text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Bob Clampett's 'The Hep Cat' is a distinctly average cartoon only really notable for the fact that it was the first colour Looney Tune (previously Looney Tunes were all black and white while Merrie Melodies were in colour). The tale of a singing, dancing cat's attempts to woo a lady cat and a dog's attempts to catch the cat, 'The Hep Cat' lacks the trademark energy and pace of most Clampett shorts. To be fair, Clampett doesn't have a great deal to work with. Warren Foster's script is embarrassingly thin and, while he has spun straw into gold with other cartoons, Clampett doesn't manage it with 'The Hep Cat'. It's often said of Clampett that you can't mistake his cartoons for anyone else's and it's generally true but 'The Hep Cat' is an exception. There's flashes of Clampett genius, such as the chase scene in which the cat stops to ask the dog "Hey, are you following me". When the dog confirms that he is, the cat simply says "Oh" and the chase immediately resumes. Unfortunately, there's very little of such brilliance on show here. Knowing who directed it, 'The Hep Cat' is a bitter disappointment. We all have off days and this was clearly one of Clampett's! | 0 |
96 minutes of this is cruel..and I love the old Munster's. Yes, the plot is thing; yes the lines are trite; but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. There is so much 'intrigue' (and I use that word with great pause) that I wonder if it's an old Starsky & Hutch episode. I lost count of the number of times I noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. Refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid-60's (ludicrous) the producers simply replace Marilyn & Eddie with younger actors. Why not let them grow and age? The addition of an Addam's Family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the Halloween Party.<br /><br />Grandpa & Herman fly to Transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous.) Sid Ceaser is the most, yes the most unbelievable character (I am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish & yiddish but claims to be an ancient Arabic ruler. And yes, it looks like the laugh track is missing. In fact, there are several spots where there is dead air, as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. The actors seem to wait on the faux audience. It's not laughable; it's sad. Oh, and the best part! Yvonne DeCarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. Marilyn says something like: "Where could Uncle Herman and Grandpa be? They could have been in an accident. They could have been hit by a car...or a train!" Lily says responds with something like: "You're Uncle Herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track." What's amazing about this is: Yvonne DeCarlo's husband was a stuntman in the early 60's and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. He never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out Biography's fantastic review of her life and career) This line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her.<br /><br />If you are a real fan of the Munster's then you'll have to RENT this mess. It illustrates how some things are better left alone. Even with the (nearly) original cast, this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago. | 0 |
Much more than ANY other film from that period, Night of the Demons represents the brainless and hugely enjoyable horror pastiche. It's undemanding fun with loads of nasty make-up effects, gorgeous looking (and horny) teenagers and adorable cliché-elements. A group of party animals, led by the alternative Angela, goes to celebrate Halloween in an abandoned funeral home that carries an eerie urban legend. It all starts out typical and "innocent" with dancing, drinking and the occasional flirt between youngsters that can't keep their hormones under control, but pretty soon a bloodthirsty demon possesses the hostess. In the most ingenious ways you've ever seen, the rest of the cast gets slaughtered viciously only to return as hideous creatures prowling for blood. The thing that makes this film better than most cheesy 80's horror films is finds a good balance between light-headed camp and atmospheric horror. Some sequences really are creepy and the funeral house setting supplies Night of the Demons with an excellent tone. Director Tenney makes great use of the set pieces (coffins, a crematorium, endless dark hallways
) and his young, enthusiast cast obviously love what they're involved in. The terrific make-up effects by a whole team of artists and designers are of course the obvious aspects to love and horror fanatics will absolutely love the large amount of severed limbs, poked out eyes and crushed skulls! The ultimate highlight however is Linnea Quigley's trick with the disappearing lipstick! This nymphomaniac bimbo shoves an entire tube of lipstick in her nipple and continues her sexual murder spree! Terrific! Night of the Demons received two sequels during the 90's and, although they're still definitely worth checking out, they focus more on comedy than chills. | 1 |
I love to watch this movie a lot because of all the scary scenes about the raptors. I like raptors because they are scary. My favorite parts are the ones where the raptor looks behind the pillar because it reminds me of a scene from the Friday the 13th movie with the girl who eats the banana.<br /><br />I really love to watch a lot of this movie because the computer graphics seem a little fake but it's okay because once you get into the movie you hardly even notice what is going on and I think it's got a good ending even though I didn't really understand what was going on on my first couple viewings I figured it out over time and that's the important part. The other important part is how scary the dinosaurs can be if you're watching it the first time.<br /><br />THIS IS BEST MOVIE. | 1 |
this is by far the most pathetic movie Indian cinema or any cinema has come up with.it is totally a piece of crap.the story line odes not hold any water. it is shameful that such a respectful actor has stooped to such a low on making such a disgraceful movie. the little respect he had is lost forever. he should have retired longtime ago instead of making a fool of himself and loosing all the self respect. i would not recommend this movie to any one. furthermore i would suggest that Amitabh should retire already. I wonder how IMDb has given some recommendations to this movie. there are no movies so horrible that any recommendations could be made. seeing such movies as Devdas in the same line as this movie does a grave injustice to a decent movie. its overall i could say shameless. | 0 |
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! | 0 |
Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself. <br /><br />He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.<br /><br />Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with. | 1 |
Stardust Another Guarded Review (originally written June 15, 2007)<br /><br />The marketing machine has only just begun for this one (no site yet? wth?), so I doubt most of you have heard about it. In truth, I hadn't either (sort of). When I got the posting, I thought it was another code name and was actually worried it was Transformers, one of the movies I want to see when not working so I an enjoy it 100% as a mere mortal movie-goer. Turns out, it wasn't Transformers and I had been aware of it way back when as 'that Neil Gaiman movie'. What is it about? Well, in short, it's a Gaiman fairy tale about a boy and a fallen star. Any more than that and I'd be giving away plot info which is (a) a breach of contract, and (b) spoiling your fun. If you really want to know what it's about, go buy the book. Rumour has it, Gaiman might be something of a writer.<br /><br />Not knowing what to expect in a movie can be so pleasant if the surprise is worthwhile. And for this one, it certainly was. This screening was 'special' in that it included not just film critics, but also exhibitors (they rarely have a mixed screening) and local sci-fi/fantasy folks. So, you know the expected audience, right? I mean, with this crowd and the title of Stardust, I knew what to expect.<br /><br />Oh how sweetly wrong I was.<br /><br />Yes, it is a fairy tale written by an author famed in comic bookdom. But it was not Lord of Rings. It was not even another Lord of the Rings wannabe (ahem, Eragon). It was much more intimate than all that.<br /><br />But, like Lord of the Rings, it was the, well, humanism of the film which sells the fantastical qualities. It's surely a romantic tale, but with generous splashes of humour. And that humour is of the sort which is not slapstick Shrekism. It's more along the lines of dramedy than comedy. Before I go on, let's do this movie review thing.<br /><br />Acting is, in the very least, good. It's always hard to say more than that for fantasy films but I do believe there were significant superbly acted roles. Michelle Pfieffer is not, sadly, one of those. She plays a villain, and she does the job. Nothing special. Rupert Everett, though, he was a real jerk. That is, a great villain. Peter O'Toole is, well, Peter frickin' O'Toole -- which is marvelous. Ricky Gervais is perfectly cast and shows why. Robert De Niro seemed to be having too much fun for the most part. When he wanted to deliver the goods, though, he did. And Charlie Cox (who?) as the lead character was fine surprise from a guy I ain't never heard of.<br /><br />Claire Danes. Claire Danes. Claire Danes. I've always been of mixed opinion with her. She can be great, and then she can seem to miss the mark. In this, she's the former. And she is, quite literally, the star of this film. Sure, her accent stumbles here and there. And, yes, she's not as good as she can be when Cox isn't in the scene. However ... well, see for yourself.<br /><br />Special effects are muted yet accomplished, and only significant where they should be. Best flying ship yet -- sorry Potter. Direction is light-hearted and flows nicely. Cinematography could have been better but not everyone films in New Zealand. All else is top bracket.<br /><br />And now that that's done...<br /><br />...the writing. Oh, the writing! Neil, you devil. It's hard in today's climate to do anything original and, at first, you begin to wonder. A kingdom, a dying King, a boy out to prove his own worth, witches, ghosts, a quest (or three) -- what's new? But Gaiman's story draws you in with its surface familiarity only to subvert it all into a sweetly original tale of a boy and his heart. And, though you suspect how it's all going to turn out, you begin to wonder in the third act and -- if you're me -- find yourself pulled into the rousing climactic confrontation and hoping for the best. In the end, you'll find this story, this movie, is what all fairy tales should be but all too often are not. Fantastical and real.<br /><br />(I wish I could talk about Septimus vs Tristan but I won't ruin it for you. For those who read the book, rest assured, it's done properly.)<br /><br />Those I spoke to afterward had the same impression I did. A great film for all ages to enjoy, and the new {WITHHELD} for this generation. The blank gets filled-in only after the movie is in wide release because, well, you might be expecting it. You'll know when you walk out, anyway. I sincerely hope Stardust doesn't get lost among the tentpoles. Even if it does, it'll be my pleasure to push into the hands of everyone I know.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Forgot to add the {WITHHELD} reveal. I'm a few years late, but ... "A great film for all ages to enjoy, and the new THE PRINCESS BRIDE for this generation." <br /><br />Perhaps a bit lofty an assessment but I'm still confident that years form now, there will be the same "Oh, I love that movie," response to this as there is now for The Princess Bride. | 1 |
From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Such great actors such a disappointment. Marlon Brando plays and awful character, the movie is not funny at all, a subconscious message can be seen "IT IS A DAMN CRAP!!!", "IT SUUCKS SO BADLY!!", "THROW YOUR TV THROUGH WINDOW", and so on. It is simply disgusting and irksome. In addition to foolish plot, sense of humor, there is something else. The way the rooms are decorated, the colors. It makes me sick, everything is so colourful that it might cause epilepsy. Usually I do not care about the decoration in movie but this from "Free Money" made me angry. Avoid at all costs! "Free Money" - probably for Charlie Sheen, Sutherland and Brando, but a viewer gets nothing! One watches it at cost of sanity. | 0 |
I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that "should" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.<br /><br /> | 0 |
