only one brief scene featuring a female's nude breasts, and even that wasn't worth a second look.<br /><br />The scariest thing about this movie is the idea of ever having to watch it again. I gave it a 2 and not a 1 simply because the actors were visible and the sound was audible - it earns one point for each of those traits. | 0 |
Truly a great leap forward in the perfection of painful cinema.<br /><br />Everything about this film is bad. Acting (if it can be called that), lighting, sound, script (if there was one), editing, direction, camera work, it is all atrocious. There is not a single element that is done well. If I thought that this was intentional then I might give the film some credit but I can not believe people would set out to make such a horendous film.<br /><br />This film is worth buying and screening to your worst enemies. | 0 |
I sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it this one. | 0 |
I loved the film "Eddie Monroe". The film had all the components that kept me interested while watching it. I especially loved the plot twists along the way and the surprising ending. Craig Morris has Brad Pitt potential both in looks and talent. His blue eyes reminded me of Paul Newman's. Fred Carpenter took this movie to a new level.I loved the cast. The music score, cinematography, talent, locations and script were awesome. I loved seeing some of my favorite actors in Eddie Monroe. Fred Carpenter is an incredibly talented and gifted director. He gives his work 200%. The film has great texture. I hope that there will be an Eddie Monroe 2. I would love to see how Nicolette turns out after getting her windfall of money. Fred Carpenter's Eddie Monroe is Hollywood level. | 1 |
EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.<br /><br />The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.<br /><br />A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating). | 1 |
I totally got drawn into this and couldn't wait for each episode. The acting brought to life how emotional a missing person in the family must be , together with the effects it would have on those closest. The only problem we as a family had was how quickly it was all 'explained' at the end. We couldn't hear clearly what was said and have no idea what Gary's part in the whole thing was? Why did Kyle phone him and why did he go along with it? Having invested in a series for five hours we felt cheated that only five minutes was kept back for the conclusion. I have asked around and none of my friends who watched it were any the wiser either. Very strange but maybe we missed something crucial ???? | 1 |
Pandro S. Berman was "In Charge of Production" but that made him the so-called Line Producer. But who produced this epic, filmed not in Arizona but in California's Mohave Desert where scavengers have made off with all of the remnants of the "gold temple", the Thuggee huts, the British outpost at Muri, the village of Tantrapur, etc. The minor technical faults can and must be forgiven. What's unforgivable is the lack of an Oscar for best music, although maybe the Academy didn't offer such at the time. A single theme was played in various tempos including waltz, march and sweet, mood-setting. Brilliant! One of the curious aspects of the production was the widow Kipling's demands. An actor playing Kipling appears briefly before and after the battle scenes. In the initial release his scenes were cut, per Mrs. Kipling's demands. Later they were included and lent a "connection" of Kipling's immortal poem to Ben Hecht's screenplay. Interestingly, this very typically and pro-British story was by a great screenwriter who himself hated the British. | 1 |
Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad! | 0 |
Granny is definitely one of the worst horror movies ever made in the history of cinema.<br /><br />The script was diabolical, so bad in fact that I was almost crying with laughter at some of the things they came out with. The acting was almost as bad, they would have been better off casting traffic cones to play the roles (they would have done a better job). The murders were laughable, the suspense was non existent, the camera work was ineffective and the "major" plot twist at the end was disgustingly inappropriate, it just gets worse and worse.<br /><br />"The Granny" is possibly one of the most unthreatening "villains" caught on film, she looks like she is wearing a cheap mask from the supermarket (the nylon hair caused endless amounts of laughter) and a frilly nightgown. Would you be scared by that??? I certainly wasn't.<br /><br />If you like watching bad movies (see Manos, Troll 2, Michael Bay films  ) then this is a must see. Those who don't like bad movies and don't enjoy laughing at shockingly bad dialogue, avoid like the plague. | 0 |
