text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
The New Batman Adventures (also called Gotham Knights) takes place 5 years after the final episodes of Batman: the Animated Series (B:TAS) and only aired for 24 episodes. This isn't a horrible show, but it just isn't as good as the original Batman Animated Series. I'll start with all the things that I found not to be very good.<br /><br />First thing's first, the animation itself: long and sweet, Gotham isn't dark anymore, the sky is always bright red and orange, B:TAS did this also, but it was drawn on a dark palate, do the colour of the sky was more ominous, in this show, the colour of the sky is too bright. It all just looks like any other kids show and doesn't seem unique like Batman: TAS did with it's dark, cool art style on Gotham. The art style is OK, but doesn't remind me of Batman anymore. Every character is comprised of straight lines, squares, and triangles making characters look less human-like. In the original series (B:TAS), characters look more like drawn versions of real people. The animation may be more consistent here than in B:TAS, but it definitely isn't as good. <br /><br />Next: some of the episodes seem too dumbed down and childish, but some of the subject matter is even stronger than in B:TAS.(Two-Face attempting to kill Tim Drake/Robin 2, and some villains get some pretty harsh treatment). This leads me to my next point.<br /><br />Because this is supposed to take place in the future as well as the final episodes of the Batman Animated Universe, many villains do meet their demise or leave forever. Poison Ivy apparently drowns when a cruise ship explodes; Two-Face nearly kills Penguin, Killer Croc, and himself, so he's moved to Arkham forever; Joker falls into the exhaust tower of an industrial plant (though he will return later on the Justice League Animated Series); Catwoman moves away to France leaving Batman, etc... Just because the series is ending does not mean that they have to get rid of some great characters! The villains' motives are pretty bad, too. There are none! In B:TAS, we learn that these villains are mentally tormented and their lives are ruined, that's why they act the way they do, in this show, the villains are just committing crimes to progress the story. It's like Batman just doesn't even care about saving whatever sanity there is left in the people that he fights, he just beats them senseless. This Batman is a colder and meaner version of the character, but since he's been doing this job for years, I can see why he is so harsh. <br /><br />Next, the redesigned character models: they're awful. Gordon slimmed down about 100 pounds... is he sick? Many villains look STUPID (Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter, and Killer Croc are among the WORST). Although, I do think that some characters look better (Bane, Scarecrow, Batgirl). Harley is about the same, and Ivy (who is even hotter now) has pale green skin.<br /><br />With the series having many faults, some episodes are great- Over the Edge, Mad Love, Beware the Creeper, Girls Night Out, Old Wounds, Legends of the Dark Knight, and Never Fear are my favourite ones here, in my opinion. All of the crossovers featuring Batman in the Superman Animated Series were great, also.<br /><br />The absolute WORST part about this show is how the creators say they love the animation of this series more than the original. On the DVD features of the original Batman Animated Series, they talk about how proud they were with the art style, and how difficult some characters were to animate, but they did eventually succeed with (the difficult animation necessary to animate Clayface, for example). On the DVD features of the New Batman Adventures, the creators basically say "To Hell with B:TAS, this is a fresh, new re-vamp, it looks better and we love how we NEARLY RUINED THE SERIES!" (Alright, that is an exaggeration). When the creators cast away the amazing art style of B:TAS, that really annoyed me!<br /><br />It's not a bad show, but I still don't like it as much as the original animated series. At least the show doesn't talk down to its audience, so for that reason, I still commend it. Though some of the episodes in this new series are fantastic and worth watching. <br /><br />Superman: the Animated Series, and Justice League: the Animated Series are great follow-up shows to Batman: the Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures, so give them a watch as well. | 1 |
Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. <br /><br />The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, "George Grisby," is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the "strange" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says. <br /><br />Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints. <br /><br />This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game. | 1 |
The most die-hard worshippers of John Wayne will cringe when they watch The Lawless Frontier. Even for a poverty row studio, this one is one stinkeroo.<br /><br />Unusual for a western we have a criminal who is a sex crime perpetrator. Earl Dwire plays a halfbreed white and Indian who for reasons that are not explained, pretends he's a Mexican, hokey accent and all. Dwire sounds like the Frito Bandito of advertising fame back in the day.<br /><br />He and his gang happen upon Gabby Hayes and his daughter Sheila Terry. They really don't have anything worth robbing, but Dwire just wants an excuse to kidnap Terry and have his way with her. She hears the dastardly fate she has in store and she and Hayes flee the ranch. <br /><br />Where they happen to meet John Wayne who's on the trail of the bandits. They also run into one very stupid sheriff who believes Wayne is one of the bandits. Again for reasons I can't quite fathom.<br /><br />It was a tough way to earn a living grinding out horse operas like these for the Duke. Fortunately better things were on the way. | 0 |
San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.<br /><br />First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.<br /><br />Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.<br /><br />In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either. | 0 |
Being an Austrian myself this has been a straight knock in my face. Fortunately I don't live nowhere near the place where this movie takes place but unfortunately it portrays everything that the rest of Austria hates about Viennese people (or people close to that region). And it is very easy to read that this is exactly the directors intention: to let your head sink into your hands and say "Oh my god, how can THAT be possible!". No, not with me, the (in my opinion) totally exaggerated uncensored swinger club scene is not necessary, I watch porn, sure, but in this context I was rather disgusted than put in the right context.<br /><br />This movie tells a story about how misled people who suffer from lack of education or bad company try to survive and live in a world of redundancy and boring horizons. A girl who is treated like a whore by her super-jealous boyfriend (and still keeps coming back), a female teacher who discovers her masochism by putting the life of her super-cruel "lover" on the line, an old couple who has an almost mathematical daily cycle (she is the "official replacement" of his ex wife), a couple that has just divorced and has the ex husband suffer under the acts of his former wife obviously having a relationship with her masseuse and finally a crazy hitchhiker who asks her drivers the most unusual questions and stretches their nerves by just being super-annoying.<br /><br />After having seen it you feel almost nothing. You're not even shocked, sad, depressed or feel like doing anything... Maybe that's why I gave it 7 points, it made me react in a way I never reacted before. If that's good or bad is up to you! | 1 |
1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all. | 1 |
This is a really good flick with awesome humor. Jim Verney as we know was very good with facial expressions and demonstrates a lot of it in this movie.This is definitely the best of the Ernest films.I would surely recommend it to any Ernest fan out there.i find myself to have great taste in movies and I'm sure anyone will enjoy this movie. In the movie ,(Ernest) plays 2 roles, bad guy and good guy and plays them quite well. I really enjoy exaggeration type humor where things just seem impossible,like in the naked gun films for example, and there is plenty of it in this movie.I bought this movie right after i saw it. Good directing, good script, worth renting. | 1 |
This movie is a mess. I'm surprised it even has a theatrical release. WIthout Robin Williams it would have gone straight to video. It is poorly written. It is poorly directed. It's worse offense is that it has taken an interesting topic and reduced it to a ridiculous and BORING thriller that has no thrills and no suspense and no inner or emotional logic.Especially after the first half hour the movie dovetails into a series of ridiculous set pieces that are so over the top that the audience I saw it with was laughing at it. Save your money. The trailer is totally misleading - it is not suspenseful and there are no thrills - in fact the movie's truly worst offense is that it is simply boring. | 0 |
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir. | 0 |
Clint Eastwood scores big in this thriller from 1993.Teamed with an absolute master of edge of your seat suspense,Wolfgang Peterson, Eastwood delivers as only he can.Also,John Malkovich goes on my list of most effective screen villains in the history of cinema as the demented assassin.As for Rene Russo as Clint's love interest,I think Kirk Douglas said it best when he said,referring to his own career,"I keep getting older,and my leading ladies keep getting younger".This film is a very effective thriller with enough plot twists and surprises to keep you going.Eastwood and Peterson should team together more often. Top notch movie. | 1 |
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.<br /><br />Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.<br /><br />Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.<br /><br />There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10. | 0 |
The last person who dies before New Years, is cursed to drive the Phantom Carriage for a whole year, picking up the souls of the dead.<br /><br />I saw a scene from this old silent Swedish horror film on Youtube, and decided to track down the whole movie. It was well worth the work finding it, because it's an absolutely amazing movie for the time it was made. It has a wonderfully eerie atmosphere. The old time horror film makers really knew how to create the perfect atmosphere. Sadly, many of today's film makers don't seem to understand how important setting and atmosphere are, and go for the cheap jump scares. The visual effects are excellent, considering its date of production. If you can find a copy of this, I highly recommend giving it a watch. 9/10 | 1 |
It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.<br /><br />It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. <br /><br />Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.<br /><br />I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?! | 0 |
It's been over 30 years now but I still remember that this movie was the worst I've ever seen. I would have thought that in this length of time something worse would have been filmed but I was mistaken. I just finished watching "STARSHIP TROOPERS" and it came mighty close but it was still more entertaining than " POOR COW ". | 0 |
SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.<br /><br />The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.<br /><br />The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.<br /><br />There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10. | 0 |
I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away. Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite "Company" (which was a very good effort) and "Vaastav" (more focused on the journey of the protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to Satya.<br /><br />When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself "Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now". The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the "encounter" at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their routine.<br /><br />Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie hall.<br /><br />But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues, I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie.<br /><br />The movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi, Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster Oh My God! He learns under the tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him.<br /><br />Prasad Purandhare as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster.<br /><br />Not that I have not been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea it's almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country. It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one.<br /><br />Last but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force to reckon with in the coming years. | 1 |
The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.<br /><br />Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.<br /><br />What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!" <br /><br />Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss. | 0 |
i had gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clichéd characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of time. | 0 |
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith. | 0 |
At first I didn't didn't like it that much, although I did. They didn't include the third Trueba generation, the love between Blanca and Pedro wans't well explained and some actors were too different from what I had imagined.<br /><br />Later I realized that, had the movie been more loyal to the book, it would have been like five hours long, and would be kind of tedious. Now I like it very much, because my favourite characters are there as I portraited them. Clara really looks like an Angel in live, and her introduction to the story at the beggining of the film was fantastic, loyal and short. Glenn Close is Ferula. I pictured her just like that, only not in mourning throughout the whole thing. Esteban is find enough. I never really liked his character, and, although I was interested in him, I hated him a lot, more specially when he hit Clara. As in the book, the very last part is the most exciting one, and it has real history too there.<br /><br />The movie is really good, specially considering that it was a gringo film based upon a latin american book. Its amazing how many famous stars are there, don't you think so? | 1 |