many people said this was a great movie with Hoffman delivering a great performance. i went from suspended disbelief, to fidgety boredom, to almost walking out. there is no there there.<br /><br />Hoffman does go all out. he is committed to the performance. but sometimes him playing an affected man looks just like affected actor chewing on the scenery.<br /><br />no characters in the movie other than capote are much more than placeholders - nell, jack, perry, shawn, the sheriff are all one-dimensional.<br /><br />yes the film shows the manipulative, preening, dishonest sides of capote. it shows them so many times i started to wonder why -- do the filmmakers think we need to have everything spelled out? and again? and again? it refers often to capote's genius but does not show it. it shows him surrounded by fans and flatterers but never convinces us why.<br /><br />but my goal is not to deconstruct the film. i am sure others will have other interpretations. for me, this was a two-hour movie that felt like five. | 0 |
This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.<br /><br />Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.<br /><br />By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this. | 0 |
This film was positively the worst film I have ever watched. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I also think writer must have some weird fetish for women peeing puking and crapping... I mean what was that all about! I cant believe this was even made and am disgusted at have #ingwasted a £4 rental fee. The quality both picture and sound are terrible, the acting... well doesn't exist . It was a poor excuse for a film and the scenes of pee, crap and puke were reminiscent of 2 girls 1 cup. Urghh....... AVOID AT ALL COST! The girls looked like they had been picked off the street and only got the part cos they'd be willing to take their tops off... While these girls have nice bodies it certainly didn't make up for the fact their shrieking was awful unconvincing and a pain to my ears.<br /><br />This was like (possibly worse) than an ammateur school production without any proper direction and hey there is no need for a set as it all seems to revolve around a car?! <br /><br />Definatey not one to buy folks. Sorry if my first comment is terribly negative but I could not find anything positive to say and I would like to think I may save someone else wasting their money like I have. | 0 |
Go up to any film fan and ask them the title of the film which was directed by Robert Wise, with second-unit direction by Yakima Canutt and Sergio Leone, was designed by Ken Adam and scored by Max Steiner, starred Sir Stanley Baker, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Brigitte Bardot, was filmed in colour, scope and stereo, at Cinecitta in 1955, with a thousand extras - and they'll tell you to go away and stop being silly.<br /><br />They'll tell you that no such film EXISTS. That the names you've quoted NEVER worked together - they weren't even contemporaneous. And that you've just picked the names out of a movie publication at random and are attempting to befuddle them.<br /><br />At which point you can direct them to IMDb and show them the cast and crew of "Helen Of Troy". They'll be amazed! This lesser-known sword-and-sandal epic has ALL these names and more - Niall MacGinnis, Janette Scott and good old Harry Andrews.<br /><br />And it is certainly an oddity. After the war, 1,000 Italian extras cost about $25 a day and toga dramas were a staple of Italian cinema. The orgy scenes were shot twice - one with tops, the other without (you can guess which version Britain and America got). I believe even La Sophia is an extra in this one.<br /><br />Either way, the names STAGGER the mind. But it's really just a coincidence. All of said names were either just reaching the ends of their careers (Canutt, Steiner) or beginning them (everybody else).<br /><br />Only Robert Wise and Niall MacGinnis were in the middle of their careers.<br /><br />For the record, Leone was uncredited and learning his trade - Adam still had to invent the descending circle in the ceiling of sets (a trademark he'd go on to put into all the early Bonds) - Baker had yet to star in and help produce the likes of "Zulu" and "Robbery" - and go on to direct a Welsh TV company called Harlech - then die tragically young.<br /><br />While Harry Andrews would go on to become one of Britain's favourite character actors - Janette Scott (Thora Hird's daughter) would never make the really big time, but who can forget her in "Day Of The Triffids" (even though her bit was added later - for padding and a happy ending) or "Crack In The World"?<br /><br />Sir Cedric was theatre, but knew how to mug on film - and Bardot... was BARDOT, for gawdsake!<br /><br />But what were these stellar people DOING in this camp old nonsense? Don't ask me. The two main stars were no-name Italians - Helen had a moustache and Paris was pretty - while the Brits were only there for support.<br /><br />To summarise, I think you can just mark this one up as a major FLUKE. In stereo. To be honest, if I hadn't seen it - I wouldn't believe it EITHER! | 0 |
I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking. | 1 |
Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work. <br /><br />Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.<br /><br />But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry. <br /><br />Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.<br /><br />What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.<br /><br />I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players. | 0 |
Tracy and Matt, Michelle and Sebastian: these are the two couples whose lives of addiction, crime, and squalor are brilliantly captured in this raw and honest HBO documentary. They're in turns petulant, charming, repulsive, astonishingly stupid, and dedicated: to the drugs and to each other. They're also each very different: Matt is a working class boy who clearly revels in his naughtiness, whilst prep school dropout Tracy supports the couple with Western Union money from her moneybags father, who makes a surprisingly sympathetic cameo towards the end of the film. Meanwhile widow Michelle (whose hubby died of an OD) earns her daily bread by posing as an NYPD vice cop willing to cut her would-be Johns a deal to avoid prison time, and sad sack companion Sebastian lives off the proceeds. You'll be pulled into their stories and will wish the film went on for twice as long. Unlike most documentaries of this kind, there's no coda providing us with an update about their progress (can Matt and Tracy really keep that Brooklyn apartment? Will Michelle go back to Bellevue for more detox? And can Sebastian become any more pathetic?). As a result, the film seems incomplete, but that may have been the point. Essential viewing, as long as you aren't completely averse to scenes of people shooting up. | 1 |
If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how clear "Hamlet" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of "Hamlet" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.<br /><br />Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says "I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious..." Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must "out" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself. | 1 |
In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony") | 0 |
LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.<br /><br />I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.<br /><br />LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).<br /><br />Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...<br /><br />After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.<br /><br />One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks... | 0 |
Simply an amazing bittersweet movie that portrays a side of life often skipped over in feel good movies. I saw this as a child and came back to it very recently and fell in love again.<br /><br />As a child it sparked my interest purely for the building of a plane, as an adult it captured me in the dark world and a young mans escape from that world. <br /><br />The portrayal of the King was great, the camera style chosen with low shots and shots focusing on actions and hand movements was I thought well done, I personally can not recall anything quite done in that style and adds to the character and portrays him as a force almost not human (which may not be far from reality) it makes for interesting developments <br /><br />Worth a watch any day | 1 |
To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention! | 1 |
This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie. | 0 |
Here's one more beauty in the string of beautiful films directed by Eytan Fox. The movie presents the story of star-crossed lovers (one Israeli, one Palestinian)in modern Tel Aviv. The film's effectiveness comes not only from its depiction of cross-ethnic conflict, but of conflicts personal and political within ethnic groups as well. For example, there's a telling moment when one of the secondary characters, openly gay, is visited in the hospital by his boyfriend who brings him flowers and tries to kiss him in front of his visiting family, and suddenly we see a wave of awkward discomfort wash through the room. Clearly the young man is not as open as he seems, and the family not as accepting as he might want them to be, while the boyfriend is confused and rejected. A good deal of complexity is packed into a fleeting moment. As we know from Yossi & Jagger, Fox is a master at efficiently packing emotional and psychological complexity into brief sequences. The film is also effective for the even-handed way it presents the mutual brutalities that Israelies and Palestinians inflict on each other. If you're not heartless, you'll cry through the last third of the movie. Though the plot is melodramatic, it's so intelligently written and acted that it reminds us of how satisfying good melodrama can be. | 1 |
This movie was a great disappointment for me. I had been waiting for this movie to come out for years, and I was a faithful follower of Chaos Comics until they went bankrupt. Not only did they cut out half the story line, but they altered information. The statement that Lucifer is Hope's Father is untrue. He did corrupt her father, but he himself is not her father. The voices also did not suit the characters, and once you hear the voice of a beloved character, the voice you heard in your mind can never be returned. I can not even remember everything about this film that was wrong. The bottom line is if you love Lady Death do not watch this movie. It just did not do the comic justice at all!! | 0 |
Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say "fake". "it's never been disproved" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god. | 0 |
When I first picked this film up I was intrigued at the basic idea and eager to see what would happen. I'm a fan of animation and love it when it's successfully merged with live action footage. However, the animation in this film was about all I enjoyed. Although it must be said that the actors' performances were excellent. The visual look - including the animation - gave a wonderfully unnerving air to the piece. However this was quality of unease was lost amongst the overblown imagery, both visual and in the script, that you were practically hammered over the head with. Most annoying about this was the relative lack of importance to the plot. It seemed that the plot was shoe horned in at irregular intervals giving a stuttering effect that detracted massively from the flow of the piece. The voice overs from Felisberto - especially the one at the end - very much felt like a desperate attempt to fill in gaping holes in the plot which had been ignored in favour of side issues such as the whole ant thing (and even that wasn't properly addressed). I'm afraid the whole piece came across as, at best, a 'reasonable first attempt', by a teenager who has spent far too much time reading DH Lawrence. Not what you expect from seasoned film makers at all. | 0 |
A flesh-eating octopus, where does that guy Boaz(what the..?) Davidson keep getting inspiration? Anyway,even for the low,low standards of both the giant sea animal who kills people-genre and me,this one is just beyond awful.The octopus is one of the lamest,laziest,weakest monsters I've ever seen.I think he just ended up in the (ahum)East River because Sea World got sick of him.The actors can be seen repeatedly helping the octopus choking them.Bunch of idiots,that way he'll never learn!You guys want all the other giant killer octopuses(that's the correct plural,by the way)to laugh at him?Meanies.<br /><br />Up to stop the octopus are wind,razors that are hard to handle and also special sea agent Nick Hartfield and his partner,who will retire in a week but first has to be eaten by the octopus.Hooray,octopus won the fight!A couple more and he's going to evolve(the scars in my mind stay).Nick of course tries to help him by not doing a damn thing(doesn't he have a gun or something?)but no,that magically doesn't help either.<br /><br />Okay,enter sea cop's love interest Rachel Starbird.Is this based on some comic book or something?Anyway,together they try to stop the octopus by walking in the park.They hope this helps,cos it's the 4th of July in a couple of days,and the octopus might join the party.And you don't know what he's like when he's drunk.Rachel then gets a school bus from out of nowhere to make sure this movie won't end while Nick feeds the octopus some more sea cops.<br /><br />But all's crappy that ends crappy,Nick manages to blow the octopus to bits a couple of times,and a bunch of children who happened to be there cheer and laugh.You know,on tummy-vision,this would probably get an R.In real life,I'd say all ages but I kinda like all ages so my final idea is:Suitable for absolutely nobody.There's no sex,no gore,no nothing.Now forget this movie ever existed.Join the club. | 0 |