SPOILERS HEREIN<br /><br />My High School did all they could to try and motivate us for exams. But the most memorable method they used to get us into the right state of mind was a guest speaker, who was none other than Australian Kickboxing's favorite son, Stan "The Man" Longinidis. The first mistake they made was giving this guy a microphone, because he was screaming half the time despite us sitting no more than 3 or 4 feet away from him. Now, his speech was full of the usual "if you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail" stuff, but there were various instances where I got really worked up. The guy stood there in front of us preaching how throughout his life he did everything for himself and no-one else. He was offered many deals in the past to give up kick-boxing, but he never took his eye off the prize of becoming Australia's greatest kick-boxer. He said that he wasn't a sell-out, he was happy and a retiree, he wasn't ever involved in any other activity other than Kickboxing
then he plugged his film. Yes, you heard right, he PLUGGED his new FILM. As he talked about it, he got a woman to come in and hold up a poster advertising it, and then he showed this shitty 4 minute clip of this vile film called "Trojan Warrior". (This all being before he was defeated by Gurkan Ozkan in his final career fight (for now))<br /><br />Stan plays Ajax, a kick-boxing ex-special forces agent that is pulled into the seedy underworld of Melbourne. Ajax's cousin, Theo (Arthur Angel) recently sold out (well, at least Stan didn't stray too far away from EVERYTHING) to the feds, and as a result is on the run from all walks of organized crime. Ajax and Theo get into all sorts of ridiculous situations, from fighting in a Kebab shop to posing as playboys at a bondage party. It's all pretty ridiculous, but if Silverstein was actually aiming to make a credible film here, this man should never be handed a camera again. <br /><br />I'll admit, I was actually pumped to see this. I love action films, even if they're corny, and especially if it's set in my own backyard. But what I was introduced to was a film with acting that was appalling from the word "go", and continued to do so after the words "for the love of God please make it stop!", subplots were introduced and not even touched on again after they were out in the open, characters were just thrown in for absolutely NO reason whatsoever, and the most over-choreographed fight scenes that didn't even remotely reflect Stan's actual talent in Kickboxing. The cast consisted of useless cameo appearances by just about anyone REMOTELY famous (Dermot Brereton, Mark "Chopper" Read and Greg Matthews). The whole time you're sitting there and playing the guessing game of just who is standing there in the background. Too bad the movie relies heavily on split-second appearances by former celebrities. Remember those plot-holes I told you about? Ajax once upon a time was apparently locked up, wrongly accused for murdering his wife. Now, we hear that Ajax was in special forces via ONE single sentence in the WHOLE film, and then leave it for buggery. This is followed by another SINGLE sentence which persuades Ajax to help the same people who wrongly locked him up. Then, get this, at the end, it is revealed to Ajax that his wife isn't actually dead, but was sold into prostitution. Do we see her? No. Does Ajax go off to find her as soon as he hears this? No. Now THAT's a marriage! <br /><br />Amidst all this irritatingly puerile crap, some website described this film as "
a cross between Jackie Chan & Guy Ritchie
". Has this man ever sat down and watched a Jackie Chan film?! Chan shows more dexterity taking a dump than Stan did doing
, well, ANYTHING! And Guy Ritchie is the crime-film Messiah, and you're comparing him to Salik Silverstein!? This film is more like a mix between "Pizza" and "Enter The Ninja". <br /><br />Now, where do you thing the whole "Trojan Warrior" title comes from? Ajax's fierce fighting skills like that of an Ancient Greek Warrior? No. The gangsters' unification to find Theo, like that of the Trojan Empire? No. It's because
wait for it
Theo carries a condom around with him. Yes, that right, because THEO is ALWAYS PREPARED with a Trojan BRAND RUBBER in his pocket, he is a Trojan WARRIOR! <br /><br />I had the displeasure of seeing "Trojan Warrior" on DVD, as well as it's "special" features: <br /><br /> Video clip of "Chop Chop", a rap song by Mark "Chopper" Read: Chopper did this for the sole purpose of proving that ANYONE can rap. The funny thing was Chopper just rapped for 30 seconds and then threw it over to these two albino teens from Doncaster, using such words as "dis" and "dope" etc in their Australian accents. Face it people, rap was developed in the States, LEAVE IT THERE! The clip looked like something a Channel 31 cameraman on ecstasy put together. <br /><br /> Bloopers: There was no real difference between these and the actual film. <br /><br /> Stan "The Man" Longinidis Kickboxing Featurette: This wasn't too bad, considering it was just 6 or 7 different fights shown from different angles (I think I saw Dennis Alexio fall over about 15 times in that 3 minute montage).<br /><br />I don't want to say this film contributes to the reason this country is going to hell when it comes to film, but... oh wait, I just did. My advice to anyone reading this is for you to go out and buy 4 or 5 copies of "Trojan Warrior", tape them together, and use it for a paperweight, because this movie is just that damn bad. | 0 |
The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares. | 1 |