Michael Keaton is "Johnny Dangerously" in this take-off on gangster movies done in 1984. Maureen Stapleton plays his sickly mother, Griffin Dunne is his DA brother, Peter Boyle is his boss, and Marilu Henner is his girlfriend. Other stars include Danny DeVito and Joe Piscopo. Keaton plays a pet store owner in the 1930s who catches a kid stealing a puppy and then tells him, in flashback, how he came to own the pet store. He turned to thievery at a young age to get his mother a pancreas operation ($49.95, special this week) and began working for a mob boss (Boyle). Johnny uses the last name "Dangerously" in the mobster world.<br /><br />There are some hilarious scenes in this film, and Stapleton is a riot as Johnny's foul-mouthed mother who needs ever organ in her body replaced. Peter Boyle as Johnny's boss gives a very funny performance, as does Griffin Dunne, a straight arrow DA who won't "play ball" with crooked Burr (Danny De Vito). As Johnny's nemesis, Joe Piscopo is great. Richard Dimitri is a standout as Moronie, who tortures the English language - but you have to hear him do it rather than read about it. What makes it funny is that he does it all with an angry face.<br /><br />The movie gets a little tired toward the end, but it's well worth seeing, and Keaton is terrific as good boy/bad boy Johnny. For some reason, this film was underrated when it was released, and like Keaton's other gem, "Night Shift," you don't hear much about it today. With some performances and scenes that are real gems, you'll find "Johnny Dangerously" immensely enjoyable. | 1 |
Mmmm, a previous summary says "if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it. | 0 |
I never watched the 'Next Action Hero' show, and until reading the other comments here, did not know that this movie was the 'prize' from that competition. I was just flipping channels and came across this, and found myself watching, dare eagerly, all the way to the end.<br /><br />Yes, the plot's been done (The Most Dangerous Game, etc.) but I was hoping for, and almost received, the 'gotcha' - how the protagonist was going to beat the hunter in the end. I think the high-tech was overdone (GPS's) and gave me cold-sweat flashbacks of Night Rider, but it nevertheless was not too overdone.<br /><br />The basic problem I had with this movie was the degree of SOD (Suspension of Disbelief) that was required of the viewer. Do we really think that someone flying in a helicopter could lob countless incendiary grenades at a public bridge and NO COPS show up to investigate? Could a limousine do countless donuts in a Las Vegas intersection and NO COPS show up? Pleeease. Way too much of that type of thing - fun to watch, but keep it at least plausible, thank you very much.<br /><br />The final solution was good, but the ending was disappointing, with the after taste of a bad Star Trek episode. At least now I understand why the acting was so cheesy - except for Zane, who doesn't get near as much work as he deserves IMHO - they were winners from a reality show.<br /><br />Knock me out. | 1 |
Adrianne, should really get a life-without Mr. "Brady". She nauseates me, and has been one of the main reasons why I know longer tune in to the show. It's pretty brainless show, and every little argument or disagreement seems to be put under the scope and analyzed to death. This makes them look/sound they are anything but ready for marriage, and yet, I know these disagreements are all part of life. I guess to some people this is entertainment. If this happens to fall into next season I will feel sorry for anyone who has nothing better to do with their life but watch this trash. Though I would not be terribly surprised. can't even stand the commercials for this show anymore! I hope they're getting enough money to constantly embarrass themselves in front of a camera week after week. However, the "A" girl has one heck of great butt! | 0 |
Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:<br /><br />If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind. movie, it may get 3 or 4. That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time. This movie isn't. But I guess a lot of independent movies are about showing movie skills, and considering this, this movie has a few highlights. If I am to comment on what the directors should take with them to their next project, I guess the distorted sound effects had some quality. They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot. Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point? I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)<br /><br />This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film. I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.<br /><br />There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie. The story should have been more streamlined. I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery. The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up. <br /><br />Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant. I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.<br /><br />If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.<br /><br />As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie. This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint. | 0 |
The film's tagline is "You think you know who you are. You have no idea." I reject both the suggested idea that I have no idea who I am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. If people in real life are really like this, then man, we're screwed.<br /><br />A bilious film that I walked into late and left prematurely. A film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming The Race Film of All Time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use.<br /><br />The rules of Hollywood are such: if you show something in the first half, it must be used in the second half. Thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. The rules of Hollywood are to make dialog 'real' - a concept which changes with every decade. Is this 'real dialog' somehow less ludicrous than the 'real dialog' of Kevin Smith ten years ago? The rules of Hollywood state that we set the scene, and as action rises, the camera moves in closer to the faces - in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame, humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. The strings increase, the frame-rate slows down, and our heart is meant to break.<br /><br />This film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. I have my own prejudices against L.A., which I freely admit, so to combat this prejudice I will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location, but rather probably from the author and director. The writer, Paul Haggis, already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his Million Dollar Baby, which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script's ideas. Now that Paul Haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true, natural human drama, he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. Paul Haggis comes from the land of TV, let us not forget: the land of diminished expectations.<br /><br />Everything is as obvious as a TV-movie, simply presented for simple minds - Haggis drills into us, over and over again, that while on the surface people may seem to be awful, they have secret pains hidden. This is a nice idea, but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad/good has an amateurish feel. Structurally the film is broken up, in the tradition of Magnolia and other earlier films. The editing is as typical and conventionally "cinematic" as could be - if there is a dramatic movement, such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera, the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. The problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving, there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts - everything is kept by the books. Not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled, but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence.<br /><br />The film tries desperately to present reality, but there's just no talent whatsoever. Some of the actors are good, some of the actors are bad, and all of the performance get muddied together, brought down by the low, low aesthetics of the film. We have cinematography which is technically clear: we can see the scene, we have a clear understanding of what is happening. However, not only is the cinematography unremarkable, but it is thoughtless camera-work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. The result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. For example - and this is a spoiler - as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too, I didn't stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous Vertigo track/zoom. The Vertigo shot!!! It was at this point that the film became hysterical and I just had to leave. I had to leave because it was so bad. I left because I was in the middle of a crowded theater, and I wanted to express to the audience that I was sick of emptyheaded Hollywood 'art' which is full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing (in the Bard's own words). I hate to waste such good Shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad. | 0 |
This movie had the potential to be a decent thriller, but it was hampered by only having about twenty minutes worth of good script, which was mostly used up in the beginning. After that holes started to appear in the story that one could drive a truck through. The movie followed a descending curve from good to ordinary to bad to ludicrous by the time it concluded. It's not recommended. | 0 |
here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??<br /><br />this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch. | 0 |
The storyline was okay. Akshay Kumar was good as always and that was the only good thing about the movie. Kareena Kapoor looked bad. There was so hue and cry over her size zero but she did not looked good leaner. I don't know why the hell did Anil Kapoor accepted such a bad role. There was nothing much to do for him in the movie. Just because it is a Yashraj film does not means that an actor should accept the role however bad it is. Said Ali khan was alright. I think that it is high time that Indian directors and producers start thinking of Indian customers as intelligent lot. What are we ? fools!!!! What do they think, they will show 2 men taking on a SWAT squad to teeters and we will believe them. Is the Indian police so stupid that they are trying to nab some criminals.... they take an entire squad of 100 + policemen and no one was there to surround the palace. The action was crap and I have never seen such bad action. Akshay Kumar was between a circle of 30-40 policemen all shooting at him..... and he shooting back at them. None of the policemen's bullet touched him but he killed all the policemen. Crap. CRAP.<br /><br />I think the fight director who thought of this scene should take retirement.<br /><br />I strongly recommend NOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE. | 0 |
Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. *** | 1 |
Didn't have much aspiration for this film, but was pleasantly surprised. Very well made film, very well cut, doesn't really get to the height that Human Traffic did, but it's a very good effort. Well directed, and I thought the lead actor put in a superb performance! In fact the only really bad performance in the film was from Tim Curry, who is supposed to be the name.<br /><br />Cool Film surprised it hasn't done better than it has. I'd never heard of it until I saw it at a mates.<br /><br />I'm not a raver, but I imagine people who are will really like this film. | 1 |
At 2:37, a high school student commits suicide. Not shown who has taken their lives or reasons known, time skips back to the start of the day. From here we follow six separate students; Marcus, Melody, Luke, Steven, Sarah and Sean. Each student is struggling with their own moral dilemmas, all reaching boiling point, hitting to an end for one.<br /><br />After losing a friend to suicide, and surviving his own suicide attempt, writer/director Murali K. Thalluri has created a revetting drama focusing on teen life and the horrible act of suicide. Suicide has been a topic that has been kept in the shadows, 2:37 is Thalluri's attempt to bring it to light. If you have been touched by the act of suicide or anyone who has, 2:37 becomes all the harder to view.<br /><br />With heavy and hard subject matter, Thalluri also tackles everyday teenage life crisis's. Sex, pregnancy, sexual identity, bullying, friendship, Thalluri manages and shows them in an extremely realistic manner. The factor on Thalluri's talent is his subtlety. He respect his subject and the problems that everyone will have suffered through at sometime. It verges near documentary at times, it has such a painful realism; the interviews with each character spliced through the film only heightens this.<br /><br />2:37 has a distinctive similarity to Gus Van Sants film Elephant. While the core of each film is different, both tackle teen life. Like Sant, Thalluri utilizes long tracking shots, with time skipping back and forth, to show each characters interaction from different perspectives. A defining point to Elephant was its ethereal ambiance. With spare conversation, little development of characters, and the long tracking shots, Sant created a haunting and mesmerizing atmosphere to a coming dread. While there resides this dread in 2:37, the emotional connection to the characters reaches a higher level Sant couldn't reach. As time goes by, each characters fragility creeps out, dragging you along their emotional roller-coaster.<br /><br />The real hit in this film comes with the inevitable suicide, foretold at the very beginning. The hard part about this scene is the complete intrusion and discomfort we have as an audience watching someones life end in a gruesome fashion. Though many films that have shown suicide, gloss over the act or romanticizes the act. Thalluri shows the pain and agony involved with this act and that its not the best solution. With unknowns in the leads and their first major roles; Teresa Palmereach, Frank Sweet, Joel Mackenzie, Marni Spillane, Charles Baird and Sam Harris all show immense talent and promising acting careers.<br /><br />Compelling and revetting, 2:37 is an absolutely unmissable film. | 1 |
