text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
The "Confidential" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion. | 0 |
That's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself | 0 |
It's a rehash of many recent films only this one has fewer stars, lesser complications and a more fuzzy feel to it. Abhay and Ritika (played by Fardeen Khan & Esha Deol respectively) meet at a friend's wedding where their own marriage (unbeknowst to them) begins its process of being arranged. Within no time the two strangers are married and sent of to a honeymoon camp where they meet other couples going through the motions similar to theirs. As they spend time together, secrets are revealed, hearts broken and/or mended and love blossoms.<br /><br />If you've seen Honeymoon Private Limited and/or Salaam-e-Ishq, then you've seen this film. The plot twists are the same, there is not a single element of surprise in the entire two and a half hours of the film. Everything is predictable. I only enjoyed it because I had seen 'Darling' (also starring the leads Deol & Khan) earlier in the day and enjoyed their chemistry in that so I said "why not" when my sister suggested we rent 'Just married' as well.<br /><br />See it: Because Kirron Kher co-stars and is her usual darling self in it.<br /><br />Skip it: Because you've had enough of all this couple-fest nonsense! <br /><br />C+ | 1 |
PERHAPS in an attempt to find another "Hot Property" for adaptation, the Brothers Fleischer thought back to their highly successful foray into the world of the Newspaper Comic Strip with their production of 1933's POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer Studios/Paramount). Although it was a part of the BETTY BOOP Series, Miss B. only made a brief appearance in the short; leaving the rest as a pilot episode for the possible emergence of a full blown series.<br /><br />AS is now common knowledge, the gruff, squinty eyed, brawlin' seaman became perhaps the most successful cartoon series ever; outlasting and literally outliving the Fleischers and their Studio, lasting to this day.<br /><br />RETURNING to King Features for another try at luck was no doubt the reason for trying out the very popular HENRY Comic Strip character in a BETTY BOOP outing; objective being the seeking of another series. The reasoning then surely seemed sound. HENRY was a most popular feature in the Hearst Papers' line-up; appearing as both a Daily and on Sunday's Color Comics Supplement, PUCK, THE COMICS WEEKLY. You know, "What Fools These Mortals Be!" Remember that one, Schultz? IN viewing the chubby, little, bald boy Comic Strip 'Hero' and his on screen antics, both solo and in tandem with Miss Betty; we were pleasantly surprised in seeing just how well the character was handled. The story and Director Dave Fleischer both afforded a plethora of comic strip-like situations and sight gags that seemed most appropriate for the character of little Henry. These mostly silent vignettes were very important to the animated film in remaining faithful to the printed page; as the HENRY Feature was mostly done in a sort of 4 color 'mime'.<br /><br />IN the cartoon, titled BETTY BOOP WITH HENRY: THE FUNNIEST LIVING American (Fleischer Studios/Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1935), we see what is; basically being a one situational exercise; being punctuated with the usual array of Dave Fleischer's rapid fire, machine gun-like gags. In short, Henry spots a puppy in the window of Betty Boop's Pet Shop. It is a sort of love at first sight as Henry attempts to purchase the little pup dog with the only money he had, to coins in his pocket. He is in formed by Miss Boop that it would be $2.00 in depression era money to make the purchase. Tears appear as the little guy leaves dejectedly.<br /><br />BUT a reprieve is soon on the horizon as Betty asks the boy to mind the store, while she leaves on urgent business. In return for his services, Miss Betty promises him the little dog in return. Of course, they have a deal and Betty leaves.<br /><br />GETTING to the work of cleaning cages and feeding the livestock affords the opportunity for the Fleischer Crew to fire up a whole new string of gags; this time featuring bird seed, Henry's bald pate and push brooms. (But not all at once of course, Schultz!) Henry's enthusiasm for mass feeding of the store's avian population by first literally seeding his head soon leads to a mass defection of the birds; out of the store to the open street in a mass jail break.<br /><br />BETTY returns to this sight and expresses her disappointment and anger with Henry's temporary custodial care. All bets were off, no doggie for Henry. He begins to leave; dejectedly; but soon convinces the proprietress to give him another shot at fixing things up. His head covered with bird seed, he manages to corral all of the little feathered creatures; returning them to their pet store coop. Happily, the little fella leaves; but this time he has his own affectionate, little, face licking puppy.<br /><br />UNDOUBETLY this was a winning combination. We have the carefree, energy filled, free wheeling of the boy, the kindness of Betty and the emotions of the situation and doubtful outcome of the 'boy and his dog' situation. Max and Dave Fleischer had given us a sort of almost minor mini-masterpiece of a surreal comedy short.<br /><br />WE were quite surprised that no HENRY Series followed. Judging by the fairly faithful treatment of the character, it certainly could have been sustained for some time. At any rate, this teaming was in many ways the best of the Betty Boop try out pictures. Although the first, POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer/Paramount, 1933), was the most successful (and barely had any Betty Boop in it, save for a cameo as a carnival hula dancer); the HENRY Short was much better than the two following King Features "tryouts", BETTY BOOP AND THE LITTLE KING and BETTY BOOP AND LITTLE JIMMY, both 1936.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | 1 |