Bob Cummings is excellent in this, as this technically brilliant Hitchcock film really does not get the fame as some of his other films but is very watchable even today. Priscilla Lane proves in this one that she can hold her own with other blonde's that worked with Hitchcock later. She just did a handful of films after this which makes her almost forgotten today.<br /><br />There are sequences in this that will remind the viewer of set ups in later films by the director. The acting is so well done and the story so well done that this film is still very entertaining today. Every person in the cast performs well. There are several great backdrops in the black & white film.<br /><br />This was the first film at Universal for Hitchcock. Long run between the feature films he did at Universal, plus the television series, Hitchcock would make as much box office for the studios as anyone who worked there. This fact gets lost in film history.<br /><br />Norman Lloyd is well cast as the real bad guy in this film. The story moves along really well including Hitchcock's only filmed western sequence. This film is very good with lots of great work by everyone involved making it. | 1 |
I can't remember when was the last time I have been so terribly disappointed by any movie. Probably I expected too much happening (in a way you can expect action in dogma style movies of course). But there is just nothing going on in here. Luckily I was watching it at home and could switch channels whenever the silence and dumb/numb faces started to kill me. And that was very often! It really isn't too much of a pleasure watching ugly people who don't talk and move slowly, stroke pigs and french kiss men, not to mention ugly bodies having explicit sex. If only it made any sense... the whole murder situation is ridiculous; seems like it was only created to show one more vagina since zero characters are capable of actually solving the crime. Having only four pseudo developed characters and a movie going nowhere it is pretty soon obvious whom the director picked as a killer. And that makes no sence either. Despite all the boredom and suffering I must admit that it somehow touched me in an unexplainable way. Maybe you should check it out yourself though I don't recommend it. | 0 |
Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.<br /><br />As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book. | 0 |
This movie is weak ,The box-cover says East LA's toughest gang and it is really Santa Ana's , James Cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough Chlo gang . It is fake , boring , senseless and whack , I tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . It was also on the homo-erotic tip far from what the video-box proclaims . James Cahill should act in Gay Porno .James is in every scene , he cannot act to save his life . The film features Eva Longoria who is hot but James can't even score with her !!!!!!!!! I felt at times I was watching Gay Porn and was turned - off by the whole film . James clearly want's to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . His martial Arts skills are minimal at best , Some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new one . | 0 |
They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over! | 0 |
From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.<br /><br />I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice. | 0 |
Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.<br /><br />It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try. | 0 |
The story is airtight from the beginning until the latter third of this movie. Then the story gets more and more outrageous. The Main character portrayed by Marina Sudina is fantastic and had a difficult role. This could have been a super-great movie had the ending been more realistic. | 1 |
Ben Marshall, a teen ager from a religious background, is made aware about the financial situation at home by his domineering mother Laura. She suggests him to find a temporary job in order to contribute to the household. In fact the family has taken a widower, to board with them. Robert Marshall, the father, is a pastor at the local church; he'd much rather be in the country watching birds than tending to the souls entrusted to his church.<br /><br />The job Ben applies is with an older actress, Evie Walton, who wants him to do things for her around the house. "Dame" Evie, as she calls herself, is a woman of a certain age whose career has died maybe because she was not that great. In fact the only memorable appearance seems to be in a soap opera which was popular but she'd rather forget about it. Evie, who is a compulsive liar, tells Ben she's dying, only to forget it conveniently, later on when she comes clean to the boy. <br /><br />Ben is obviously in awe of the larger than life personality of his employer. He has been taking driving lessons. Evie asks him to take a camping trip, which he does against his better judgment. He knows that it will provoke his mother's fury. Not content with that, Evie decides to go on to Edinburgh, where she has been invited to read at an arts festival. It is this trip that solidifies their bond. Ben gets to meet and taste the pleasures of the flesh with a sympathetic Bryony.