Despite positive reviews and screenings at the international festivals, this movie is not for everyone.<br /><br />The story is very similar to other movies, in which a teenage girl from the family of immigrants needs to overcome many common personal problems of her age, and also to struggle against the pressure of ethnic traditions in her family. She does that by choosing some kind of sport, and with the help of a local boy, that for some reason falls in love with her, she confronts her problems and wins.<br /><br />In Girlfight it's boxing, in Bend it like Beckham it's soccer, and now it's Kung Fu.<br /><br />But Fighter is much inferior product than these two, it was simply embarrassing to watch it. Semra Turan, the "actress" that playing the role of a teenage girl, maybe can do a lot of things, but one thing she can't do is to act. Her presence on the screen is anemic and clumsy, the dramatic situations, in which she tries to show some emotions, are dreadful, her body and facial language are of amateur actress, badly instructed by the director. The rest of the cast is a little better, but they just cannot save this cliché movie with stereotypical characters and shallow plot. Besides a few relatively good moments this movie has nothing new or interesting to offer.<br /><br />Even the kung fu fighting is not a reason to watch this, it's just so boring. The slow motion was really unnecessary, the choreography was basic and lacked the inspiration, and most of the kung fu scenes are just training or standing in all kind of kung fu positions, not actually fighting. Not to mention how ridiculous it looks when a small and skinny girl fights big and muscular boys, and knocks them off their feet. <br /><br />The only reason this movie has been noticed at all is because it's European. It's very easy to publicize this movie - A first martial arts film from Denmark, but don't be fooled, it's not. It's just a drama about stupid teenage girl and her problems, which are, by the way, not really convincing.<br /><br />Bad movie with embarrassing lines, acting and story. | 0 |
Bette Davis turns in a coldly amusing performance as Mildred Rogers in this 1934 film. The film seems rather dated now in 2003. It is no doubt well worth watching for film buffs and Bette Davis fans but may not have as much appeal for the average movie watcher today. It was startling for me to see how young Ms. Davis looks in this move. The actors turn in performances which are basically sound and the story is meaningful and interesting. Leslie Howard is well cast as Philip Carey, the club-footed medical student. This is a film with a strong message about whom we choose to love and why. However, "Of Human Bondage" didn't seem to have a strong impact on me mentally or emotionally. I felt slightly indifferent and detached about the movie after viewing it. I have an intuition that this may be the reaction that the director was going for. You be the judge!<br /><br /> | 1 |
While Hayao Miyazaki's movies have always been hit-or-miss with me with regards to story, they are unequivocally gorgeous to the eye, with characters of simple animation against a backdrop of artistic images. Ponyo sticks to that formula, with a lead character so adorable I want a plush doll of her and scenery so pretty it wouldn't look out of place framed up as a picture on a wall.<br /><br />The story, on the other hand, I didn't enjoy quite as much as his last two wide-releases, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. It was just a tad too juvenile, coming across as more for kids and leaving adults to just enjoy the animation.<br /><br />I was also disappointed that the score done by Joe Hisaishi, who also the scores for the above-mentioned two movies, wasn't nearly as memorable this time around. While I can't quite recall Howl's score now, I still remember it being one of the most beautiful I had ever heard. Ditto Spirited's - though I only remember it being very complementary to the movie. Maybe it's because Ponyo is more juvenile fare that the score isn't quite as haunting. In any case, this movie is still a must-watch for fans of anime or Miyazaki. | 1 |
I don't much mind the factors that others here have objected to - acting, lighting and so forth. For the most part, these things were executed well enough to carry the film and put its points across. It's just a horror film, after all.<br /><br />What bugged me were the points themselves. Because this is a deeply moralistic film, and its morality is deeply tacky. In fact it's actually fundamentalist Christian morality, and this is a fundamentalist Christian film. Look at the 'sins': <br /><br />* Sutherland's character picked on a kid at school when he was a pre-teen, leading to his accidental death.<br /><br />* Baldwin's character used masculine wiles, persuasion and good looks to shag quite a few women, some of whom he videotaped. Ooh, the swine! How unlucky for him that women are such passive, gormless creatures that they had no complicity in the matter.<br /><br />* Roberts' character's dad came back from Vietnam a junkie, so ashamed to be caught shooting up that he kills himself. Yes, what a terrible sin! Why couldn't he have just become an alcoholic like all the others?<br /><br />* and Bacon's character picked on another schoolkid. How awful! The fact that he was a child himself apparently counts for nought. Children, it seems, are divinely judged by adult criteria.<br /><br />Well, maybe lots of people support this level of moral absolutism. It certainly seems to have gone unremarked in this movie's comments. Does everyone just buy this stuff? At least human laws treat children differently from adults, recognising that their ethical sense is partially-formed. This film has no such qualms, and I find that pretty objectionable. Ditto the notion that women are helpless, fluffy creatures before young men's evil lusts. Or that a Vietnam vet driven to drug addiction is so shameful that suicide is a valid option. Pathetic. | 0 |
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people? | 0 |
Let us begin by saying that this film's English title "The Power of Kangwon Province" is an absolute misnomer.It is because in Hong Sang Soo's film,there are no actual shots of wars,troubles and conflicts.So the idea of establishing power of a province is neither suitable nor valid in the context of this film.If we were to judge this film by its Korean language title,"Kangwon-do ui him" is going to appear as a cryptic statement about emotional turmoils of its young protagonists whose minds are not at rest.Hong Sang Soo has also directed a highly prolific visual document about erratic choices made by people in their lives.The people in question are a couple of young girls who are constantly in the process of displaying their moods,whims and fancies. If making a film out of nothingness can be claimed as a film maker's meritorious virtue then Hong Sang Soo has to be saluted as a courageous film maker whose films speak volumes about ubiquitous nothingness of human relationships,sentiments and lives.Whether one likes it or not,this is the only fair conclusion that be deduced from this particular film. | 1 |
This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.<br /><br />Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.<br /><br />For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989. | 0 |
I feel very strongly that this film was just like Waiting to Exhale with white females in the 1950's. As in Waiting to Exhale, all of the female characters got mixed up with men who were either married or no good. The only difference, besides the obvious, was that there wasn't much humor in this film. I would even say that it was tragic. Only one of the male characters seemed to be kind and sincere (Hope Lange's guy), but even then there was conflict in this relationship.<br /><br />The story was about three young women who shared an apartment together and who had hopes and dreams of success. Unfortunately for them, romance didn't seem to come easy although they were young, intelligent and attractive. This movie could be called a tearjerker with the saddest part involving Suzy Parker's character whose obsession of an ex-boyfriend leads to tragedy.<br /><br />This is a must see. | 1 |
Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Brocéliande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.<br /><br />Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back. | 0 |
Walter Pidgeon is Braley Mason, a civil attorney who takes on a criminal case in "The Unknown Man," a 1951 film also starring Ann Harding, Barry Sullivan, Keefe Braselle, and Richard Anderson. A great believer in justice, Pidgeon accepts a pro bono case defending a young man, Rudi Walchek (Braselle) accused of murder and gets him acquitted. Shortly afterward, he realizes that the man is guilty and was extorting protection money from his victim as well as other shopkeepers in the neighborhood. He is advised by the DA (Sullivan) that Rudi is small change, that to wipe out the organized crime, one has to find the top man. Mason finds the top man, and is faced with a dilemma.<br /><br />"The Unknown Man" is a small, black and white film that manages to hold the viewer's interest with its various plot twists, though the plot is somewhat contrived. It's really the story of a good man seeking his god, justice, and what he is willing to do in order to attain it. And that's the most contrived part of all. I suppose there was a time before O.J., the Menendez Brothers, etc., etc., when people believed in justice and the integrity of attorneys. For this viewer anyway, those days are long over.<br /><br />Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job -- his handsome, elegant demeanor and declamatory voice show us a successful, confident man but also a deeply caring one. Pidgeon had a magnificent career spanning 60 years but never really rose to superstardom. He was a solid actor who could play just about anything and did. It may be because by the time he was getting leads, he was well into his thirties and missed being a matinée idol; or it could be he lacked that certain something; or that he was typed early on as second lead to a big female star like Greer Garson. Hard to say. He gives an honest and touching performance here.<br /><br />Very good movie with good performances. | 1 |
If you like who-dun-its, you will like this film, considered the best Italian detective story (giallo), Fulci has done.<br /><br />It's not Mickey Spillane for sure. There are scenes designed to disturb anyone.<br /><br />Many would be offended by a local beauty trying to seduce a 12-year-old boy. She was joking, but she was naked nonetheless, and he would have jumped at the chance to jump her bones. She also tries to tempt the local priest.<br /><br />Young boys are turning up missing, and there are several interesting suspects. You have to watch carefully to discover the killer. Can you? Don't jump on the first guy, it's way too early, and he is too obvious.<br /><br />Anyone familiar with Fulci will be able to guess the killer, who died a violent death at the end. What crazy reasoning he had. | 1 |
The Coen Brothers have done it again. Three depression era convicts(George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson)escape a Mississippi chain gang and head off in search of buried treasure that will fund their new lives. Along the way, they sing on the radio and become much sought after stars as well as escapees. Great laughs and a soundtrack that is a lesson/introduction to bluegrass music.<br /><br />Clooney is outstanding as the fast talking, quick witted Ulysses Everett McGill. Holly Hunter plays his estranged wife. Turturro and Nelson are flawless stumblebums. Also in the cast are John Goodman and Charles Durning.<br /><br />Dan Tyminksi provides the singing voice for George Clooney on "I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow", the Soggy Bottom Boys song that serves as a template for the bluegrass laden soundtrack that also features Alison Krauss, Ralph Stanley, The Whites, John Hartford, The Cox Family and Gillian Welch. Toe tapping, knee slapping fun for the whole family. You'll be surprised with how relaxed and funny this movie is. | 1 |
This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage. | 1 |