I have seen some pretty bad movies, and this is right up there. No plot to speak of, it's like one of those bad coma episodes on a soap-opera. I just wanted to smack that little girl because, well lets just say, she's real suspicious all the way through the movie. The monsters running around wearing some bling was funny. I also saw a bit of "Silent Hill" in there. And I read that this was done by, and or stared a Finnish metal band, Lordi. So it's no wonder that it didn't make much sense. It seem to be a vehicle for promoting there band and nothing more. The FX are very good, the look of the movie, the monsters, and even the acting also good. But the story and the telling of it, just aren't there. | 0 |
Once a month, I invite a few friends over for a "Retarded Movie Night". We look forward to movies that are either so bad they're funny or movies that know they don't have a plot and just show a lot of chests. Last night, we were unfortunate enough to have Zombie Planet as one of our movies. The cinematography is on par with what we're used to, but the acting was a different story. The lead role is played by a Johnny Depp/Rob Zombie wanna-be who couldn't get a role in a high school play, let alone a LOW-BUDGET horror film. Our indecisive hero, who couldn't tell whether or not he wanted to be a bad-ass this scene or a whimpering coward was one of the reasons why this was the first movie of 30 that I have ever had to stop early during a Retarded Movie Night. It had the possibility for greatness with a GREAT twist on the standard zombie infection, but they took it an entirely different direction based on Johnny Zombie. I personally would not recommend this to any of my friends. However, it's unfortunate that I already invited a few over last night to suffer through 80% of this movie with me. | 0 |
So, Madonna isn't Meryl Streep. Still, this is one of her first films and a comedy at that. Give her a break! Sure, the movie is mediocre at best and pales in comparison to its earlier counterpart w/ Katherine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby. For what it is, though(a piece of fluff), it's quite a bit of fun to watch. I've yet to hear anyone that slams Madonna's acting skills back it up w/ evidence or even adjectives other than "awful", "bad", or other such vague descriptive words. If you wanna see bad acting or justify the argument that singers should stick to singing, how about Whitney Houston?? She's had the most undeserved commercial success of any actress in history and couldn't act her way out of a hatbox. The American public obviously cannot discern the difference between a credible performance in a movie and star power. I think Madonna has always been at least credible in her movies. Get real people. Madonna-bashing is so 90's. | 1 |
This movie was, as Homer Simpson would have put it, "more boring than church." Maybe I don't understand it well enough, and I thought it started out pretty well, but after (START OF SPOILER) Hermann Braun is sent to jail and Maria starts working/sleeping with her boss it just started to drag, and I struggled to keep awake. Again, maybe it symbolizes something, but the explosion at the end seemed very forced and out of place. (END OF SPOILER). In the end, I fail to see why others think it's so great, as I found it extremely boring. By the way, I did not watch this movie by my own free will, as I was required to see it for a Film class. | 0 |
- A group of bandits rob a train of the gold shipment it is carrying. In their escape, the bandits split up. The one thief who knows where the gold is hidden is killed before he is able to talk. Three men have a different part of the "clue" that will lead to the gold. Can the banker, the bandit, and the bounty hunter work together to locate the missing loot? Or, will they kill each other first? - The plot is an obvious take-off of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Various scenes in the movie are also lifted from other films by Leone, Corbucci, and more. But, to me, it's done in a way that doesn't show disrespect to the original work. Instead, Any Gun Can Play lovingly parodies some of the biggest films in Spaghetti Western history. The opening scene of three men riding into town and the final face-off between the three main stars are a wonderful homage to the SWs that came before.<br /><br />- Castellari adds a lot of nice touches of his own - the reflection in the spilled wine, the Stranger's entrance with the vivid red background, and the playful way the gold is discovered in the end. Although highly unbelievable, many of the fight scenes are well staged and directed. Two fight scenes in particular (the market fight and the bath house fight) are very nicely done. He is also unafraid to try different things with his camera. Tight close-ups, overhead shots, and shots around corners are all common in Any Gun Can Play.<br /><br />- Another plus is the cast that Castellari had to work with. George Hilton is always good in these movies. Gilbert Roland is literally playing Gilbert Roland. And SW newcomer Edd Byrnes holds his own with the two SW veterans. The supporting cast features, among others, SW regular Gerard Herter.<br /><br />- Any Gun Can Play should not be taken too seriously. Nice touches of humor can be found throughout the movie. If this is possible with an SW, it's more of a "feel good" movie - very reminiscent of some of the Terence Hill / Bud Spencer films. | 1 |
This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, "Hollywood North" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, "Flight to Bogota" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, "Hollywood North" is a great place to start. | 1 |
In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan. Shogun Mayeda is a multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents.<br /><br />Starring cinema legends Sho Kosugi (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins), Christopher Lee (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), John Rhys Davies (Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Indiana Jones Trilogy) and Toshiro Milfune (The Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood), Shogun Mayeda (Kabuto) is a film masterpiece.<br /><br />The Osaka winning stunt team bought to the screen by Bob Ivy bring exciting battle/action sequences such as the opening battle against the Eastern army, the attack on Mayeda's ship carrying priceless jewels and the final confrontation between Sho Kosugi and David Essex. A fine musical score by famed composer John Scott is also present. Director Sho Kusugi was not even nominated for an Oscar for this film which deals with the emotional strife such as the death of Mayedas family, the search for love and acceptance after grieving, all of which is dealt with extremely well. Highly recommended cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />Please note: All of the above is opposite for the film in question. | 0 |
Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year. | 0 |
It's not Citizen Kane, but it does deliver. Cleavage, and lots of it.<br /><br />Badly acted and directed, poorly scripted. Who cares? I didn't watch it for the dialog. | 1 |
Well, I like to watch bad horror B-Movies, cause I think it's interesting to see stupidity and unability of creators to shoot seriously good movie. (I always compare this movies to - for example - some Spielberg's works and again-and-again don't understand the huge difference in what I see.) I like Ed Wood's movies cause it's so inept it's very funny. But people!!! "The Chilling" is not funny and is not even "interesting". It's EXTREMELY BORING horror movie without ANYTHING what makes even bad movies watchable. There's no acting, no screenplay, no direction, no thrills and not even blood. It's extremely inept amateurish film. It's definitely the WORST movie I had ever seen (and I had seen a lot of "worst movies" - believe me). I warned you !!! 1/10 | 0 |
If anyone ever assembles a compendium on modern American horror that is truly worth it's salt, there will *have* to be an entry for SF Brownrigg's ubiquetous exercize in Asylum Horror. Every time I watch this movie I am impressed by the complete economy of the film, from the compact, totally self-contained plot with a puzzling beginning and an all too horrible ending, the engaging performances by what was essentially a group of non-professional actors, and a prevading sense of dread and claustrophobia that effectively consumes the narrarive with a certain inevitability which is all the more terrifying because the viewers know what is going on long before the hero[es], with the only question being when are they going to wake up & smell the coffee?<br /><br />Shot on a dental floss budget in Brownrigg's native Texas at an old palatial manor that nicely serves as the setting for a private sanitorium, DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is another intriguing twist on the good old Edgar Allan Poe tome about inmates taking over the asylum just before an otherwise "normal" outsider unwittingly joins the ranks without realizing until it is far too late that not all is what it seems, they are totally cut off & beyond any outside help, and inevitably find their own sanity questioned as the madness spins out of control -- The Original STAR TREK TV series had a go at this with their WHOM GODS DESTROY episode from 1968, Juan Moctezuma gave the proceedings a peyote fueled Mexican psychedelic trip in DR. TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON in 1972, and tangentially related is Fernando Di Leo's ASYLUM EROTICA/SLAUGHTER HOTEL, which injects the elements of an unknown killer and an ending that can only be defined as "Splatter Cinema" -- Brownrigg may not have seen or been thinking of SLAUGHTER HOTEL, but he sure came up with some similar ideas.<br /><br />Legaliciuos former Playboy Playmate Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, RN in Clinical Psychology, who has just left her nice job as a supervisor at a major hospital to travel way out into the middle of some god forsaken waste right out of a Peckinpah movie to work with a Dr. Stevens at his private sanitorium. Dr. Stevens has pioneered a new form of therapy based upon basically encouraging the emotionally & psychologically scarred to face their inner obsessions, bring them to the surface and hopefully rid the patients of whatever has fried their sense of reasoning. Nice idea, but arming a 6ft 250 pound utterly insane man with an axe and telling him to pound out his aggression AND THEN TURNING YOUR BACK ON HIM probably isn't the smartest idea, and Dr. Stevens is dispatched before Ms. Holotik even appears onscreen with a good whack to the lower portion of his skull.<br /><br />This event leaves the sanitorium effectively in the hands of one Geraldine Masters [actress Annabelle Weenick, who also served as the script supervisor & production manager], a woman of startlingly professional demeanor who quickly defuses the situation with the help of Sam, the film's wonderfully unlikely hero, a lobotomized African American boheomouth played by an actor named Bill McGhee who was sadly robbed of a supporting Oscar nomination for his turn as a mass of muscle with the brain of an 8 year old boy. Sam's one wish is to have someone help him put his prized toy boat "in the water", and his continual asking of the various female cast members to do so [and his nonstop consumption of chocolate popsicles] as *SOME* kind of underlying theme, though we will avoid such here because the kids might still be up. There is also a quick subplot about a staff member who has decided to leave after being threatened by one of the patients, but I'll leave the details of that to your discovery.<br /><br />Ms. Holotik arrives just as Dr. Stevens has been effectively laid to rest and is quickly won over by the snappy professionalism of Ms. Masters, who reluctantly allows the leggy young nurse to stay on in spite of the tragedy that has just happened, oh, TWENTY MINUTES AGO, which you must admit was rather sporting of her. Holotik's Nurse Beale begins to demonstrate symptoms of not being the sharpest meat cleaver in the drawer, however, when informed that she shares living quarters with a bunch of maniacs and there are no locks on the doors & doesn't trudge off for the nearest Ace Hardware Store to pick up a hasp and padlock to secure herself, and we are treated to a couple of truly creepy scenes where some of the inmates sneak into her room & do stuff like smell her hair, try to kill her with butcher knives and caress her neck with axe heads. But that's all a part of working in such a radical psychiatric health care environment, Ms. Master's informs her, and she goes about her oddly defined "rounds" that consist of wearing as leg defining a nurse outfit as you can find in a 42nd Street fetish boutique and getting to know the inmates.<br /><br />Allysson is a obsessive compulsive nymphomaniac with homicidal tendancies who likes to take off her shirt & provide the film with some T & A between fits of histrionics; Harriet is a young former mother who let her child die in a stupid accident and now dotes on a beat-up old doll that she is also homicidally protective of; The Seargant is an actual seargeant [and implied Vietnam vet] who's negligence led to the death of his platoon, and now watches from the window with binoculars for the approach of an unseen enemy; Jennifer is a Phish fan who couldn't score a ticket to the New Year's Eve Show and went insane & likes to scarf down nembutols and other barbituates when nobody is looking, and likewise has hidden homicidal tendancies linked to her inability to find a bra; Judge Cameron is apparently a homicidal pervert who became obsessed with his own sense of power and now likes to chop things up with axes; Ms. Callingham is an aged poet who serves as a sort of soothsaying old hag from MACBETH before the cat gets her tongue; and Danny is an insane idiot who was included in the cast as the random element that the plot cannot control, and who's antics serve as the real catalyst for the series of tragedies & murders that ultimately take place in this dark, old, creepy house in the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />The house itself is a wonderful set, with a threadbare early 1970's decor that is remarkable in it's unremarkableness, with a fantastic use of color achieved by subtle ambient lighting. The house is a series of hallways and rooms with shiny brown wooden floors, twisting, confined stairways, secreted closets and passageways leading to the different larger areas, and of course the basement mentioned in the title -- visited only once, but boy it sure proves to be a doozy! I love the frosted old freezer where Sam keeps his stash of popsicles, the utterly plain exteriors that remind me of a summer home our family used to visit every year & force us to swelter in the heat: Everyone is covered with beads of persperation and looks exhausted, and even the ever cheerful Sam at one point begins to suspect that bad things are happening, though he cannot understand what it all means and Rosie H. is too firm in her belief of her profession to even suspect what has really happened, and while Ms. Holotik's limitations of an actress may have diminished the effectiveness of her Big Revelation scene, she's a great screamer when all Hell starts to break loose, and Brownrigg indulged of some nice camera shots of her in various suggestive poses or stages of undress that show off what a pretty lady she is without exposing anything more than her contract stipulated. Too bad!