<br /><br />When Ben gets back, everything crumbles at home. His mother, who has been having an affair with a parishioner, decides to leave the family in favor of the young man she has been having an affair with. Ben and Evie's relationship survives the test of time. He also begins to see his own father in a different light. <br /><br />Jeremy Brock, the writer of "Driving Lessons" and other memorable English films, takes his first directorial job with this engaging comedy. The mixture of show business and religion, loyalty and friendship, are explored in his screen treatment making it a fun time at the movies. We have seen the similar situation before as in "Billy Elliott", where Julie Walters plays a nurturing role with a younger man. We had read the film was based on Mr. Brock's own experience while working Dame Peggy Ashcroft when he was young. <br /><br />Julie Walters, who plays Evie Walton, is perhaps the best excuse to watch the movie. She always delivers. Ms. Walters is a welcome presence in any film she appears and she does wonders with her fake "dame". Laura Linney, a luminous player herself, doesn't quite get our sympathy with her icy mother. Rupert Grint, famous for his Harry Potter's movies plays Ben, the young man who sees in Evie a kind soul. Nicholas Farrell is the betrayed father. Michelle Duncan has a small role in which she shines. | 1 |
The Custer Legend, a la Warner Brothers Epic. There's no casting against type here, with the flamboyant Flynn as the flamboyant Custer in this rousing tribute, not only to Custer, but to the men of the 7th Cavalry. The story traces the life of the famed 'Boy General" from his turbulent days at West Point to his final fight at the Little Big Horn. Great liberties are taken with facts here, and we are presented with a Custer that is much more sympathetic to the plight of the redman than history relates. But this one is done on such a grand scale, the battle scenes alone provided employment for every extra in Hollywood. Down beat ending and all, this is great fun! | 1 |
I have to say although I despise these kind of shows, shock horror, I'm a girl, I feel I have to express my opinion. I had seen Dirty Sanchez before I saw Jackass and think it way surpasses Jackass in terms of programme making. Story lines and interviews are inter weaved to create a more interesting show. I saw a few minutes of Jackass movie the other night and couldn't believe how poorly put together it was, everything just put in a line joke after joke with no relation between anything. It must have been the quickest easiest show to edit ever, shockingly amateur. While drinking puke isn't really my thing, as far as a substantial entertainment show goes, Dirty Sanchez is way out of Jackass's league. | 1 |
This movie was very funny, I couldn't stop smiling when watching this and have already watched it twice in a period of 2 days! The movie is distinctively unique in it's humor and visuals, both are terrific and on par with Natali's other (more serious) movie gems Cube and Cypher. I have become a huge Vincenzo Natali fan ever since watching Cypher and everything he's made is very interesting.<br /><br />Very likable about this movie are the music and "loser" characters Dave and Andrew, portrayed by David Hewlett and Andrew Miller (co-writer of the story), actors I both like very much. Also cool are the X-Box Dead Or Alive fights (you even see Dave playing Halo at a point) and Andrew's amazing guitar solo, among many other things.<br /><br />All in all a great feel-good film about friendship. You have to see this! | 1 |
I have to admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like "Syriana", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.<br /><br />Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to "rent" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.<br /><br />Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end. | 0 |
I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.<br /><br />But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.<br /><br />Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.<br /><br />It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.<br /><br />After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.<br /><br />I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches. | 0 |
talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was... | 0 |
Think of this pilot as "Hawaii Five-O Lite". It's set in Hawaii, it's an action/adventure crime drama, lots of scenes feature boats and palm trees and polyester fabrics and garish shirts...it even stars the character actor "Zulu" in a supporting role. Oh, there are some minor differences - Roy Thinnes is supposed to be some front-line undercover agent, and the supporting cast is much smaller (and less interesting), but basically the atmosphere is still the same. Problem is, "Hawaii Five-O" (another QM product) already existed at the time and had run for years. It filled the market demand for Hawaii-based crime dramas quite adequately. Code Name: Diamond Head may have been intended as the hier to H50 as the older series eventually dwindled away...but it comes across as a superfluous, 2nd rate copy. It doesn't suck, but it's completely derivative and doesn't do anything as well as the original.