...cause they're both pretty lousy. I think the best part of the movie is the horrendously imperial picture of Faye Dunaway at the top of the stairs. She looks like she could very easily step out of that picture, rip someone to bloody pieces, and calmly re-enter the portrait looking as if nothing had happened. Now, you know a movie's in trouble when part of the set furnishings manages to attract your attention.<br /><br />I admit, I paid $30 for the DVD just so I could see Faye Dunaway in a contemporary horror movie. I know what you're thinking--30 bucks right down into a gaping black hole. And you would be absolutely correct. This movie sucks. There, it's right out in the open. I was expecting some actual scares, and I waited and waited and waited. None came. The raven (probably a crow in makeup) didn't scare me, seeing small pieces of internal organs didn't scare me, and even Faye didn't scare me. I'm not that brave, I know, so it must be the movie itself that is the trouble. What's more, Jennifer wasn't scared either. Her internal organs were literally falling apart and she seemed more peeved than anything. Her life was rapidly coming to a close and she's worried about attaining more money. Honey, you can't take money where you're going!!! "I need money," she continually says, completely ignoring the fact that her lungs have collapsed and ceased to function.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I spent the whole blasted movie wondering what was up with the grandmother (Faye). I was suspicious at first, Faye playing a grandmother and all, and I was still suspicious at the end. There is another relative living in the house that Jennifer and Mary Ellen the Grandmother-From-Hell are forced to share temporarily, and I'm guessing she is of the same generation as said grandmother. Here's the weird part--the relative looks like she's just endured her eight hundredth birthday party. Mary Ellen looks like she's just gotten a face-lift from a renowned surgeon. Face-lifts can't work miracles, but I think Faye's appearance is important to the rice-paper plot. SPOILER!!! It seems that the family is plagued by an illness that affects bad acting...sorry, my little joke. Seriously though, there's all illness that causes their organs to fail and ultimately disintegrate. Yuck, huh? Interestingly enough, Mary Ellen is still alive and all her organs are intact. How did she avoid the Family Curse? Something's up with her, obviously.<br /><br />Another reason for mourning the loss of my thirty dollars--this movie features one of my all-time movie pet peeves. I refer to the double ending. This movie ends twice. I absolutely hate it when that happens, and in this movie it feels like the director shot the ending, didn't like it, and forget to remove it during editing. I guess it's supposed to be scary, but it is only if you're a film editor.<br /><br />There is one perk to this debacle, though, and it's one of the reasons I bought the DVD. The "filmmaker" commentary features Faye Dunaway, and I wanted to see how she acted when she didn't have lines to recite. Guess what--the movie sucked so bad I wasn't able to sit through it again. Drat. | 0 |
I've slowly been collecting the films available on DVD of both Catherine Deneuve and Francois Truffaut. Both actress and director have done some stinkers in their time - fortunately Mississipi Mermaid is not one of them.<br /><br />Next to "The Soft Skin", coincidentally staring Deneuve's sister (the late Francoise Dorleac), this would have to be my favourite Truffaut film.<br /><br />As well as directing, Truffaut also wrote the screenplay. Something that always strikes me about Truffaut is his almost childlike innocence when presenting a story -- one could almost call it naivety.<br /><br />There's a scene towards the end of the film where Belmondo returns to the apartment in Lyon with the remains of the loot. He rings the doorbell and Deneuve answers wearing a negligee. In the time it takes Belmondo to reach their room from the street, Deneuve changes into her dress, puts on her best pair of stockings and shoes, then lies on the bed and pretends she is asleep. It's a scene that could almost come from the mind of a child - but that's Truffaut for you.<br /><br />Watching Catherine Deneuve in her films of the late 60's is indeed a sensory pleasure. She is so extraordinarily beautiful it is almost painful for us to watch. Incidentally, for those fans, there are a couple of topless scenes of her in this film - indeed a sinful pleasure.<br /><br />I disagree with previous posters. I see nothing 'Hitchcockian' about the film at all. As for the 'look' of it - i love the look of the older film stock used in the 60's. It certainly gives films of this period a unique look.<br /><br />Highly recommended for both Deneuve and Truffaut fans...... | 1 |
This movie was the second movie I saw on the cinema as a child. It scared the living crap out of me. So much so that I asked my father if we could leave halfway through.<br /><br />Nowadays, the only people leaving halfway through are the ones who have a good taste in movies.<br /><br />I, however, still have fond memories of this flawed masterpiece of awfulness. Doug McClure and Peter Cushing in the same movie! Great! Monsters made of polypropylene substitute. Scary stuff. A rubber monster is, when you think about it, is even scarier than a real monster.<br /><br />The astonishing thing about this movie is how good the score is. Truly rousing stuff.<br /><br />There's also plenty of prehistoric tit on show, too. Nice. | 1 |
yes i have a copy of it on VHS uncut in great condition that i transfered to DVD and if anyone one wants to bring back the memories of a Christmas classic please emil me at dmd2222@verizon.net.i searched everywhere and i found nothing on this and i thought that i cant be the only one on this planet that has this classic on tape there has to be other people and if they do i fit in with them being that very very few that has this classic so i consider myself lucky and i have all of the muppets Christmas except one that john denver did with the muppets again i thinks its called a smokey mountain holiday im not to sure but its close. | 1 |
Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.<br /><br />Magnificent Desolation very much had the "Programme for Schools" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.<br /><br />The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) "flag-wavingly nationalistic" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.<br /><br />Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit | 0 |
Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.<br /><br />http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/ | 0 |
I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.<br /><br />I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).<br /><br />Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.<br /><br />What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.<br /><br />"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).<br /><br />Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.<br /><br />Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad. | 0 |
The pros of this film are the astonishing fighting scenes - absolutely incredible sword-moves and martial art show off. A true John Woo masterpiece. The story tends to be a bit week though, but it never overshadows the overwhelming display of acrobatic martial art action. If you are into martial art movies, you are going to LOVE this one! | 1 |
This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible. | 0 |
Princess Warrior is a science fiction action movie with a pretty thin plot-essentially on the death of their queen mother two sisters, one evil and one good, fight for control of the throne. The good sister is being beaten so she escapes to Earth where she appears buck naked in a strip club in the middle of a wet t-shirt contest. The rest of the movie is basically one long chase scene, as the evil sister tries to find and kill the younger good sister. But the younger sister is helped by Bob, a good-hearted DJ, and everything is complicated by police involvement and the good sister's ignorance of Earth customs and culture. The older sister catches up to her younger sibling several times but the latter manages to escape and go on the run again. Throughout all of this action, there is a cult of women on the home planet having some kind of a space age séance to bring the good sister back. Sadly a good portion of this film seems to be rather boring car chase scenes as they drive around Los Angeles (and what was that sound effect when the police car crashed???) The film culminates in another physical fight between the sisters with a predictable ending.<br /><br />It seems to borrow elements from Star Wars (the light sabers and the look of the girls' home planet in the opening and subsequent scenes), Dr. Who (the phone booth like means of transportation) and some of the costumes (from the cult on the home planet) could have been taken from Star Trek episodes.<br /><br />Ms. Dana Fredsti (the evil sister in the movie) in another user comment mentioned "the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent." I couldn't state it any better. The only thing I would add is that the music in this scene is just plain annoying.<br /><br />Most of the acting is pretty over the top, but that seems to suit the whole style of the movie. The actors playing Vinnie and Vito were just too much for me-I just found them annoying. Ms. Fredsti (Curette) seemed to be enjoying herself and not taking the whole thing too seriously, in contrast to Sharon Lee Jones who acted decently but seemed to be taking everything more seriously. All of the police were portrayed as bumbling idiots, presumably to add comic relief, which is a bit unnecessary, given that the whole movie was rather comical.<br /><br />From a ratings perspective, this film had a lot of foul language; some topless women and others scantily clad in thongs, but not enough skin to satisfy those who are looking for nudity; one sex scene that was portrayed in a non-graphic arty dreamlike fashion; and little violence-while there were threats of violence throughout, the scenes of both sword fighting and brawling were exaggerated, and too camp to be "offensive", though it looked like the actors were having a lot of fun with it.<br /><br />I have to wonder who came up with the character names? Ovule (a small egg), Curette (a surgical instrument used for scraping and cleaning), Exzema (suspiciously similar to a disease characterized by scaling skin and pruritus), Bulemia (an eating disorder with binging and purging) and Rickettsia (another disease)? <br /><br />Overall, this is a bad, low budget, campy, sci-fi action movie, but it did keep me entertained, though I might need a few drinks before watching it again. | 0 |
Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch. | 1 |
Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.<br /><br />Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.<br /><br />Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.<br /><br />As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.<br /><br />I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it. | 1 |
It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.<br /><br />The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.<br /><br />Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.<br /><br />I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death! | 1 |
Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator. | 0 |
Myself and my groovadelic 20-something pals just can't get enough of this awesome Parker Posey CLASSIC! I tried renting this on DVD, but can't seem to find it - too bad, as I'm sure the features would be "extra special" !! :) We all highly recommend this uber-cool comedy flickerino for a date, or even just a cozy night home alone! This would also be the purr-fect type of movie to watch with your cat, or even throw a party based on, like a "Party Girl" party, just like the one in the movie that the lovable, huggable, squeezable Parker Posey goes to at the end. Oh, and be on the lookout for a gripping and HILARIOUS surprise ending... move aside, The Sixth Sense, you've just been outdone by a way radder movie! Sorry, no offense, just calling it like it is! Take it from an old flick lover, comedy just doesn't get better than "Party Girl" with Parker P! Feel it! Yours, Ronald Marie MacDougall (aka DJ Cyber-Rap) | 1 |
I'm among millions who consider themselves Cary Grant fans, but I can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie.I don't understand the casting of Betsy Drake and it appears no one else did,if we're to judge from the small number of films in which she played afterwards.<br /><br />Most fans will agree that Katharine Hepburn was superb at chasing and catching Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.Here the director or writers try to rehash the idea,but it fails miserably.I've read comments about how "creepy" Drake was,but I thought that was far too mild a description. Franchot Tone walked through this one as if he were hungover.A casting disaster is one thing.This film is a total disaster.<br /><br />This one doesn't deserve 10 lines of comments and I don't know why that's a requirement.Too bad this one was preserved when so many worthwhile films lie rotting in vaults.<br /><br />Unless you want to torture someone,give this one a wide berth. | 0 |