<br /><br />The real show stealer is Sam, however, and fans of what I have been taught to refer to as Splatter Cinema will not be disappointed by the rather shocking finale, and there is something moving about how Sam runs to the protection of his friend and brutally kills everyone within arms reach in a matter of seconds that either suggests he was one mean motha before his lobotomy, or the film is CUT. In any event you won't be prepared for the ending the first time you see it, even though you as the viewer know what the score is long before anyone else in the film has put it all together.<br /><br />Except for one person: Rhea MacAdams' uproariously stereotyped old coot Mrs. Callingham [who seems to be inspired by the Donald Sutherland Old Woman character from the Michael Reeves' 1964 Christopher Lee film CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, in addition to a rather nasty death by round spike to the eye], who not only predicts the future, but has the film's most laugh out loud amusing bit of dialogue while on a walk in the garden with Ms. Holotik that runs something like this --<br /><br />"It's really beautiful out here. Do you get out much, Mrs. Callingham?" asks Holotik, to which the old woman replies<br /><br />"It's YOU who needs to get out."<br /><br />Hilarious, and one of those things you gotta kind of see for yourself to "get". DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is available on at least a half dozen "bargain bin" codefree DVD releases by companies like Brentwood Home Video, Diamond Entertainment, VCI and Platinum Disc Corp.'s HORROR CLASSICS series; I kind of like Alpha Video's sexily gorgeously decorated $6 release from 2003:<br /><br />Dig through those bargain bins! But make sure you get one with the 89/90 minute print contained therein; an older 83 minute version is downright confusing due to some of the trims, and you really need to see the ending credits as intended to bring this sick, twisted and surprisingly entertaining yarn to it's end.<br /><br />Masterpiece? Maybe not compared to THE EXORCIST or ROSEMARY'S BABY, but it is a very uniquely American horror film, and a genuine classic of the drive-in age that deserves to be rediscovered by anyone looking for something made with more than just a little bit of brain juice, and not a penny more than they absolutely needed.<br /><br />***1/2 out of **** | 1 |
No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or "Big Paulie" as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, "This Thing Of Ours". Thankfully, the "Eddie Monroe" filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh? | 1 |
This video was my first introduction to the Residents, and I couldn't stop playing it for the past three days. The visuals are dynamite and more inventive and technically complex than any I have ever seen on the big screen or small.<br /><br />The DVD loses points, however, for the pointless addition of new music. The original Residents music is unlike anything else you've ever heard, and will really tweak your brain in the best possible way. The new music however is uniformly uninteresting and in most cases is rather bad in comparison to some of the classic tracks. Also, the uncompleted Vileness Fats video feels VERY incomplete, and I could only fathom the plot of the story from extensive reading of the notes on the disc.<br /><br />Speaking of notes on the disc, this DVD features lots of cool easter eggs that will probably appeal to long-time fans of the Residents. Hint: look for icons on the notes pages that shouldn't be there.<br /><br />From a technical standpoint, the disc is one of the best DVD transfers available. There is virtually no observable pixelization, and only a little edginess in strong contrast points.<br /><br />Kudos for a top notch presentation. This disc really deserves your attention. | 1 |
How unfortunate, yet also fortunate, that two films about pot-holing -The Cave and The Descent - should arrive at much the same time. Sadly for The Descent its release in the UK on 7th of July coincided with the very day of the London underground tube/metro terrorist atrocity that killed almost 60 and injured hundreds - not a particularly good night/weekend to pop out to the cinema, especially to see a scary-as-sheesh film about likable women being trapped in a deep, dark, claustrophobic underground caving system. The two movies have virtually the same elements - a half dozen or so characters, lost in a previously unexplored caving system, with no-one outside aware they are trapped down there. Lots of water, caverns, danger... then ultimately some vicious human-like or human-derived creatures determined to prey upon them. Where the two are so different is that The Cave is unreal, entirely unbelievable, more Alien-esquire sci-fi fantasy adventure than horror, or drama. The comparatively minuscule-budgeted British film (filmed in southern England though set in the Appalachians) is five-pair-of-pants terrifying, a heart-stopping shocker so stomach turning that people walk out of screenings early in shock. It knocks off the girls in any old order - you genuinely have no idea what to expect next - surely not her! The Descent is also lit in naturalistic manner, making it all the more scary, unlike the laughably lit Cave which resembles a giant magical Christmas Santa's grotto, with cathedral-sized room after room dazzling in gloriously blue light from... who knows where, while the cavers torches are employed exclusively in artistically lighting up the granite-jawed heroes (each more puppet-like than any Team America / Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds creation). Fantastic amounts of equipment are carried too, yet despite this the impossibly deep-voiced actors clearly forgot to pack any sense of impending danger, drama, or anything worthy of a horror film - it's strictly PG rated. And in this instance the actors peg out in exactly the order that everyone expects them to - i quickly wrote a list after being introduced to each character, only getting Piper Perabo out of sequence. The Cave script is entirely by-numbers, unlike Shakespeare a room full of chimpanzees would eventually write it in under a week... Take a typical exchange between the 'good buddy' white and black leads that goes; "how many times have we been in this situation before bud?" - "too many" (replies Morris Chesnut). I swear, you could hear my suburban London audience gasp at the obviousness. The scariest thing about The Cave is that at the end there's a clear opening for 'the sequel' - 'The Cave 2: Overground' or whatever. Be afraid, be very afraid... Or instead catch The Descent and be truly afraid, very very very afraid. RR | 0 |
The opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing. <br /><br />Let Goldmember sink without trace. | 0 |
Kate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.<br /><br />Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Renée Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very "master/servant" mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: "It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill." George "You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?" <br /><br /> | 1 |
It is a risky business to film such a lavish production of "The Merchant of Venice". It could be a stodgy, wooden, period piece, or it could be laughable for its excesses. This version is neither. While I am not completely sold by Al Pancino's very restrained Shylock, he does give a competent and honorable performance. Jeremy Iron's Antonio, is as always with his tortured-self roles, riveting. Some of the lesser roles seemed to be a little to much in the spirit of boisterous fun, "a boy's own Venician adventure story", but the central plot is efficiently and sympathetically moved forward through the film.<br /><br />It goes without saying, that the location shots, costumes, and interiors were breathtaking, almost to the point of distraction.<br /><br />One thing, on which I do not wish to comment on, is the anti-semetic content of the play. The film is as sympathetic to the predicament of the Jews as possible while still portraying Shylock as the instrument of his own self-destruction. It is a sad comment that four centuries later, the director of this film found it necessary to comment on his nuanced view before the premiere screening at the Toronto film fest.<br /><br />This is a beautiful film, and I look forward to several viewings. | 1 |
In a better civilization, this and many other of the David Suchet movies would be released in theaters. The plots are fabulous (no, I'd no clue who had done it, but the clues were all there if I'd been more imaginative - the best kind of mystery), the production values astounding, the acting (from Edward Fox, Sarah Miles, Lysette Anthony, Megan Dodds, and of course David Suchet as Hercule Poirot) simply perfect, the dialogue wonderful, the music and sens of suspense and tension just wonderful stuff.<br /><br />One of the pleasures of these Hercule Poirot movies for a man is how many beautiful women star in them! Here were have two - the sexy sinuous Megan Doods and the stunning Lysette Anthony.<br /><br />You really can't go wrong renting these - they're just wonderful - like the most wonderful dinner in the most wonderful restaurant with the most perfect company you can imagine - your mind constantly working because it's all there and you struggle but by keeping your mind constantly thinking can keep up with everything - and the settings gorgeous.<br /><br />I can't think of movies that stimulate thought more than these Hercule Poirot/David Suchet movies. It's impossible to over-praise them - and I had never seen one before a few months ago nor read an Agatha Christie. | 1 |
The Paul Kersey of DEATH WISH 3 is very far removed from the Paul Kersey of the original film . If you remember the 1974 film then you will remember Kersey was a " Conchie " during the Korean war and that he was physically sick after he committed his first execution . Ten years later Kersey seems to have learned unarmed combat and how to handle anti tank weapons in his spare time . But I`ll overlook that gaffe because DW3 is the best of the sequels , lowlife scum bags get shot dead , burned alive , their teeth smashed , and thrown to their deaths by middle aged housewives armed with sweeping brushes . Yeah I know the gang members are multi ethnic and for that they deserve some credit but even if they`re not racist they`re still murdering scum who deserve all they get from Kersey and the innocent citizens . Who needs Mayor Rudy when you`ve got Paul Kersey , an anti tank rocket and a bunch of old age pensioners to reclaim the streets from the criminal creeps . Paul Kersey I salute you sir | 1 |
What can be said of this independent effort beyond the fact that it was shot with television cameras, and whether that was by conceit or budget constraints doesn't make the watching of this variation on a theme by Romero any easier. I was constantly reminded that I was watching somebody's school project, at best derivative, at worst cheap.<br /><br />Writer/director Georg Koszulinski (who also appears in the film) does some interesting things with stock footage, but that says more about his editing style than his directing style, which consists of in-your-face close-ups with TV cameras which made me think I was watching public-access television instead of an actual, honest-to-goodness film.<br /><br />The story copies and pastes bits and pieces from various sources, including the aforementioned Romero's DEAD trilogy, THE ROAD WARRIOR (dig that stock footage of a "future" that looks like the past) and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.<br /><br />What results is an hour-and-nothing's worth of zombies tracking down and eating humans. (Okay, the "humans" in this case are clones, but that doesn't change anything. It's the same menu.)<br /><br />The year is 2031, and the first strand of people who were cloned nineteen years before have started to malfunction, particularly in the dietary area. Of course, when clones go bad, the first thing they have a taste for is human flesh (or, in this case, cloned human flesh). It's not safe to be indoors, it's not safe to be outdoors. It's just a matter of time before the flesh-eating ghouls devour our heroes. Have you seen this before? <br /><br />I don't mind people ripping off Romero, if it's done well, but no new territory is covered in this film. It's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, shot with television cameras. What is particularly disappointing is that the DVD cover makes it look like it was shot, at the very least, with 8mm film. This wouldn't have been a problem with me if the story had not been equally cheap. The film offers a bleak vision of the future in which technology has evolved to the point where human cloning is possible. Must we continue to clone our favourite movies? | 0 |
This is one of the worst Sandra Bullock movie since Speed 2 But not quite that bad. I really lost it with those out of the blue not so "special effect". Guys, If you're an insomniac go with your girl to see this movie. I give it three sleepies! | 0 |
I got a few laughs out of this one, more than a lot of other so called comedies. The big ship was a knockout and getting to see a lot of it's scenery was fun: as was getting to see some of Dyan Cannon's curves. This wasn't the height of Lemmon's and Mattheau's career, but it wasn't a total dog as some suggest. | 1 |