<br /><br />There is some decent acting talent involved here. Thinnes is an old pro, and he gives the role his best shot, and he isn't bad. But Thinnes is only as good as his material and his director. Ian McShane is in here as an evil spy master named "Tree", and McShane tends to be the most interesting actor in any scene he appears in. But he's phoning his part in here. Frances Ngyuen is reasonably exotic looking, but her astounding skinniness, opaque features, thick accent and wooden delivery aren't the stuff of which dreams are made. Relying on her to supply the 'romantic interest' for Thinnes was probably the series' biggest mistake. At least for for a series aimed at white audiences brought up with Marsha Brady and Peggy Lee as our love goddesses. Give her another 30 lbs and a year with a dialog/voice coach, and she might cut it. Zulu is, well, his usual self - enjoyable in bit parts, but he isn't a person who can carry a feature by himself. <br /><br />In addition, the plot and dialog are strictly by-the-numbers, with nothing to distinguish them from any other Quinn Martin production. And by this point, the American TV audience had seen a whoooole lot of QM productions....I think "CN: DH" was one too many, and it sank without a trace. It wasn't the really the actors' fault, and I hope they walked away from this with a decent paycheck and one more entry on their C.V.s. <br /><br />MST3000 revived this for their treatment in their sixth season, and they had a lot of good natured fun with it. Worth seeking out in that version if you enjoy the MST approach to movie japery and lampoon, but I can't imagine anyone caring about this pilot for any other reason. | 0 |
The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'. | 0 |
PLOT IN A NUTSHELL: Dave Seville, father figure & manager of the Chipmunk brothers Alvin, Simon & Theodore, has gone off to Europe on a business trip, leaving the boys at home with Miss Miller as their watcher, much to the chagrin of Alvin, who wanted to go to Europe. While playing against his female counterpart, Brittany, the leader of the Chipettes, comprised of her younger sisters Jeanette (the female counterpart of Simon) and Eleanor (the female counterpart of Theodore) in a fierce arcade game of Around the World in 30 Days, they catch the attention of two evil foreign siblings who need to smuggle money & diamonds around the world, but need a way to do it that won't draw the attention of their arch enemy, Jamal. The 2 evil siblings, Claudia & Klaus, overhear the banter between Alvin & Brittany and decide to use them as the delivery boys & girls for their loot (more Claudia's idea than Klaus's, the latter initially objects feeling that it's too dangerous for children). The 2 siblings make an offer to the boys & girls - travel via air balloons to 12 drop off points to leave dolls (which resemble the kids) that contain diamonds and/or money to indicate their arrival, with the promise that whoever wins the race will get an obscene amount of money. But as the two different set of talking animal siblings make their rounds, they are stalked by the henchmen of Jamal - but who is Jamal? Is he friend or foe? <br /><br />OVERALL: Enjoyable, lighthearted farce based on the 1980s TV series version of Alvin & the Chipmunks. Beautiful animation is a highlight, lacks the crude humor that keeps creeping into today's family films and engaging songs (Boys & Girls of Rock & Roll being a stand out). Eagle eyed fans will probably notice that Brittany's character design has been tweaked from the animated series, giving her a less round face while adding a seemingly permanent blush to cheeks (which Jeanette & Eleanor also display).<br /><br />Keep an ear out for Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson. | 1 |
Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it. | 0 |
I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the "films" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.<br /><br />Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is "good enough" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think "At least I accomplished SOMETHING" or "Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.<br /><br />Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment "the worst movie ever made".<br /><br />Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think "I can do better than THAT" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.<br /><br />I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it. | 0 |
"Catchfire" or "Backtrack" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.<br /><br />The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.<br /><br />Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it. | 0 |
What starts as a homespun comedy-drama and then halfway turns into a melodrama made a major star of John Garfield - and justly so. But Jeffrey Lynn is not to be dismissed as the object of affection of the four daughters. Lynn is very handsome and is so charming it's easy to believe that all four daughters could fall for him. Although Garfield received most of the kudos, Lynn became a major leading man at Warner Bros. as a result of this film.<br /><br />Michael Curtiz insisted on location shooting for the picnic scene, making it the highlight of the film. Throughout, the craftsmanship is enough to inspire awe. A soap opera by Fanny Hurst has been turned into a cinema masterpiece. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.