This film set the standard for all rock biopics to follow. It accomplished this through the energetic performances of the leads, the steadiness of the camera-work (avoiding 'rock-video' clichés that were actually invented for the Beatles in their first two films), tight editing, and a non-judgmental presentation of the star as human being rather than symbol or god (or demon). Yes, there are minor holes in the plot, and incidental details that are a little unnecessary, and there will always be debate between families of those personally involved as to specifics. But the issue here, as in the much more recent "I walk the Line" or Carpenter's famed TV Elvis biopic of the same era, is whether the meaning of the performer's life, in its time and place, as a catalyst for fans' ideals and appreciation, is made manifest in the performance, and this is clearly the case here. We come away from this movie understanding not only how Buddy Holly became a star, but why. I don't see what else one could want from the film. | 1 |
Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br /> | 0 |
(Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood "Spaghetti Western" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.<br /><br />Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.<br /><br />The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP. <br /><br />Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her. <br /><br />Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie "Opean House" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.<br /><br />Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it. | 0 |
I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. <br /><br />The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.) | 0 |
I can't quite say that "Jerry Springer:Ringmaster" is the worst film I have ever seen. The film would be better off if it were, because at least the worst film I've ever seen, (Prom Night II) interested me enough for me to hate it. My only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when I looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. It had seemed much more like years. It is an endless repetition of poor people, (or what Jerry Springer seems to believe poor people are), screwing each other, hitting each other, insulting each other, and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. The plot, which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the Jerry Springer mill, advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. This makes it impossible to care what happens to them. It never mattered to me whether they got on the show, or what they said, or who slept with whom. Maybe I'm not supposed to care about them. Maybe I'm supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type-- to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. Too bad it isn't. The humor is not outrageous. It's innocuous. It's predictable. Humor has to have something behind it, some kind of painful irony or life experience, in order to function. Scatology is not wit. An example. A mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. To take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter's boyfriend. Since I was over the shock of Jerry Springer's show a long time ago, I had the same reaction I had to Andrew Dice Clay's obscene nursery rhymes; not laughter, just yawning. Lastly, I found Springer's pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. If he really were an advocate of the poor, he would bring on a single mom from Bed-Sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in New York City on $12,000 a year. Or, failing that, he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. Jerry Springer gets millions for his shows, his movie, his book and videos. His guests just get round trip air fare, hotel accommodations, and a chance to humiliate themselves. If he liked poor people so much, he'd give them at least some of the money they earn for him. It appears that Springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. Jeez, with all his fine work, you'd think he'd have earned our respect already. Anyway, the film is weak and boring. It doesn't even succeed at being offensive. If you want to have a better evening, videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that. | 0 |
I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link. | 0 |
Best club scenes that i have seen in a long time - atmosphere mesmerising - matthew Rhys's performance is impeccable and faultless. i would recommend this film to any age group. watch out for wonderwoman! | 1 |
REIGN OVER ME (2007) *** Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, Mike Binder, Jonathan Banks, Rae Allen, Paula Newsome. At times affecting and at times middling dramedy about a thoroughly depressed man who lost his family on 9/11 (Sandler in his best role since "Punch-Drunk Love") who winds up re-united with his old college roommate and friend (Cheadle continuing to do impressive work with every role to date), a well-to-do dentist who seems to have it all family, wealth, happiness but really sees an ally in freedom with his troubled friend's own personal life offerings. Written and directed by Binder (who co-stars as Sandler's former-best friend and acting accountant) with equal parts humor and genuine heartache the film works best when the two stars share the screen until the last act falls into an almost movie-of-the-week treacle with to tidy a solution to the matters at hand. | 1 |
The movie starts little cute. There are a number of revolting scenes. People in toilets. GOOD actors wasted and the original television series has all but ruined here. This did not need to be crude.<br /><br />Forget it. Find the tv show. Disney at new low. | 0 |
I saw this film at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival.<br /><br />This is the first Indian film I've seen in the Tamil language, and while it does share some similarities with other Indian films (wonderful music and choreography, sweeping storyline), the director attempts more than just to entertain. The film tells the story of Amudha, a precocious nine-year old whose parents reveal to her that she was adopted, thus beginning an odyssey that takes them all from India to war-torn Sri Lanka. Gorgeous visuals mix with horrifying scenes of violence expressly to make a point, though it is a simplistic one. Amudha is played by P.S. Keerthana, and she is one of the few child actors I've seen who can be precocious and yet not annoying. Her charm and beauty held the film together. | 1 |
Is it a murder mystery? Is it a police procedural? Is it a back-stage look at seedy French music halls? Quai des Orfevres is all of these, but more than anything else it's an amusing comedy of infidelity, jealousy and love, set in post-WWII Paris. It may be surprising that Henri- Georges Clouzot, the director of such grim films as Le Corbeau or such suspenseful nail- biters as Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, is the director of this one. Clouzot, however, was a shrewd film-maker. "In a murder mystery," he tells us, 'there's an element of playfulness. It's never totally realistic. In this I share Hitchcock's view, which says, 'A murder mystery is a slice of cake with raisins and candied fruit, and if you deny yourself this, you might as well film a documentary.'" Quai des Orfevres is a wonderful film, and it's no documentary. <br /><br />Jenny Martineau (Suzy Delair) is an ambitious singer at music halls and supper clubs. She's a flirt, she's sees nothing too wrong with using a bit of sex as well as talent to get a contract. Her stage name is Jenny Latour. And she really loves her husband, Maurice Martineau (Bernard Blier). Martineau is something of a sad sack. He's her accompanist and arranger. He's a bit balding, a bit chubby and jealous to a fault. Then we have their neighbor, the photographer Dora Monnier (Simone Renant). She's blond, gorgeous (think of Rita Hayworth) and capable. She and Martineau have been friends since they were children together. Dora, however, is definitely not thinking just of friendship when she looks at Jenny. Then comes along Georges Brignon (Charles Dullin), a wizened, rich and dirty old man, who often has Dora take "art" photographs of his young female proteges whom he poses himself. He offers a contract for a film to Jenny, and suggests a dinner at his home to discuss the details. Jenny is more than willing. Maurice is furious and forbids it. Jenny shouts right back at him, "You're jealous of the rich! Well, I want my share of their dough. I'm all for royalty!" "You're dad was a laborer," Maurice shouts back. "So what? Under Louis XV, I'd have been Madame de Pompadour! I'd have heated up their tights!" <br /><br />And after Brignon is found dead with a smashed champagne bottle next to his bleeding skull, there's Dora to try to make things safe for Jenny. But wait. Inspector Antoine gets the case. Antoine (Louis Jouvet) is a tall, tired, middle-aged bachelor with sore feet. He has seen it all. He served in "the colonies" with the Foreign Legion and returned with an adopted baby and malaria. The child is now about eight-years old and Antoine dotes on him. One of the first things Antoine discovers is not only did someone brain Brignon with a bottle, someone shot him in the heart. Who did it? Before long Jenny, Maurice and Dora all are making up alibis, lying and, at one or another point, confessing. How will Antoine discover the murderer? Will we have a chance to see some great music hall songs sung by Jenny Latour? Everything becomes clear, but only with time and Detective Antoine's persistence. We are left with many kinds of love leading to all kinds of motives, from hair-trigger jealousy to longing glances...and all played with a nice mixture of Gallic amusement. <br /><br />Clouzot takes us to a Paris of seedy but not threatening neighborhoods, to downtrodden music publishers where tunes are played on the piano for buyers, to restaurants with discrete private dining rooms. Most of all, he takes us to the music hall where Jenny Latour often performs. We can see Jenny as she sings, with couples in the seats and single men wearing their coats and hats in standing room. And everyone smokes. The first third of the film, in fact, takes place largely in this milieu. With Jenny singing about "Her petite tra-la-la, her sweet tra-la-la," we follow her from trying out the song at the publishers to a rehearsal to a saucy performance with Jenny in a feathered hat, a corset, gartered stockings and not much else. <br /><br />Delair, Blier and Renant all do wonderful jobs, but it Louis Jouvet who holds everything together. He was a marvelous actor who disliked making films. The stage was his world, and he took on films only if he happened to like the director and to make money to finance his stage work. Jouvet was tall with a long face and broad cheekbones. He was not conventionally handsome but he had what it takes to dominate a scene. For a look at how skillfully he could play comedy, watch him in Drole de Drame. He's a fascinating actor. At one point he says, "I've taken a liking to you, Miss Dora Monnier." "Me?" she asks. "Yes. Because you and I are two of a kind. When it comes to women, we'll never have a chance." Jouvet brings all kinds of nuances to that line, from rueful regret to a gentle amusement. | 1 |
I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.<br /><br />There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.<br /><br />I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature. | 0 |
I have to totally disagree with the other comment concerning this movie. The visual effects complement the supernatural themes of the movie and do not detract from the plot furthermore I loved how this move was unlike Crouching Tiger because this time the sword action had no strings attached and most of the time you can see the action up close.<br /><br />I think western audiences will be very confused with 2 scenes one of which involves a monk trying to burn himself alive and the other concerning the villagers chanting that it is the end of the world. The mentioned scenes are derived from certain interpretations of Mahayana Buddhist text (Mahayana Buddhism can be found in China, Korea and Japan) and the other scene deals with a quirk in the Japanese calendar...people back then really thought that the world would come to an end... Gojoe has the action, story and visuals to mesmerize any viewer. I strongly believe that with some skillful editing it can be sold in the U.S. My one complaint is in the last fight scene (I can't give anything away--sorry). | 1 |
I watched this series on PBS back in the eighties and still watch the old tapes every couple of years or so. Very atmospheric and creepy sometimes. This is a very good show as the characters are all well defined and acted. You are drawn into the plot and come to care for these people. The villains are almost laughably evil, especially the Sheriff of Nottingham. Man, I would love to beat the s--t out of that snotty little bastard. Nicholas Grace does an excellent job and must have had a great time being the Sheriff. His whipping boy, Sir Guy, is equally hissable but is also pathetic. Lots of murder and mayhem in this series, along with tons of black magic and Devil worship and things of that nature. I noticed it got an award for children's television which is surprising. If I had kids, I would not let them watch this. Outstanding use of locations in this show also. It is now on DVD, so go out and buy it. | 1 |