A guy, with the unlikely name of Shy Walker, looks for his two daughters in a cornfield for an hour and a half. That's the entire plot...with across-the-board bad acting, of course. Walker wanders around a corn maze (maize? I get it! HAHAHA...not funny) and yells "Girls? Where are you?!?" about 1000 times. For some reason whenever he runs by a pumpkin, a chipmunk-sounding voice laughs (as if the pumpkin is laughing at him, yeah OK...). His daughters scream for most of the movie...even when there is no reason to scream (maybe because they are still stuck in this awful movie?). Twin girls straight out of 'The Shining' show up every now and then. Most of the corn maze looks the same so Walker's search gets very old very quickly. The filmmakers realize there is NOTHING going for this movie (even the music is repetitive) so they try to make things interesting by spinning the camera around really fast, filming upside down, inserting smaller pictures of the same shot at different angles, using red lights to make the corn look scary, and rotating the camera 360 degrees (at least I'm assuming these were done intentionally but it's likely just examples of incompetent film-making). More often than not, when Walker is wandering through the maze, you can't see his face. I guess the kid holding the camera can't look up that high... This movie gives you a new appreciation for the original 'Dark Harvest' (which doesn't have anything to do with this movie except for the fact it also features a cornfield). Don't be fooled by the R rating. Walker says the F word three times and now we have "an R-rated horror movie", ugh. The scarecrow on the cover doesn't even show up in this movie...and when you are wishing that those cheesy scarecrows from the first movie would come back, you know things are bad! Instead we get a guy in yellow boots chasing our hero around (unfortunately he is dressed similar to Mr. Walker so I didn't even realize he was being followed for a while). I figured out the identity of the guy in the yellow boots long before Walker did (the movie is almost over by the time he puts 2 and 2 together, natch). The end of the movie drags on and on...and just in case it isn't slow enough, there's some slow-motion! The last sound you hear (besides your own laughter) is very poor sound-dubbing. In case you can't tell, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. At least they didn't end with the promise of another sequel! | 0 |
What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole "little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the "plot" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows. | 0 |
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend... | 0 |
Esther Kahn is a young Jewish woman living in an overcrowded, Jewish Ghetto in 19th century England. She is surrounded by looming, oppressive, dreary, featureless, worn brick architecture, narrow sidewalks and streets, blacked out windows, and hordes of black-and-brown jacketed crowds.<br /><br />She lives in a tiny apartment with her large family whom operate a clothes shop within the apartment. As child, she worked, had no privacy, wore colourless clothing, shared a bed, and remained silent to avert the mockery of her mother and siblings who ridiculed her for mimicking them out of boredom.<br /><br />As a young woman, her life remains the same - she has no privacy, lives in a state of mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and inertia, exudes a blank, featureless expression, is clothed in plain, unremarkable clothing, and is continuously oppressed and dwarfed by the grey, mundane, massively imposing buildings, and narrow streets, and narrow hallways, and narrow doorways, and her loud-mouthed mother and siblings, and the prosaic, banal lifestyle of her family.<br /><br />Her only form of mental escape is the Yiddish theatre. Sitting in the balcony, front row, leaning over the rail, there is a vast space between her mind and the stage, a space that enables her to breathe, think, feel, and yearn.<br /><br />Yet despite the freedom of thought the open stage provides for Esther, her face and body remain torpidly somnolent, impassive, dispassionate.<br /><br />The plain and common looking Summer Phoenix brilliantly conveys Esther's emotionless demeanour - Summer/Esther does not convey any desire to want anything or anticipate anything.<br /><br />After an unusual explosive confrontation with her mother, Esther finally decides to break free from the bleak life she is trapped in.<br /><br />She is eventually cast in minor parts in a few stage plays, and meets Nathan Quellen, portrayed by quintessential British actor Ian Holm, who commences to teach Esther the technical skill of acting.<br /><br />From this point forward, Esther begins a grueling dual journey of learning how to act and learning how to feel.<br /><br />She begins experiencing emotions she never felt before, and she begins gaining the experience she needs to fully comprehend and wield the technical aspects of acting.<br /><br />Nathan walks her across the stage through the physical and emotional steps of surprise, hesitancy, anger, disgust, self-loathing, etc; she then begins walking through those emotions in her personal life.<br /><br />There are three truths, Nathan tells her - the truth of how a character reacts, the truth of how the actor would react, and the truth that a character and actor are not the same person.<br /><br />These technical steps and three truths slowly deconstruct Esther's defenses and lead her to two edifying experiences in the denouement of the film which mark the beginning of her freedom of thought, movement, and emotion.<br /><br />Esther Kahn is a technically challenging film to watch because of its odd and narrow camera shots, lackluster photo direction which conveys the realistic lackluster setting of the Ghetto, and Summer Phoenix's characterless and insipid and unappealing portrayal which brilliantly conveys Kahn's mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and lackluster nature.<br /><br />A must-see film for people who want to learn the technical craft of acting, and for people who appreciate minimalistic films and character studies. | 1 |
I bought this from Blockbuster for 99p. The guy behind the counter said the reason it was so cheap was because the disc was scratched to sh*t, but failed to mention that the reason it was so cheap was because the film was a p*ss poor effort that sucked harder than Paris Hilton in a hotel room home video. Talking of home videos, since when has it been fair game to release them as films - I mean to say, films used to employ actors and technicians and scriptwriters and so on - not any more - just gather your friends and lame-o ideas together for the weekend, lavish the production with an £8.00 budget, and get someone to fall down the stairs with a Casio keyboard (the soundtrack) - then slap it on the shelves, for some poor sap (me), to take home in lonely desperation. But here's the clincher - I fast forwarded through most of this, and tossed it to one side, ready for the hammers... until the next night, while watching a Darren Day horror 'Hellbreed' (£1.99 to take home and keep from a different Blockbuster). Now this film made 'Grim Weekend' look like The Exorcist, so I slapped Grim Weekend back on, to catch up on some of the moments listed on the wonderful IMDb boards, that viewers claimed were hilarious. Sure enough, once I had got over the misery, the pain, and the horror, of realising Grim Weekend was utter chod on toast, I could enjoy, savour, and downright get down to the funny stuff. And there's a lot of it. Check the boards. Then check the flick. Hell, it might even be worth it. AWWWWW CRAP! | 0 |
First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.<br /><br />I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.<br /><br />I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.<br /><br />This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.<br /><br />6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.<br /><br />Do not waste your life! | 0 |
"Porgy and Bess" is an outstanding production of George Gershwin's masterpiece. It is tastefully done in muted colors. The voices are outstanding. Although Sidney Portier's voice is dubbed for his singing portion, he gives a very touching performance. There is a remarkable performance by Sammy Davis Jr. as Sportin Life. There is yet no DVD available for viewing, and this piece begs for one. All intelligent movie goers who enjoyed it in 1959 will appreciate the release of this masterpiece on the new medium. The screen is filled with a dynamic presentation that rivals all other musicals including the outstanding ones by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Be sure to ask for it an your video supplier. Like "Songs of the South" by Walt Disney, it may be the assumption of racial overtones that is preventing the marketing of this cinema. | 1 |
After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life. | 0 |
Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.<br /><br />After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.<br /><br />"We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train." - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day) | 0 |
This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary. | 0 |
This is one of the worst movies I have seen this year. You should not see this movie but if you insist on wasting your time you should stop here, there are SPOILERS. Gray Matters centers on Gray and Sam Baldwin (Heather Graham and Tom Cavanagh). Only Gray and Sam are Brother and Sister; living together in everyone else's eyes as man and wife. No sex but just about everything else. Early on, the movie starts with its theme: 'the most absurd thing at the most absurd moment with you guessed it the most absurd reactions'. Gray and Sam decided to check out the dog park with a borrowed pooch. Rather then push her brother to get the skinny on first woman they see for him, she does it and gets to the nitty-gritty questions too. When she signals her brother to come over they start a 3-way date. Charlie (Bridget Moynahan) is the girl of THEIR dreams, like all the right things etc
Sam final hits Gray over the head and the couple finishes the date with a marriage proposal! That Charlie accepts! In one week Charlie, Gray and Sam are to be in Vegas. In the next week Charlie and Gray are off shopping for wedding gowns (apparently Charlie has an off-the-rack figure). Gray is slurping an iced latte when Charlie suggests Gray tries on some gowns as well and picks out a $10,000 frock for her. While Charlie is zipping her in this 'down-payment-on-a-house' gown Gray continues to slurp on the latte (I swear it was like a feed bag). What should happen but 'woops!' latte all over the gown. It is never explained how they got out of Bloomingdale's bridal salon with out a $10,000 mocha colored gown. Back to 'reality' Caesar's palace Las Vegas. They have the 'high roller room' (Sam is a resident surgeon and Charlie is an intern zoologist were do they get all this money?) Gray kicks Sam out to the single room down the hall so she and Charlie can have a bachelorette drink-a-thon were, you guessed it - they kiss. Gray remembers everything; Charlie remembers nada. They make it to wedding chapel and right when the Reverend gets to his line "If there is anybody is here who has any objection whatsoever to the union of these two lovebirds" Gray gets the hiccups. Gray excuses herself, for some reason the Reverend must repeat his last line and right on queue again 'hiccups'. Gray gets back to NY and starts dating any man she meets, literally. And of course one is you guessed it again! Gay. The other is a jerk and the third is a taxi cab driver (Alan Cummings) named Gordy. He is smittened with Gray but the feelings are not returned. They become great friends. This is good because when she comes clean with Sam about the kiss. He blows up and kicks her out of their apartment. When Sam comes to his senses he goes to her office. Gray works at an ad agency. This office is smack in the middle of the twilight zone. It has cameras and microphones in all the conference rooms that broadcast to all computer monitors at the agency. Sam gets Gray in one of the conference rooms for a not-so-private conversation and ends up outing her to the entire office. This is where I doubt that there was a gay man or lesbian on the crew: Gordy comes to her rescue and convinces her to go to a lesbian bar. 'Sorry no men' says the bouncer. So Gray and Gordy return with Gordy in drag. Bad drag. He was in a sleeveless black satin-like blouse, a string of pearls, and a grandma's church hat. No lesbian would ever confuse this 'man in a dress' as a drag queen much less a woman. The bar was also the straight man's fantasy of what a lesbian bar is: full of Victoria's Secret models. Everything turns out peachy she goes home with her firm's client. Gray happens to be on the woman's account and finally does more then kiss. For some reason no one tells Charlie anything and she is oblivious through the whole movie of this kiss with Gray, but that is for the sequel. | 0 |
I remember really liking BATMAN RETURNS when it came out in 1992, but now I think that this is the best of all the Batman movies (even over Christopher Nolan's terrific 2005 BATMAN BEGINS and definitely over the seriously over-hyped overrated 2008 THE DARK KNIGHT!). I originally remember thinking that the 1st BATMAN w/ Jack Nicholson was the best (and I still love it). But I think that this movie really hits the nail on the head. The 4 main characters (Batman, Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck) are all vivid and memorable. You really get to see what Batman/Bruce Wayne is all about in Keaton's terrific characterization. Keaton is the best Batman, not Kilmer, Clooney, or even the up-and-coming Bale, who was exceptional in BB and could have stolen top honors from Keaton had his character not been destroyed by Nolan's hack film-making in TDK !. <br /><br />Danny DeVito as The Penguin is disturbing, scary, hilarious, and lethal. DeVito is great and doesn't need scenery-chewing to give great performance like Nicholson's Joker. The viewer can actually sympathize with this disfigured outcast and his plight to fit into normal society. I had never really been big fan of Michelle Pfeiffer until this film, but this is definitely my favorite performance of hers. Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle is goofy and odd at first, then when she is transformed into Catwoman, she is simultaneously sexy and scary, a total deadly sexpot! Also, I feel that Keaton and Pfeiffer have more chemistry than Keaton and Basinger from BATMAN; they form a tragic love story. And Christopher Walken as Shreck is, well, as always, Christopher Walken!<br /><br />BATMAN RETURNS, more so than BATMAN, is more confident and focused. It is assured film-making from beginning to end. The way Burton introduces the Penguin's heartbreaking backstory grabs you from the very beginning. The first 5 minutes are among my favorite beginnings to any film: Danny Elfman's music sets an ominous foreboding tone that defines the rest of the film. It is a modification from the original BATMAN and a great one!<br /><br />Then flash forward 33 years to the present day Gotham and we are introduced to powerful businessman Shreck who wants to build new power plant in Gotham. During same scene we meet Shreck's meek, bullied, under-confident secretary Selina Kyle. And not long after all this is the film's exciting opening action sequence as Batman must battle The Penguin's Red Triangle Gang, a fun yet lethal group of outcasts and circus performers. Penguin sets plan in motion to attack the Gotham Christmas celebration, kidnap Shreck in the chaos, and force him to help re-introduce him to society. Meanwhile, Selina discovers Shreck's criminal plans and so he "kills" her by shoving her out his high-rise office, then she is revived by cats. <br /><br />Sound convoluted? Yes, but Burton never claimed to be posing a realistic story. He has created a world where the viewer can accept that things like this can happen, a dark, noirish world comprised of mistreated, deformed outcasts who deep down only want acceptance and to fit in. Confident storytelling if you ask me!<br /><br />The action scenes are few and far in between, but they are all exciting, entertaining, and nail-biting. They aren't there just for show, the way some in BATMAN are. And they all make sense. The climactic scene with Penguin's "army" marching into the center of Gotham with Batman zoning in on Penguin's hideout and sidekick butler Alfred (Michael Gough in a welcome return from the original!) assisting Batman is succinct, solid, heart-pounding fun!<br /><br />I also love the Christmastime, wintry setting, which adds to the super-dark, cold feel of Burton's Batman world. I also love the way Burton slowly introduces to us the Batman "toys" without shoving them down our throats. Each "toy" is appropriate for that moment in the film and we are compelled to accept them for their purpose. And although dark, RETURNS is still a funny film. DeVito's Penguin has many funny lines. So does Walken's Shreck. The Batman-Catwoman exchanges are extremely stimulating and humor-filled as well! A great ensemble! All in all, BATMAN RETURNS is a tightly woven tale of the dark forces at play in Tim Burton's fun, comic book world. | 1 |