Somehow a woman working with a scientist puts round metal balls into people's mouths that supposedly changes their personality but in reality turns them into crazed, zombie-like killers. The "guinea pigs" for the experiment are scantily-clad, nubile young women in desperate need of acting lessons. This movie is awful, atrocious, and amazingly bad. It has little to no logic in the script. You really will have trouble following what is going on. It has no special effects. The computer screen that is supposedly representing a huge scientific advancement looks nothing more than an old Atari screen. And what is even worse is that there is also a puppet with strands of felt hair(looks like a lonely kid at summer camp made it) named George that is like a personal servant/confidant to Jessica(the leading "actress"). Throughout the movie you will be subjected to the idiotic, sophmoric utterings of this puppet. But wait...you also get loads of softcore, unerotic, barely nude scenes with the girls with some bar guys. All the while a most annoying soundtrack plays in the background like some kind of spiritual discovery has taken place. None of the actors are good. There are just varying degrees of bad. The gore and "horror" aspects are especially ineptly filmed. The film really looks like an adolescent put it together. No coincidence Henry Sala, the director by name but not by trade, has not made another film. I was bored almost into a coma watching this stupid, silly, dreck! And how bout the ending? What happened? If you know let me in on the secret because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. All I know is that I lost the time spent watching this garbage that made the beginning of my weekend a real nightmare of a bore! | 0 |
Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are already preparing a sequel about a young US corporal in Afghanistan. He also happens to be a highly-qualified surgeon and is roaming freely around Kabul, operating on wounded NATO soldiers. On a particularly difficult mission, he casually picks up a sniper rifle and shoots Osama Bin Laden from a distance of about 3000 yards. He is then finally promoted to sergeant, but is unable to decide between a sniper and surgeon career, so he quits from the Army altogether. One year later, frustrated with civilian life, he joins the Navy and the last scene shows him proudly wearing a white uniform. | 0 |
A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it! | 0 |
Why is it that everyone who has seen this movie feels it is their responsibility to tell us whether or not they are fencers? That point is completely immaterial to any argument to be made against this total dog of a movie.<br /><br />I think sports movies fall into two categories; well made movies about the human spirit and competitions, and `By the Sword'.<br /><br />Honestly this movie never could decide what it wanted to be, a touching drama for trying to be your best in life, an indictment of competitive motivation or a martial arts flick. In the end it didn't do any of those convincingly or completely enough to make me give one ounce of care of any of it.<br /><br />For the record I also am a fencing instructor (and now I am officially as bad as the rest). But putting bad fencing in a movie doesn't make it bad automatically. I mean look at Star Wars (Episodes 4-6, good movies, bad fencing). I liked those movies. But when you put bad sports into a bad movie for some reason people think that it is only the purists that think it a lame effort.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by any comments on the smaller issue of fencing. This is just a bad movie. In the end, this movie has nothing for the fencing enthusiast or the movie buff or simply anyone with a pulse and three brain cells.<br /><br />When I see a movie and am forced to think, `Man, I wish I was watching the Mighty Ducks.' I know that it is time to bypass the argument with the theater manager to get my money back and see if there is anyone in the lobby that will somehow give me two hours of my life back. | 0 |
What i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line "never underestimate how stupid the audience are". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and "original". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised! | 0 |
If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...<br /><br />First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.<br /><br />Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.<br /><br />Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.<br /><br />Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.<br /><br />It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so. | 0 |
Over the past century, there have been many advances in gender equality, but not so much in the world of movies. I'm not talking about what goes on behind the camera, I'm referring to the tastes of the audience. The idea of a "chick flick" is alive and well today, while there are still plenty of action and horror films which appeal primarily to males. Sure, there are men and women who enjoy the movies that fall outside of their typical demographic, but there aren't many movies which have appeals across the board. Hitch, the latest Will Smith vehicle attempts to change that trend by being a chick flick which throws in a dose of male perspective.<br /><br />Smith stars in Hitch as the title character, Alex "Hitch" Hitchens, a "date doctor" who trains men on how to approach a woman and have a successful date. Hitch enjoys his job and loves to see men successfully accomplish their goals of going out with the woman of their dreams, but due to a bad experience in college, Hitch himself is somewhat sullied on the idea of love. As the story unfolds, the film introduces two seemingly separate story lines. Hitch's latest case is Albert Brennaman (Kevin James), an accountant who is very attracted to one of his clients, the beautiful heiress Allegra Cole (Amber Valletta). Hitch has his doubts about Albert's chances, but if his clients desires seem sincere, Hitch supports them.<br /><br />In the mean time, Hitch meets gossip columnist Sara Melas (Eva Mendes) and is instantly attracted to this strong woman. However, the date doctor can't seem to follow his own advice in pursuing Sara. Things get even more complicated when Sara's job leads her to investigate the relationship between the accountant and the heiress. Will Hitch be able to balance his private life and his job? And more importantly, can Hitch believe in love again? If you are a true movie fan, then there's been at least one time in your life when you've complained about the redundancy of the Hollywood movie factory and cried out for something new and original. Well, Hitch ain't that movie. But, most movie fans will also admit that occasionally a formulaic movie can work solely on an entertainment level. Hitch does qualify as that film. | 1 |
Really, when it comes down to it, this movie is just not funny. Josh Kornbluth is the antithesis of funny, and yet he thinks he's hilarious. The plot about mailing the 17 letters was fine at first, until Josh's "look at me, I'm wacky" approach began infesting each and every scene. The Judas Priest joke may have been the least funny thing I have ever been privy to, and that is saying quite a bit, since it does have stiff competition from all the other jokes in the movie. And as for the incredible overuse of the Pixies' "Debaser," I have just one thing to say: What did the Pixies ever do to deserve a fate like this? What did anyone do to Josh Kornbluth to cause him to write/direct/produce/star in such a terrible movie? | 0 |
I had never heard of Leos Carax until his Merde segment in last years Tokyo, and his was easily the stand-out the film's three stories. It wasn't my favorite of the shorts, but it was the most unique, and the most iconic. "The Lovers on the Bridge" was the first of his full length features I've seen, a virtuoso romantic film that uses image and music to communicate an exuberant young love that overflows into the poetic. Though he's classified as a neo-nouvelle vogue, his films owe as much to silent cinema as the 60's experimental narratives. His movies are closer to Jean Vigo in "L'atlante", Jean Cocteau, and Guy Maddin, than Godard and Truffaut.<br /><br />In Boy Meets Girl Carax's 1984 debut he uses black and white and the heavy reliance on visual representation to display emotional states. He combines the exaggerated worlds of Maddin, but based in a reality that never seems quite stable like Cocteau, but by virtue of its expressions it becomes more accessible, emotional, and engaging like Vigo's movies.<br /><br />The story of Boy Meets Girl is simple, and similar to Carax's two following films which comprise this "Young lovers" trilogy. A boy named Alex played by Denis Lavant (who plays a character named Alex in Carax's next two movies), has just been dumped by his girlfriend who has fallen in love with his best friend. In the first scene he nearly kills his friend on a boardwalk but stops short of murder. He walks around reminded of her by sounds of his neighbors having sex, and daydreams of his girlfriend and best friend getting intimate. He steals records for her and leaves them at his friend's apartment, but avoids contacting either of them directly. He wanders around and finds his way to a party, where he meets a suicidal young woman, and the film becomes part "Breathless" and part "Limelight".<br /><br />Later he is advised by an old man with sign language to "speak up for yourself...young people today It's like they forgot how to talk." The old man gives an anecdote about working in the days of silent film, and how an actor timid off stage became a confident "lion" when in front of the camera. Heres where the movie tips its hand, but the overt reference to silent film is a crucial scene, since it overlaps the style of the film (silent and expressionist), with the content (a lovelorn young man trying to work up the courage to say and do the things he really wants to). Though Alex is pensive at first and a torrent of romantic words tumbling out of him by the end, he is the shy actor who becomes a lion thanks to the films magnification of his inward feelings which aren't easy to nail down from moment to moment, aside from a desire to fall in love.<br /><br />There is a scene in the film where Alex retreats from the party into a room where the guests have stashed their children and babies, all crying in a chorus that fills that room, until he turns on a tape of a children's show making them fall silent. Unexpectedly due a glitch the TV ends up playing a secret bathroom camera which reveals the hostess sobbing to herself into her wig about someone she misses. Even as Carax is self-reflexive and self deprecating of the very kind of angst ridden coming of age tale he is trying to tell (the room full of whining infants), he's mature enough to see through the initial irony to the lovelorn in everything the film crosses. Even the rich old, bell of the ball has a brother she misses. In another scene an ex astronaut stares at the moon he once walked on in his youth while sipping a cocktail in silence.<br /><br />Though indebted to films before talkies, Carax is a master of music, knowing when to pipe in the Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia", or an early David Bowie song, the sounds of a man playing piano, or of a girl softly humming.<br /><br />In Boy Meets Girl, when someone gets their heart broken we see blood pour from their shirt, when a couple kiss on the sidewalk they spin 360 degrees as if attached to a carousel, when Alex enters a party an feels out of place, its because the most interesting people in the world really are in attendance; like the famous author who can't speak because of a bullet lodged in his brain, or the miss universe of 1950 standing just across from the astronaut. This film is the missing link between Jean Piere Jenuet, Michel Gondry, and Wes Anderson, whose stylistic flourishes and quirky tales of whimsy, all have a parallel with different visuals, musical, and emotional cues in these Carax movies.<br /><br />Every line of dialog, every piece of music and every effect and edit in this movie resonated with me on some emotional level, some I lack words to articulate. There are many tales of a boy meeting a girl, but rather than just explore the banal details of any particular event this movie captures the ecstatic truth of adolescent passion and disappointment. The other movies you want to watch can wait. See this first. If I were to make films, I would want them to be like this, in fact I wish all films were like this, where the ephemeral becomes larger than life, and life itself becomes a dream. | 1 |
I liked this movie. I wasn't really sure what it was about before I started watching it, but enjoyed it nonetheless. It was about a girl (Meredith Monroe) whose mom didn't want her to turn out like she did. She meets and falls in love with a boy (Riley Smith) who is town for a charity football game. It's a good movie. I just hope it will be on again or comes out on video. | 1 |
Watching this again recently, I found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen, even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. By any objective measure this was a disaster, but I found it easy to imagination how good a Lord of the Rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely - and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. Unfortunately, thanks to Jackson, that will not be possible for a long time.<br /><br />Watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all, then this story simply couldn't be stuffed up. Fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. There were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that Peter Jackson did it, although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. The way they tried to show the wraith world from Frodo's point of view for example. Or the way that Galadriel showed Sam what was happening back home for another.<br /><br />Another thing I really appreciated in this version - the silent moments. There were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back-drop. Compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the Jackson films, and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. Jackson's films were full of their own importance, this was quieter and a lot more modest.<br /><br />Jackson and co hit this with more than US$270 million dollars in production costs, at least $90 million dollars more for marketing, a massive tax break from the NZ government, and also gained massive savings from filming in NZ not the USA. However, despite the marketing claims, the intention to be faithful was never there. This is well documented. Philippa Boyens said as much in an interview, when she said they deliberately didn't re-read the books before writing the script. Jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film "along the lines of" the lord of the rings, and that the one he really wanted to do was Return of the King, because it had a lot of battles but no character development.<br /><br />In contrast, this film tried to be more true. Of course a lot of things were wrong, the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything, and the pace was too fast. Naturally they cut a lot, and adapted other scenes, and for this they deserve credit. While Jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose, Bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. There's actually a curious similarity between the structure of the Jackson and Bakshi films near the beginning - in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way - although of course some of this could be coincidence.<br /><br />This was not a good film, but the potential was there. Bakshi said in an interview to the Onion AV club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. His version didn't work, but he might have been right. | 0 |
Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.<br /><br />The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary? | 1 |
I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.<br /><br />Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.<br /><br />Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste. | 0 |
An excellent interpretation of Jim Thompson's novel, this neo-noir thriller has all the requisite elements--deranged ex-boxer turned drifter, alcoholic widow with sinister desires, ex-cop turned small-time crook, and a kidnap plot destined for doom. Yet, the film never crosses into cliche country, but remains fresh and intriguing. The performances are all superb, particularly Bruce Dern's role as the wicked sleazeball, Uncle Bud. There is a tense uncertainty to the film's movement which, intentional or not, adds to the grim proceedings. Highly recommended. | 1 |
So many people have taken shots at Platoon and Born On the Fourth of July among other calling them "leftist propaganda film." Now its my turn to take a political shot at a movie. To me this movie is very imposing on certain religious beliefs and on its political views.<br /><br />The acting and writing was a little to clichéd for my liking. Mel Gibson seems to like to play in these unnecessary violent films and proves it once again by teaming up with his partner Randall Wallace for yet another one. Throughout this movie there was this garbage prototypical "Just tell my family I love them" or "Tell Ronny to pray before hoe goes to bed" lines. The was so overloaded with this garbage retread lines that I felt like I had to vomit. How about that scene were Gibson's wife goes to do her laundry and this "no colors" applies to what to put in the washing machine. Its in the mid-sixties was she some how stuck under a rock not noticing the racism around her. Another scene is were Gibson's daughter asks him what war is and the scene is shot in such a trivial matter.<br /><br />The directing displayed this all perfectly. The countless scenes of Gibson and his family or soldiers praying. I'm fine with showing that once or twice but after a while I wonder if the movie is trying to shove something into my head. How many scenes with the American flag at its finest hour were shot with the melodramatic music on. The director also makes it seem like we won some sort of victory in Vietnam. What exactly was won their. The cinematography was the worst of it with the slowed down scenes see the American flag in the distance scenes spread throughout. I love America but movies like this seem to glorify every little thing we do.<br /><br />This may seem like a rant and maybe it is but I cannot stand it when a movie like this makes people who are not religious are not so patriotic that they will agree with anything their country does look bad. This movie to me is narrow minded and limited in so many aspects. To me it says if your not Christian your wrong. Would God or Jesus want people to kill I don't think so. To me this movie was offensive. At first this movie was funny with the countless clichés and overacted scenes but then when I looked at what this movie was trying to say or not say it was really frustrating to watch. I guess though it is my fault that I chose to watch this movie. I hope no one takes this comment offensively because I am not criticizing religion or patriotism but some of the narrow minded people who are so into both and discount everyone else.<br /><br />If you want a real depiction of the Vietnam war watch Platoon, Born On the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter or The Killing Fields. Even Full Metal Jacket which I absolutely hated was a better depiction. I have read a quote that in context says a true patriot does not go with everything the government or country does but questions it when its wrong. A real patriot loves their country too much to see it do bad things. | 0 |
I'm not sure this review contains spoilers, but I'm playing it safe by indicating there might be. Regardless, it's unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn't familiar with the book.<br /><br />There's an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. "Comanche Moon" is such a mouse.<br /><br />The novel focuses more on the Indians than the Americans. In adapting it for TV, McMurtry and Osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. Unfortunately, there's little in the novel that we don't already know about Gus, Woodrow, and their friends. So the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in "Lonesome Dove". The Indians -- who have their own story to tell -- are largely relegated to the background -- so much so that someone who hasn't read the novel will rightly wonder why it's titled "Comanche Moon".<br /><br />The novel has no overall story line, or much of a "point". This could have been fixed in the movie, by more strongly drawing the contrast between the Indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching Americans, who bring "civilzation". This opportunity was missed.<br /><br />Unlike "Lonesome Dove", "Comanche Moon" has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships -- at least among the Americans. The extended scenes with the Indians have been largely removed or shortened. And for a (net) four-hour film, it is remarkably episodic and choppy. One gets the feeling the script was originally longer, and cut to reduce the production costs.<br /><br />The screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog, aphorisms, and platitudes. Coming from the author of "The Last Picture Show", it's a startlingly bad script. McMurtry and Osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations, but did not.<br /><br />Some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered, for no obvious reason. For example, Clara (Cassie) shows her intense hatred of Woodrow (Jack) by condemning Gus (Ennis) for always running off to be with his "pard". That tart little revelation of Clara's sexual jealously is gone. Then there's the scene where the ur-dense Woodrow warns Maggie not to let Jake Spoon "compromise" her. The exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher; the film tones it down, and doesn't portray Woodrow as quite the socially stupid, emotionally frozen stone he is. (When I read that scene in the novel, I wanted to punch Woodrow in the stomach -- or worse.) There are other changes, some of them understandable. Inish Scull's eyelids are not cut off; to do so would like have required expensive CGI. But Buffalo Hump has no hump! (Perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask Wes Studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis.) And Buffalo Hump's character is "kindler and gentler". He is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels.<br /><br />The only good thing about this near-turkey is Steve Zahn's remarkable performance -- not so much as Gus McCrae, but as Robert Duvall playing Gus McCrae. It is uncanny. He perfectly duplicates Duvall's mannerisms and manner of speech, without ever appearing "deliberate" or self-conscious. As was Duvall, he is wholly "within" the character. And he actually shows us Gus becoming "more Gus" in the third part.<br /><br />The best thing about "Comanche Moon" is that it won't spoil our affection for "Lonesome Dove", not just a great Western, but a great American film.<br /><br />PS: For those who think Rachel Griffiths was over the top -- that's the way she was in the book. | 0 |
James Bridges' "The China Syndrome" is a first rate thriller; a model for those who want to make a genuinely terrifying thriller but don't know how.<br /><br />Most thrillers end with the standard shoot-em-up and chase that ends with the villain getting what he/she deserves. But Bridges understands that such a standard finale isn't the case in some scenarios. "The China Syndrome" is thrilling in a way no one would expect. It has the type of ending that's so unexpected, but yet so logical.<br /><br />The film stars three (then) current Oscar winners: Jack Lemmon (Best Actor 1973 for "Save the Tiger"), Jane Fonda (Best Actress 1971 and 1978 for "Klute" and "Coming Home" respectively) and Michael Douglas (Best Picture 1975 for producing "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". This isn't your standard "spot the star" flick that became so popular in the 70s. The acting is so solid and strong that we forget who's playing the roles and believe that the characters are real people. That's a testament to the collective ablities of all three actors. They may be stars, but they're actors first.<br /><br />There is no music score in the film. Asides from a few background songs from jukeboxes or TV shows, there is nothing. Bridges doesn't allow any directorial style to come through on screen. He is simply presenting the material straightforward. With a strong dramatic story like this, we don't need a score to distract us. It kind of strikes me as a predecessor to the Dogma 95 filmseries started by Lars Von Trier in 1997. It focuses on the characters and story rather than style.<br /><br />The story is about a nuclear power plant located in Southern California. **SPOILER** An accident appears to have happened and basically the film is about Lemmon,Fonda and Douglas try to expose the truth. In a way this is not a spoiler, since the trailer, TV spots, video boxes and reviews all give this away. But from this seemingly simple premise, a surprisingly complex morality play springs and the suspense comes from human nature and the actions of people rather than a villain framing another guy (although this is an element in the film). That's what makes "The China Syndrome" so good.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars | 1 |
An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.<br /><br />Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.<br /><br />Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.<br /><br />The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended. | 1 |