This movie is a terrible attempt at a spoof. Its attempts to parody various sports movies are half-baked and not at all funny.<br /><br />Even things that should be funny - like the female kicker from India who's always wearing traditional dress over her uniform - aren't really funny. The fact that the football team studies and gets good grades which makes the coach mad didn't get any laughs either.<br /><br />The plot of having a traditional loser get one more chance by coaching a loser high school football team really had potential as a spoof. It's a classic and trite sports theme. But alas, the screenplay was too weak for ANY cast to pull it off. And this cast is no exception.<br /><br />There is gratuitous use of women in bikinis and underwear, so it's not all bad from that aspect.<br /><br />But Animal House or Talladega Nights, this is not. | 0 |
This is a FUNNY film. It has all the usual Disney components (music, great range of characters, story, appeal), entwined with superb animation and the excellent voice talents of less well known actors as those in say "Antz" and "Price of Egypt".<br /><br />The characters work really well, and have a strong appeal, and the humour is aimed at a wide level which overcomes generational barriers. The movie is also presented in superb cinemascope format, which adds to the cinema experience.<br /><br />Call me crazy, but I have seen the film three times, and I intend on taking more friends to see it this weekend. Many skeptics have seen this film on my recommendation and not been disappointed. I work in a multiplex, and I can honestly say that no-one has ever walked out of this movie without a sense of satisfaction.<br /><br />See it, and don't be put off because it is animated. You are sure to enjoy this movie, and make sure you stay for the end credits! The bloopers and out-takes at the end are the funniest part of the film, which is packed with laughs throughout. | 1 |
Not since The Simpsons made it's debut has there been a sitcom that I didn't want to turn of in a matter of 2 minutes. It has of course been said that The Simpsons killed the sitcom. Not this one though.<br /><br />The first season was so so as the teenage characters were not quite as outrageous as they later became. They even went to school sometimes. The following seasons the character where fledged out. Eric, the sarcastic twit, Donna, his levelheaded girlfriend, Kelso, the dim bulb, Hyde, the conspiracy theorist and anti-establishment punk, Fez, the pervert exchange student and finally Jackie, the spoiled rich floozy. As for the adult characters there was Eric's mom, the "can you believe she is so ditzy" suburban mom, Eric's dad, the straight arrow who of course wasn't such a hard ass as he seemed, Donna's goofy dad and her dumb blonde mom. Everybody are true to their characters but special kudos to Kurtwood Smith who finds the perfect balance between toughness and still makes his Red Forman quite sympathetic without making us throw up with unexpected cuteness.<br /><br />Topher Grace is of course the main reason why this show is so good. It's a tough character to play because it doesn't allow the actor to indulge in wild overacting like the Kelso character, played competently by Ashton Kutcher. I enjoyed seeing the two characters interact because they are the most different.<br /><br />Hyde's character is a bit harder to enjoy because he is more realistic and do we really need to see the orphan story for the umpteenth time, although I will say that the writers came up with a brilliant story arc for him in the last seasons.<br /><br />Jackie, played by Family Guy voice artist Mila Kunis is hilarious and she has a nails on a chalkboard type voice, which actually fits her character. The only sad part is that we didn't see more scenes with her and Eric because they were f...... hilarious together. Too much story was wasted on her relationship problems since we already got that in spades with Eric and Donna.<br /><br />Last I will say that the casting of guest actors were always great. A few favorites: Fez' humongous girlfriend in the mid-seasons, Pastor Dan, the totally awesome Leo played by the equally awesome Thomas Chong, another one of Fez' girlfriends who is totally certifiable and a special appearance by the teenage witch Sabrina as a slutty catholic girl.<br /><br />Coming up next on Fox, whatever. | 1 |
Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.<br /><br />All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this. | 0 |
Actually I feel like having my review be that one word. My friend, whose opinions I almost always trust about movies, especially horror movies, warned me NOT to rent this no matter how tempted or bored or desperate to see a new horror movie I was, because it was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately I haven't talked to him in a while, and I was in a hurry to pick a movie, and thought, 'what the heck, how bad could it be?' WHY don't I learn? What was I thinking? Did I think it would magically turn into a better movie while sitting there on the shelf for years waiting to be rented?<br /><br />The 'plot' concerns a guy who edits films for some company. His boss is a jerk. The guy who had the job before him went insane and blew himself up in the pre-credits sequence, so for some reason the boss picks nerdy 'Ed' for the special project of editing "Loose Limbs" splatter movies. He never says what Ed is supposed to edit, but I guess that doesn't matter. Ed is upset by some of the clips, working on them up at this house all by himself that the boss has decided to relocate him to for no apparent reason. He asks his boss if he can stop or do another project, but his boss doesn't care. He starts to slowly go insane, supposedly from watching the clips, and wants to carry out the gory murders in real life. Or has he been this way all along? Please note that I am making this plot sound much more deep, interesting, and coherent than it actually is.<br /><br />We don't care about the characters at all, or have any sympathy for them, or even hate the bad guys. The plot is really, really boring and predictable. The splatter isn't even that gruesome or creative-this is NOT worth renting just to see the gore, because what there is isn't interesting or original.<br /><br />All the 'tributes' to Sam Raimi just come off like really bad ripoffs, and no-one in the movie is anywhere near good looking enough as Bruce Campbell, so you can't distract yourself with that. I think an "Evil Dead II-Dead by Dawn" poster is only prominently displayed in one scene in the hopes that Sam Raimi will be flattered and not consider any sort of legal action. A trained chimp could have written a better screenplay. Every time I hear lines like "Are we having fun...yet?" (which even Bride of Re-Animator couldn't pull off without making me wince) I start feeling like picking up some sort of deadly weapon myself. Characters just appear out of nowhere with no explanation, wandering in only to get killed. This might be OK if the movie was even remotely amusing or entertaining, but it was all I could do to keep from fast-forwarding through most of it. Fortunately I chose to pay some bills and balance my checkbook at the same time the movie was playing. Trust me, it did not require my full attention-I still felt like 90+ minutes of my life were wasted just by having this on in the background.<br /><br />Don't watch it, no matter HOW tempted you are-you'll hate yourself for wasting your money. Horror fans will be completely disgusted by how incompetent it is. Even those who haven't seen too many splatter movies should stay away, as there are so many movies out there you could rent that are much more well worth your while. If you want something brainless, low-budget and fun, rent something else. Complete waste of time with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Be smarter than I was at the time and don't be fooled by the "Warning-Not For the Faint of Heart" on the box. You have been warned!<br /><br /> | 0 |
This movie was a fantastic comedy. It had a lot of comedians star in it like Akshay Kumar,Rajpal Yadav,Paresh Raval and John Abraham.<br /><br />Rimi Sen was good at playing Akshay Kumars wife and so were all the air hostesses. Mr Hot as Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Mr cool as Sam (John Abraham) are two fashion photographers who like the same girl Maggie (Neha Dupia). When John Abraham cheats on his work he becomes Akshay Kumars senior and Akshay Kumar gets really jealous because his flat has to be given to John Abraham and Neha Dupia starts liking John more. Akshay Kumar wants to be better than John Abraham so he finds a flat and he is going out with three different girls (Nitu Chandra,Nargis Bagheri,Daisy Boppana). | 1 |
Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.<br /><br />I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.<br /><br />I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.<br /><br />Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies. | 0 |
I thought that this film was very enjoyable. I watched this film with my wife BEFORE I had my first child. Therefore, I was not watching it as simply family entertainment and I still thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems as though many of the reviews are pointing out that this movie is not earth shattering, there were no unexpected plot changes and that the movie was predictable and boring. If these people were watching this movie expecting to have a religious experience doing so, then they were obviously going to be disappointed. This is simply an animated movie; nothing more. If you want to see this movie simply to sit back and let yourself be entertained, you will not be disappointed. In closing, this is definitely not the best movie Disney has made, but it IS entertaining and I do not understand the bad reputation it has received. | 1 |
The Jungle is more of an adventure than a science fiction movie. The only sci-fi part is the Woolly Mammoths living in the present day.<br /><br />Elephants are attacking villages in a part of India and these attacks are also killing people. An expedition is sent to investigate and one of the members of this, an American hunter blames these elephants are being frightened by Woolly Mammoths, which are suppose to be extinct. Nobody believes him at first, but they do when the Mammoths appear at the end. An earthquake finishes them off.<br /><br />The Jungle was shot on location in India and has a lot of nice scenery and some good Indian music, including some songs which keep the movie moving along nicely. The Mammoths are actually real elephants with fur coats and long tusks stuck on.<br /><br />The cast includes Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero (The Lost Continent) and Marie Windsor (Cat-Women of the Moon).<br /><br />The Jungle is worth seeing, just for the scenery and music. Very enjoyable.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | 1 |
This was a really interesting Halloween film. I wasnt to thrilled with the whole Thorn theory but it still makes for a good film. I liked getting to see Tommy Doyle back but sadly Donald Pleasance died right after shooting. The film had a really REALLY bad director who didnt give a flip about the series, from what I heard treated Donald bad, and wouldnt let Danielle Harris come back as Jamie. Its like he was just trying to bring down the film, but I still liked it. There were alot of cuts and music changes and if you're lucky you can get the Producers Cut which features over 40 min. of never before scenes. With those scenes it turns into a whole new movie. Check it out if you have the chance. | 1 |
I'm Mike Sedlak. I co-wrote the score for this movie. And proud of it. <br /><br />And I love all of the comments. Some have not gone far enough.<br /><br />The movie premiered in San Francisco in the summer of 1973. The theater was packed with friends and family. We all clapped.<br /><br />Five days latter, it was pulled from all of the screens in the Bay Area.<br /><br />If anyone is interested hearing some of scene by scene details, which might make the movie even more enjoyable, please let me know.<br /><br />We could start with the shot where Gideon Blake throws the toilet plunger to distract one of the evil henchmen guarding the radio transmitter on the deck of Bud's house. <br /><br />Or how Gideon diffused the bomb in the original version.<br /><br />Didn't help. It still bombed.<br /><br />Bring it on. | 0 |