Ray Bradbury, run and hide! This tacky film version of his short story from the 1950s about time travel and the effect it might have on de-evolution is not well known from the theatrical run (did it have one?) and exists now as a DVD on the shelves released during a slow week.<br /><br />What looks to be a fancy sci-fi thriller form the opening scenes quickly fools us as the computer generated graphics are re-run unaltered throughout a film that is supposed to be about different 'trips' back in time where a major company sells macho guys in 2055 the chance to hunt dinosaurs by paying exorbitant fees to travel back in time to prehistoric jungles. One slip of the foot/butterfly while on one of these ventures and the course of evolution is altered with resultant time waves rolling over the planet changing everything to man-eating plants and beasties. Of course there is a pretty damsel who knows how to reverse the process and a hunky man to risk his life to act on her orders and everything is eventually OK.<br /><br />Yes, that is the story...and the most surprising fact about this poorly scripted, abysmally acted mess of a film is that it attracted some fine talent to portray the comic book flat characters. Edward Burns (all buff and hunky) is our hero du jour, Ben Kingsley is the requisite bad corporate guy sporting a ridiculous white wig, Catherine McCormack is the know-it-all woman creator, and Wilfried Hochholdinger as an evil one - all are superb actors and should have known better than to align with this flop. And the saddest thing is that for those who like this genre of sci-fi monster thrillers the creative department sold out with some of the corniest animation to hit the screen in a long time. A must miss. Grady Harp | 0 |
This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.<br /><br />Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.<br /><br />Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.<br /><br />Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.<br /><br />It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless. | 0 |
I hadn't planned on watching O12 because I didn't like O11 that much. I thought O11 was a nice but slightly boring little bank robbers movie with a sensational arsenal of stars. Anyway I was talked into watching O12 one night and I regretted it a lot. The plot is not only boring but also senseless. I honestly don't even know what it was all about. I left the movie after 3 quarters and got some coffee with another girl who didn't like it. Much more pleasure I can tell you that. But even the guys who stayed till the end later reported to me that the plot continued being awful and useless. My advice: Don't watch. Go watch Team America (hilarious btw;-)) and forget about Ocean's Twelve.<br /><br />In my opinion the most boring and senseless peace of crap to be on the screen in years. | 0 |
I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.<br /><br />I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.<br /><br />Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.<br /><br />I would assume that they changed her husband's name/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.<br /><br />On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice. | 0 |
As a horror-movie fan I try to watch all significant novelties of this genre, especially those which are the products of my native cinema. And I can say that that the "Power of Fear" (or "Vedma" as the Russian title of it) is one of the weakest film among them. Firstly, it can't scary even a little kid, it paces so slowly and so predictable that there is no place for the real horror. Frankly speaking, it's bad in all points: from the goofy plot (I don't know why the Russian producers/director decided to transform the classic story about Ukrainian witchcraft into some lame and ridiculous modern-day-America thriller. I absolutely agree with the previous reviewer it doesn't thrill a bit) and to the terrible and cheesy actors' work. All actors including the leading Valeri Nikolayev and Yevgeniya Kryukova who are quite famous in Russia look like wooden dolls or something like that and it seems to me they didn't even bother to play at all, only spoke their English lines without any expression. And at the end I don't really understand why they filmed this flick in English with Russian actors? I think it was their wrong turn. At least they could cast some American or English actors for the leading parts to make them look more convincing. The same I can say about so called "small American town backgrounds" which were shot in Estonia and look like it. The only positive moment I found in the "Power of Fear" is the visual effects. They are not excellent but rather good for the Russian film. And the music is OK, at least it doesn't irritate me. That's why I give it two stars. Overall, if you want to see good horror film don't waste your time and money on this boring flick. And if you are looking for something that claims to be a Russian horror I'd advise you to find a copy of "Viy or The Spirit of Evil". It's really the terrific movie based on the same novel as "Power of Fear" but much, much better. | 0 |
I am so insulted by this movie, it's not even funny... And I thought "Mulan" was unbelievable! However low my expectations of Disney have become, I never figured they'd do something so stereotypical yet so off. There is no respect here for any true Chinese culture, just the Hollywood tradition of random martial arts.<br /><br />I appreciate that they tried to make Wendy into a normal teenage girl... But, fortunately, most normal teenage girls--particularly Asian teenage girls--are much less obsessed with such shallow aspects of life. And from a cultural stand point, it's almost impossible. Yes, there are girls who are wrapped up in popularity and fashion, but they're pretty rare. And even the ones who are are still fairly decent scholars. Another stereotype, maybe, but a fairly true one. Because that's how Chinese parents work. That's how Chinese values work. If they wanted to go for authenticity, they would've made Wendy an ironic girl with glasses and a love-hate relationship with her family.<br /><br />This just adds to my frustration with American movies. Asian culture isn't about meditation and vague, nature-oriented phrases that sound wise. We don't walk around smiling enigmatically all the time, and we don't all know some form of martial arts. We're a PEOPLE, and I'd appreciate it if someone would write an Asian part that doesn't portray us as some sad caricature. | 0 |
This 60min film shows just how much fun filmmaking can be. It's all in good fun as it plays-out a no holds barred comedy assault on the Star Trek genre. In "Hick Trek - The Moovie", a group of good 'ol boys are on a mission to stop a group of renegade cats out to destroy the entire Redneck Federation.<br /><br />Can Captain Jerk stop the villainous Fluffy with the power of the R.S.S. Bovine and it's Cow Ray?? She may have nine lives, but he has ten bullets! This cult classic (previously only seen at scifi conventions) is a party favorite. Lots of funny moments! | 1 |
Well, this stripped my nerves raw, they got that right. I first rented this movie back in the 80's, when my friend opened a video store that carried every rare movie he could find. He also carried all the shock, horror, and exploitation movies he could dig up, and I went through almost of all them. Previously I had seen Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs, and the Wizard of Gore. They were gruesome (especially for the time period), and the Wizard of Gore got pretty nasty. The Gore-Gore Girls, however, was the one I remember as being the most disgustingly gory.<br /><br />I rented it on DVD a little while ago because I wanted to hear the commentary, and thought it might have some cool dancing and clothes. I forgot that it was made in the early 70's, so fashion had kind of gone downhill by then. I also realized this was a movie I didn't really need to see more than once. It had amusing parts, but gaaaah! It was much more disgusting than I remembered. I'm very jaded to movie gore but a couple of times I just got too grossed out and had to look away. This wasn't a good choice of movie to put on DVD all crisp and cleaned up with better sound and picture quality. The commentary is amusing in parts, and interesting (I think HG said the budget was $6100.00) Maybe HG Lewis wasn't feeling well that day, but he sounded tired overall and also had the nerve to get offended when the interviewer from Something Wild compared him to Ed Wood Jr. Sorry pal, but you're not exactly Martin Scorsese yourself.<br /><br />The extremely thin plot is about a series of murders of topless go-go dancers in strip clubs. A cute reporter and a really unattractive private detective team up (sort of-he can't seem to stand her) to try to solve the crimes. Henny Youngman owns a strip club. A bunch of really ugly murders happen.<br /><br />I'm going to apologize in advance because I don't want to sound like I need to lighten up, but this movie was so misogynistic it p***ed me off more than "Company of Men". Mainly because the main character's and the director's extreme dislike for females- and the audience- just oozes from every frame. It's not just the murders. The highly unattractive detective goes out of his way to treat the female reporter like dog dirt at every opportunity, for no apparent reason, (he's not exactly a threat to George Clooney, like I said) and she still follows him around like a puppy. She faints upon seeing a horribly mutilated body and he looks distastefully at her, then pours cold soda from a can onto her face to wake her up. Later he calls the police to report the crime- "No...no hurry...she just seems to have...lost face." This guy is THE HERO. You can imagine how the other characters feel about women. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Please note that I am making this movie sound much more politically correct (and much more fun) than it actually is.<br /><br />Most of the cast are the type of actors you pray will never take their clothes off- not too easy on the eyes, so don't watch the movie just to see the nudity unless you're not too picky. The go-go dancers all look like they desperately want to have the scene end so they can get their $10 or whatever the going rate HG paid them was and get their drug fix. OK, it's not quite that bad, there was one dancer that looked like she might have been a pro and also one other cool dancer with a huge afro that didn't look as miserable as the rest, but still not too thrilled. The only slightly entertaining things were a couple moments of brief unintentional humor, such as when a policemen in charge at a murder scene angrily yells "Get outta here before I have you all arrested!" not to a bunch of reporters but to some other policeman calmly going about their work (they mutter and stroll off, though). Henny Youngman is kind of funny though, like Lewis says, he said his lines so fast that they almost needed subtitles (I'm sure he was trying to get the whole day over in a hurry so he could get paid and get the hell out of there, though he doesn't look like he minded watching some naked chicks).<br /><br />Might be worth seeing just out of morbid curiosity- for the era the movie was made, it was probably the most gruesome thing on film at the time- or if you're really big HG Lewis fan and find him or low-budget film-making by anyone fascinating. Otherwise, if you've seen it once, you've seen it and can move on to other disgusting but much more entertaining low-budget movies from the early 70's...this movie doesn't even come close to, say, "Pink Flamingos" when it comes to the skip-the-popcorn factor. If you've never seen an HG Lewis movie, I recommend you try "Blood Feast" first instead, you'll have a much better time.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I know i loved this movie when i was 12-14 years old. Now that i am 24 i watched it again, and i wished i hadn't. Because all the things i laughed at when i was younger, is no longer funny. so this is an hour and a half without fun. For me the jokes were lame, not funny or just too childish. So the same thing i loved about the movie when i was a kid, is now the things i don't like about it. Besides not being funny it is not actually believable at all. The evil character is very poorly done but i guess that is the kind of movie it is. And the last 20 minutes of the movie is pretty lame with bad fighting sequences and so on... But if you are young you will probably love it. I rate this movie 4/10 | 0 |
Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.<br /><br />A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.<br /><br />I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.<br /><br />Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.<br /><br />Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.<br /><br />Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.<br /><br />I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.<br /><br />Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.