This, without any doubt, is the greatest spin off to Jackass ever made, hell, it even blows Jackass out of the water.<br /><br />Picture this: You have a group of guys who just didn't want to grow up, throw in a ton of money, and some seriously cool stunts, and you have Viva La Bam.<br /><br />This show, it's such a family-based one, and it's not just "the gang" running around being complete jerks (like in Jackass). For example: Bam's parents, April and Phil, are in every episode, with appearances of Bam's obese uncle, Don Vito to boot! The reason why the Margera family makes us laugh is simple: Somebody in our family can relate. April: The woman who wants to live life by the book and follow tradition. Phil: The guy who tries to be a good father, and finally, Bam: That son that never grew out of high school.<br /><br />The pranks and jokes in every episode will give you a guaranteed laugh, and buying the DVDs is definitely recommended! Another thing which is surprising to see, is how casual Margera is over the whole thing. He's said in interviews that for the majority of episodes, he isn't acting, and is just acting off instinct.<br /><br />What I liked the most about the whole thing, however, is the amount of influence Margera has over MTV. He wanted Slayer to play in his backyard, MTV did it. He wanted to hang with Dani Filth for a day and have a Cradle Of Filth concert in his backyard, it happened.<br /><br />Add to this his passion for the love-metal (and debated as emo) band H.I.M and his brother's garage band CKY, and there's a whole lot of head banging going on.<br /><br />If you liked Jackass, you'll fall in love with this. I borrowed Season 1 from a friend last year, and I would give up my legs to meet the Viva La Bam Crew. You will not be disappointed, and I can promise you'll be in stitches by the end of it all! | 1 |
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*<br /><br />I'll only say what hasn't already been said here (and I'll continue this for the rest of my WWF/WWE comments).<br /><br />If you're going to have a Women's title match, at least make it interesting, rather than just a squash to put over the current champion. I guess Moolah couldn't handle an intense match but they wanted to have the legend in a WrestleMania.<br /><br />I thought the Killer Bees were wasted in WrestleManias, especially here. I became a fan in 1989, about a year after the B. Brian Blair was gone and Jim Brunzell became a canvas back. So I didn't realize for a while that they were a top tag team, even top contenders.<br /><br />But I loved seeing Bill Fralic in the battle royal. He really came into his own here, creating a cocky heel character in a pre-match interview and even making an elimination in the battle royal. Besides Steve McMichael and Kevin Greene, he is the only professional athlete from my generation with any respect for wrestling (anyone remember Dennis Rodman?). And what was with the Hart Foundation's ridiculous green tights? | 0 |
I couldn't help but relish the entire premise of CAT IN THE BRAIN because it dutifully explains a director's steadily going mad, seeing people murdered from past movies he has made. Even mundane activities such as cooking a meal in the microwave or running a faucet of water yield some horrific butchery from a film in the past. Director Fulci playing himself, is directing GHOSTS OF SODOM(?)and can not seem to deprive his mental well being from constant murder. He seeks help from a psychiatrist who, instead, uses Fulci's work as a method to execute a series of innocent people, hypnotizing the director into thinking that perhaps he's responsible.<br /><br />This is obviously a film playfully poking fun at Fulci's image, while exploring the themes of how such a profession, which produces so much death and destruction, rarely untamed, could mold and shape a legacy. The film features pretty much a wrap-around story surrounding non-stop graphic violence with every possible way to kill a woman expressed in grisly detail. This has a shower murder Hitchcock never could direct, or probably want to. The film's savagery compliments the mental state of Fulci's Fulci(..I know)during the running time. Reality and cinematic fiction have fused and Fulci can find no escape. The ending(..explaining the old cliché:"It's only a movie")couldn't work any better than it does here. Fulci's boat says Perversion(..excellent touch)and he sails off..I can only wish this was his final film because that's a perfect close if there ever was one. David L Thompson is the deranged psychiatrist planning to kill his adulterous wife. Jeoffrey Kennedy is a cop Fulci fears had a family murdered by the fiend.<br /><br />The ultra-violence in the film features plenty of unique ways to take a head off such as the door to a chest, a scythe, a chainsaw, and hatchet. The most brutal violence derives from nasty chainsaw activity as a dead body is hacked to pieces(..how a gardener's chainsaw work on a log fits beautifully in one nightmarish hallucination sequence)..the most shocking use of a chainsaw is when a little boy gets decapitated! The opening scene with the puppet cat tearing away, feasting on Fulci's brain, is a howler. The scenes which are spliced within the film, featuring a horrified Fulci looking on, are obvious, but I couldn't help but enjoy this anyway. | 1 |
This is without a doubt the most stunning and amazing documentary I have ever seen! The images that are shown are absolutely breathtaking and stunning. On top of that, it is a wonderful learning experience. I'm not one for educational documentaries, but this one grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until the end. You'll be so hooked and entranced by what you are watching that you'll forget your at home watching TV! This series is available to buy on DVD and I HIGHLY recommend picking this one up! With all the evil and death in this world, this documentary series gives us proof that life is beautiful and worth saving and preserving. | 1 |
If you're a fan of Gothic horror, then you're definitely absolutely guaranteed to LOVE this wondrous Italian 60's film "Castle of Blood". We're really talking about creepily creaking doors, eerie portraits that appear to be moving, spontaneously dying candles although there's no wind and smoke coming from underneath heavy wooden chamber doors. Speaking in terms of atmosphere and style, this masterful piece of Gothic film-making is one of the best out there; just one tiny league below landmarks such as "Black Sunday", "The Three Faces of Fear" and "Curse of the Crying Woman". The prominent directors duo Sergio Corbucci ("The Great Silence", "Django") and Antonio Margheriti ("Cannibal Apocalypse", "Killer Fish") are successful in all areas, including a powerful plot (one that is genuinely nightmare inducing), ultra-sinister scenery and filming locations, stylish black and white photography, spine-chilling music and a brilliant gathering of talented performers. Barbara Steele, starlet of the aforementioned "Black Sunday" and Italian goth-muse number one, shines brightly again as a spiritually tormented character and she's literally surrounded by excellent co-players. One of them, Silvano Tranquilli, even gives away a fairly credential depiction of author Edgar Allan Poe. The story involves him and another wealthy visitor of a countryside tavern challenging a brutal young journalist to accept a morbid wager. If he Alan Foster would survive spending one night in the infamous Blackwood Castle, he receives the astonishing reward of $10 and a newspaper interview with Poe. Needless to say the ordeal is much more dangerous than it sounds, even for somebody like Alan Foster who's a firm non-believer in ghosts and vampires. The night starts out great for him, as he even meets up with the stunningly beautiful woman of his dreams, but gradually he learns that Blackwood Castle is a hellish place where the ghosts of the previously deceased visitors are trapped for all eternity. I don't know about you, but this is seriously one of my favorite horror movie premises of all time. Co-director Antonio Margheriti clearly was proud of this film as well, because he remade it himself a couple of years later as "Web of the Spider". That movie had a handful of trumps, like for example the casting of no less than Klaus Kinski in the role of Edgar Allan Poe, but in general this original is vastly superior. "Castle of Blood" literally oozes with atmosphere and maintains a thoroughly unsettling ambiance throughout. This truly is one of the rare films that can make the hair on your arms and back of the neck rise with fear if you watch it in the right circumstances. Watch it late at night, preferably alone and in a candle lit room, and you'll get an idea about the true definition of horror. | 1 |
I will admit, I had the opportunity in the past to watch this film, and after about 5 - 10 minutes into it, I felt like many did. I was expecting a Monkey movie that was similar to the television show, but instead I was given... well, I didn't know what I was given to be honest.<br /><br />However, after finally watching this film, I realized that not only had I had a closed mind to the brilliance it depicts, I also found myself watching it over and over again. It's the one movie that never ceases to interest me, simply because it keeps me alert, as I try to attempt to decipher it's meanings. And just when I think I've figured out something in the film, it's answer is destroyed once I watch the film again. Brilliance indeed.<br /><br />It seems that most people who disliked this film are wanting to watch a film with primarily a clear plot. They want everything explained and all questions answered in the finale. Well sorry, if that's what you're wanting, this is not the movie for you. But if you liked movies like The Matrix (and better yet, their sequels) I think you'll appreciate the thought provoking, mindblowing experience this film will give you.<br /><br />Think of the film being like a dream. In our dreams, things make no sense, things we expect to happen don't, people places and things don't speak, act or function in the same way they do in reality. To complain about "Head" is like complaining about a dream you've had that you felt you could not understand. The mind is a complex system, and being that a film titled "Head" is just as complex, is it that difficult to relate the two?<br /><br />The music (and musical numbers) really stand out, especially Peter Tork's two compositions, which remain the best tracks in the film, "Can You Dig It?" and "Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?"<br /><br />This film proves that The Monkees were much more than just four zanny guys in a 'pre-fab' group (as their critics called them) on a television show, but that they are actually much more intelligent and talented than the world would give them credit for. There's so many messages that can be derived from the film, both in regards to The Monkees and to the 'entertainment industry' in general, that it stands as a masterpiece of film-making that was far ahead of it's time.<br /><br />I feel, had this film been released as an independent piece at this point and time, it would actually garner the respect and admiration it deserves.<br /><br />And one finale note:<br /><br />One could compare this to The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" film, since The Beatles film appeared to be just as strange and bizarre. However, in my opinion, "Head" stands far above anything The Beatles put on celluloid. | 1 |
This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name "Sam Marlowe". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, "Sam"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called "Dutchess" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, "looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the "Eyes of Alexander", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience. | 1 |
A Brief History of Time is not only a documentary on the beginning and the ending of the universal and reality as we know it, this is a story about the man and the genius known as Stephen Hawking. It is his story that reflects the story of time and change throughout the history of the universal. The style of the documentary / editing style of the interviews begin and end with a quick fade to black. Almost like blinking in between segments and interviews, the documentary gives you an odd feeling like this is the view point of Stephen Hawking and not the eye of the camera. The running time is only a little longer than an hour. It is a short story, then again, its subject matter could be talked about for days and days. An interesting and proud story. | 1 |
If you still remember that summer when you had your first kiss, first boy/girlfriend, or first puppy love fling...this film is for you! OK so this movie would and will never win an Oscar BUT as a Dominican I loved it...there are some things in the movie that might just go right over your head if you are not part of the culture...the kids being raised by a grandma who's both mother and father, the youngest son being babied and bathed with a Cafe Bustelo tin (sooo Dominican!), Judy being harassed by the neighborhood men, going to church and lighting a prayer candle...the film's brilliance was in those small details. Granted, it was not a pull out all the works cinematic extravaganza but it wasn't meant to be NOR was it meant to be an educational tool for those wanting to learn about Latin culture ( tip: make new friends instead). More of a bitter-sweet, faux-cumentery, this film kept it real without taking itself too seriously. As in the tradition of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" this was simply one boy's coming of age tale. I recommend it (especialmente si eres Dominicano!) =o) | 1 |
This anime series starts out great: Interesting story, exciting events, interesting characters, beautifully rendered and executed. Not everything is explained right away, dangling a proverbial carrot before the viewer, enticing the viewer to watch each succeeding episode. But imagine the disappointment to find that the sci-fi thriller/giant robot adventure is only a backdrop for psycho-babble and quasi-religious preachy exploitation. If you want to hear "You're OK. It's good to be you." after being embattled with negative slogans and the characters' negative emotions, then this is for you. If you want a good sci-fi flick that is simply fun to watch, forget this one. Both the original, and the alternate endings were grossly disappointing to me. All that, AND this movie was too preachy. | 0 |
At the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters. | 0 |
This was by far one of the worst movies Sandra Bullock has starred in. Ben Affleck should stay behind the camera and continue writing scripts. This is definitely his forte and acting is not. I actually lasted 54 minutes into this movie before I was so bored with it I felt compelled to leave the theater. It's a bore from beginning to, well 54 minutes into the film anyway. The premise of "Guess what happened to me on the way to the ...." has been done over and over to death. Somehow there just doesn't seem to be anything funny, or romantic about people cheating on each other. Parents should be aware that this may not be a suitable film for your teenage children especially impressionable ones that may view Sandra as a hero. There is a scene where the writers/producers/directors thought it would be nice to show how "acceptable" it is to smoke a joint .... while driving .... and then have no consequences at all when caught. I'm no prude, and I smoked my share when I was younger but I guarantee you I won't take my teenagers to see it and they're solid A & B students. If you want to see a good Sandra Bullock movie, rent "The Net" or "Hope Floats" which I believe are two of her best works. | 0 |
Grabbed my attention on Netflix Instant Play because it was only an hour and a half long (it's nearing 4 am here), and because it's Norwegian, which I wanted to follow up with Dead Snow and see what else the country is offering in international cinema right now. A droll and deliciously wry romp, this movie features a man, Andreas, who gets shipped out to some Purgatory of a Brave New World city, where everyone is happy and bland and food has no taste, nothing smells, and even sex loses its appeal. Driven to the edge by his lack of common senses, he feels nearly ready to kill himself.<br /><br />After an hilarious botched attempt at latter, Andreas tracks down a man with similar complaints and the two discover a tiny, vagina-shaped hole in a concrete wall from which music emanates. The two attempt to break through to see what is on the other side, tracking a tiny bit of light they can barely see. But of course, in fantasy allegory land, desire and nonconformity are not allowed and the elements of the city operate to end Andreas' attempt at freedom and sensuality.<br /><br />Jens Lien and crew create a simple, straight-forward movement to the story, one that flows well with its themes and moves along at just enough of a pace to keep from lagging. The similarities in other similar science fiction aren't worth enumerating, but still the movie has a unique feel and balances some very funny scenes with some pretty horrifying ones. I like the limited but effective use of gore in this movie, some disembowelment and flagellation that will get your heart stammering harder than The Passion of the Christ simply because it is so perfectly out of place from the gray-toned mise-en-scene. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is a dependably squirrelly actor who physically feels out of place from his surroundings, which works very well. Despite the fact that the concept itself isn't anything to write home about, everyone involved makes it work and the movie fully realizes its own world.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1 |
I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.<br /><br />Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade. | 0 |
Many of us who went through high school probably made it through alright without having to take a Physics course - I know I didn't. But after watching this program, I surely wish I had.<br /><br />This documentary is a guide to the 'Holy Grail of Physics' - the quest to unify all the fundamental forces of the universe into one 'master equation' that eluded Einstein during the last years of his life. Brian Green, a professor at Columbia University, introduces us to this mind blowing theory in a wonderfully simple way and leaves us with an even greater appreciation for the universe we live in.<br /><br />We start with the tantalizing possibility of a 'master equation' that could unite and explain everything... *everything!* in this universe, including the four fundamental forces that we know that exist: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Green takes us on a tour of how our understanding of the universe came into view with the work of Newton, then Einstein, and then later on to the revolution of the physics at the quantum level.<br /><br />But it is at this point that we run into a problem that has plagued physicists for years, and one that no one has been able to solve just yet. How can we unify all these forces that we know together? We find, as Green constantly points out throughout the problem - that the answer to this perplexing problem could be in the theory of strings. However, if we are to describe the universe in terms of string theory, there is a very big price to pay.<br /><br />It turns out that out of the mind numbing mathematical equations of string theory, that, as a consequence, we find that we could possibly be living in a universe filled with, not just 3 dimensions that you and I see every day plus 1 (for time), but rather, that we may actually live in a universe of *11* dimensions. But the math that arises out of that theory doesn't stop there - the possibility exists that there may actually be parallel universes; some of them right next to you and me! Could we possibly take such a theory that leads to such consequences seriously? As Green points out; we have yet to fully find out, but we do know that the math that has arisen from these equations are already showing us that the universe still has much to show us.<br /><br />For those of you who fear that you won't be able to understand the concepts in this program - fear not. Professor Green does a wonderful job of doing away with the math and harder concepts of physics and instead focuses more on the *concept* - which, when you take away all the math from it, transforms from a monstrous beast into an incredibly simple and, as Green constantly points out, 'elegant' concept. Viewers of this program need no prior background in science; the concepts are so simple even a child could understand them.<br /><br />When you finish this program, you will truly come to understand what a wonderful and mysterious universe it is that we live in. | 1 |
Acclaimed director Mervyn LeRoy puts drama on film that competes with the best of soap operas. High drama is found in the loves and infidelities in New York's social set. Oh yes, don't forget jealousy can bring about tainted hearts and murder. The all star cast features: Barbara Stanwyck, Van Heflin, James Mason, Ava Gardner, Cyd Charisse and Nancy Davis. | 0 |
Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...<br /><br />Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?<br /><br />Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!<br /><br />I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended. | 0 |
A few weeks ago the German broadcaster "SAT1" advertised this movie as the "TV-Event of the year" - sorry, but I've seen better things on TV this year.<br /><br />I didn't thought much of the movie but I soon reminisced about two other horrible movies when I watched the commercial - namely Titanic and Pearl Harbor because the picture looked so familiar: The "heroine" (if I can really call her that) in the middle and her two "loved-ones" next to her - Pearl Harbor, anyone? In fact the love-story is a poor man's version of the one in Pearl Harbor and that one was already poor!<br /><br />But as I like watching movies and analyzing their patterns I eventually decided to watch that rubbish. The movie begins with a doctor leaving his family for the military strike against Russia near the end of the Third Reich promising his wife that he will return. Now fast forward to Spring 1948: Germany lost the war and the allies & Russia captured the country and they both try to eliminate each other for world power and their ideologies: capitalism versus communism. Well, I guess you already know the story because you have to know it - The movie doesn't really bother with it so much and literally takes a dump on historical facts. The movie tries to depict the US government as angels and completely ignores the contribution of other countries during the airlift especially Great Britain who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the rations despite having their country bombed from a country that they're trying to help.<br /><br />What was also pretty annoying were the historical remarks the people said in the movie like when the heroine's mother tells her daughter that Germany might be parted in two with a response like: "That's impossible!" Or when Stalin (where the director thought we just stick similarly looking mustache on the actor and he WILL look like him) says that Russia has to stop "Coca Cola" from spreading in Germany. Yeah right, if Stalin has ever said something like this. Or there is this one US pilot who tells his fellow of a bread with meat and everything possible in it - please! Burgers were invented WAY before that time.<br /><br />In the movie you once see a map showing the airlines, funnily enough the map looks like it came straight out of a laser printer - in '48. The US general Lucius Clay who's main idea was to stay in Berlin is portrayed as a guy who is mean and grumpy and all the ideas he historically had like for example the airlift and improving on that idea came from the fictive character Phillip Turner, the love interest of the main actress which leads me to other aspects: Not enough African-American soldiers in the movie, there were like two in the whole film! Also relationships between US soldiers and German civilians was not allowed and by a revealing of such a relationship the US soldier would've been sent home. I don't want to say that there were no relationships at all but in this movie there was a couple that almost got married, If it wasn't for the death of the pilot in his fake CGI plane which looked terribly unrealistic especially the CGI fire!<br /><br />If it wasn't enough all Americans in this movie spoke accent-free German although they only were in Germany for a couple of months - look I'm also American living in Germany for my whole life and even I have a little accent. Notably bad was also the child acting - the kids had like two expressions on their faces: "Normal-I-look-monotonous-like-a-robot" and grinning.<br /><br />All in all the movie was boring from beginning to end moving way too slow especially the love story which was the same as the one in Pearl Harbor just with half of the dialogue. The sad part is that the movie was very successful - 8.97 millions watched the first part and 7.83 millions the second part the day after thus SAT1 receiving two consecutive wins in the overall market share and a whopping win in the commercial relevant group. But like I always think: The biggest pile of bull-crap is where the most flies go to. | 0 |
The significance of French title of this film, "La Naissance des Pieuvres" which literally means "The Birth of the Octopuses", is rather obscure, so it is perhaps not surprising that it has been marketed in English-speaking countries as "Water Lilies". The "lilies" of the English title are three teenage girls, Marie, Anne and Floriane, who are members of a synchronised swimming team based in the Paris suburbs, and the film is a "coming-of-age" drama about the development of their first sexual feelings.<br /><br />One feature of the film, perhaps unusual for a film of this type, is that it concentrates exclusively on relationships between the young people themselves. We see nothing of their parents or their teachers, and very little of the adult world at all. The three girls are very different in appearance, and are portrayed as being very different in character. The shy, retiring Marie is slim and petite and appears to be the youngest of the three. Anne is something of a plain Jane, Floriane a glamorous blonde who is very popular with the boys. The three, together with a handsome male swimmer named Francois, are involved in what might be described as a love-quadrilateral.<br /><br />Anne has fallen in love with Francois, but he is smitten with Floriane, who seems to return his affections, although he is by no means her only male admirer. Indeed, not all of Floriane's admirers are male, because Marie has a crush on her attractive friend. The film charts the way in which their friendship develops; at first it seems that Floriane is simply using Marie as a convenient excuse when she is in fact going out to meet boys; her parents presumably object to her dating boys, but have no objection to her going out with female friends. Later, however, we realise that, despite Floriane's image as the sexy, popular girl who is always the centre of male attention, she actually reciprocates Marie's feelings. The film reverses some conventional stereotypes about sexuality. Anne, with her short hair and rather chunky figure, looks typically "butch", yet she is the only one of the three main characters who is unambiguously heterosexual, whereas the more conventionally feminine Marie and the glamorous Floriane are lesbian, or at least bisexual.<br /><br />Coming-of-age films are common enough, although most of them tend to avoid the controversial topic of teenage lesbianism. "Water Lilies", however, deals with its subject-matter in a sensitive way, with three very good performances from its three leading actresses, Pauline Acquart, Adele Haenel and Louise Blachere. The relationships between the characters, especially that between Marie and Floriane, are complex, and capable of a number of interpretations. (Is Floriane, for example, simply using Marie for sex, or does she genuinely have romantic feelings for her? Could Floriane's sluttish behaviour with Francois and the other boys be just a device to hide her lesbian feelings from the outside world? Or even to hide them from herself?) This was the first film made by its young director Celine Sciamma (only 27 at the time); on this basis she must be regarded as a highly promising newcomer. 7/10 | 1 |
The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right. | 0 |
I really wanted to like this western, being a fan of the genre and a fan of "Buffalo Bill," "Wild Bill Hickok," and "Calamity Jane," all of whom are in this story! Add to the mix Gary Cooper as the lead actor, and it sounded great. <br /><br />The trouble was.....it wasn't. I found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this, being bored to death. Jean Arthur's character was somewhat annoying and James Ellison just did not look like nor act like "Buffalo Bill." Cooper wasn't at his best, either, sounding too wooden. This was several years before he hit his prime as an actor.<br /><br />In a nutshell, his western shot blanks. Head up the pass and watch another oater because most of 'em were far better than this one. | 0 |
The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never. | 0 |
If you thought that the original from 83 was bad then try out this modern day masterpiece. How could it be worse more you ask? Well...at least in the first one you had Ally Sheedy jogging in a sports bra. Other than updated graphics, modern day themes (such as terrorists), modern weapons and a sexy new voice for Ripley unfortunately this is the same sad tired story. Anyone that saw the first one could see exactly where the next scene / line in the story was going. And for anyone that didn't see the first one...well consider yourself lucky that you only watched it once. Maybe in another 23 years Hollywood will try again. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.