I've watched many short films in my day. Often I find them either too compressed (throwing too much information at the viewer in the short amount of time they have to run), too "artsy", or lacking a clear-cut vision. I can say none of these things about Starcrossed. In this review, I'll do my best to avoid any dramatic spoilers, but I'll also assume that the reader understands that the theme of this film is brotherly incest.<br /><br />As with any short film, the story is fairly simple, straightforward and easy to digest. It's clear that the film attempts to shine a light one one of modern society's most deeply held taboos. This film succeeds in every respect. In the fifteen minutes of running time, I found myself feeling a gamut of emotions. With only a little dialog, the viewer is rapidly pulled into the most personal moments and thoughts of these star-crossed brothers.<br /><br />From the opening scene set in their early childhood, one can see the very close relationship the brothers have. When the film progresses to the present day in the next scene, the excellent acting and honest, heartfelt performances remind the viewer that love can come in the most unexpected and harsh way. As the relationship progresses, any disgust the viewer may initially feel is quickly replaced by sympathy and emotional distress as the viewer suddenly realizes that there can be only one possible resolution. And the aftermath of that resolution is heart-rending.<br /><br />Anyone with an open mind would do well to watch this film and absorb its message. If nothing else, it boldly and honestly challenges the viewer to reexamine some of our deepest beliefs on the shame-filled and secretive taboo of incest. Though the film is only fifteen minutes long, it resonates in the viewer long after the credits roll. This is perhaps my favorite short film I've ever seen. I can't recommend it highly enough. | 1 |
I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was based on a real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. One line in the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be very true of our society, "western medicine is in the practice of prolonging illness and I am in the business of curing it."<br /><br /> | 1 |
this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.<br /><br />transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.<br /><br />its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close. | 0 |
I don't understand why everyone is hating on Barney. If you hate the show so much, then Don't WATCH IT! Its stupid how everyone is changing the "I love you" son to "I hate you." If you don't like it, fine. Whatever, thats your opinion. But there is no point to degrading the show, when it isn't even that bad. OK, so its corny, and yes, it has its flaws, but its a kids show. Kids don't want to be sad and miserable, they want to be happy. And Barney helps that. And even in the show, there are moments of sadness and anger and etc. And yes, Barney uses magic. But the kids see Barney as a figment of imagination. Kids need a place to escape to express themselves. The world is a miserable and hard place. We all need a place to express ourselves, and be happier. Barney does this to us. This show is great. I watched Barney when I was younger. Yes, some people find it stupid. But I watched it, and I'm top of my class. It might not necessarily make you smarter, but that's not the point. I believe that the point of Barney is to provide a place where kids can be kids and the spirit of childhood can be expressed. Where imagination lives on. So many teenagers now are unimaginative and are scared to express themselves. Barney helps encourage that. Barney helped me to not be afraid and to just show myself for who I am. I'm a sophomore at high school now, an AP student with a 4.0, a drama student with a love for theater and art, and with a new baby cousin who loves Barney. I watch it with him and enjoy it and sing along with it. Yes, its corny and silly, and whatever, but its great for kids. Who wants to be an adult who doesn't have time to have fun? Im a kid at heart and I love Barney. Its great for kids and those who are a kid at heart.<br /><br />Its a great show for babies and toddlers. So stop hating. Say that you don't like it, but stop it with the "Dumbest show ever" or "Barneys a load of bull" or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Take a chill pill or whatever. Here's something: I never liked Sesame Street. But you don't see me going: "Grover is a load of bull" or "Cookie Monster should die" or whatever. I hate all of the BULLSS**T that people say about books or movies, like Barney or Twilight. If you hate it, OK, whatever. No one cares. Don't go saying hate things about it, cuz you might just offend someone. | 1 |
Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.<br /><br />The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.<br /><br />I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it. | 0 |
Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.<br /><br />Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.<br /><br />The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.<br /><br />Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.<br /><br />Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.<br /><br />Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure. | 0 |
Here you see Mr. Eastwood in all of his glory (i.e., at the top of his form as an actor and at the height of his physical appeal), but the "ladies" depicted are hardly typical of the South, then or now. The young girls at the boarding school are incredibly naive, some showing signs of developing into really depraved women, and Geraldine Page, full-blown in her corruption, hardly represents the mean when it comes to head mistresses of girls schools, either then or now. (That is not to say that there isn't the occasional bad apple in any barrel.) Mr. Eastwood has said this is one of his own two favorite films.<br /><br />"The Beguiled" does have an original plot, a lot of attractive characters and many surprises in store for the viewer. It's thoroughly engrossing and entertaining but not really realistic. (I know, having grown up in the South and attended a girls' school and college. Moreover, I have been acquainted with innumerable girls who did the same, not to mention their laid-back teachers, or you might even say "repressed professors" who were a far cry from the headmistress depicted here.) She is downright comical in her depiction of a Southern gentle woman who is not quite what she seems.<br /><br />This movie was a little outrageous when it first appeared and still is, I think, but you won't be sorry you spent your time watching it. | 1 |
I got this as a complete set of 9 episodes on 5 DVDs. I knew nothing about the history of the series. Season 1 of the series has the pilot episode as episode 1 and then 3 more episodes for a total of 4. Season 2 lists 5 episodes with the last being Beyond Good and Evil with an original Air Date of 7 December 1998. The other 4 episodes on season 2 were broadcast from December 1997 to Febrausry 1998. So Beyond Good and Evil looks like season 3 episode 1, except there are no more episodes in season 3.<br /><br />Spoilers here. The two main characters of the first 8 episodes, Dr. Iain McCallum (John Hannah) and Dr. Angela Moloney (Zara Turner), are missing from this episode being replaced by Dr. Dan Gallagher (Nathaniel Parker) and Dr. Charley Fielding (Eva Pope). I recognized Nathaniel Parker from the series The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, which began in 2001. So they were planning to have a season 3 but only one episode was broadcast.<br /><br />It seems odd to try to continue a series named after the main character, McCallum, when the main character is gone from the series. So they might have been planning a return of Dr. Iain McCallum, but when that failed the series was canceled. I have no inside information on this but I do see that both John Hannah and Nathaniel Parker were involved in other projects in 1999. Does anyone have any information on this? | 1 |
For the love of god please don't see this movie! Its a waste of time, the plot is predictable, as are the romantic scenes. Trying to build too much with very little, this film and its evil predictable villain is just lame. The characters aren't developed, and most of the film is padded out with shots of Rome, which is much more interesting than the actual film. To top all of that, the acting is a disgrace. I know everyone tries to find their niche, but this is truly a disaster. I can't believe that someone actually paid however many millions of pounds to put this film on screen. Don't waste money or time on this film, go see your grandma or something worthwhile instead. | 0 |
I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it. | 0 |
Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo! | 1 |
Boy, this movie is bad. And not in a good, cheesy, fun way, either. Even MST3K couldn't stop it from being boring, and it's also confusing as all get out. But the most annoying part of this dull mess is Ireland's hideous high pitched voice, which I was tired of listening to in the first five minutes. Not to mention how really unappealing her character is. Even her Dad ran away and abandoned her! I can see why, frankly. If he'd had to listen to her whine in her little mouse voice for more than a few minutes, he'd have been tempted to do her a great harm. As I was, by the end of the movie. Plus, she's useless and annoying. When she falls down the long hole in the earth a la Alice in Wonderland, she'd have been done for in the first ten minutes if that inexplicably Australian accented miner hadn't kept saving her from all of the various plights she kept falling into. He should have just tied her to the Atlantean version of train tracks and been done with it. And this Atlantis underground with the weird, confusing obsession with bone density,I have to ask-where was the light coming from down there? Did they have generators that imitate the sun? No matter. There's no real plot anyway, just a bunch of oddly costumed Goth wannabees running around trying to catch Kathy(probably so that they can stick a gag in her mouth). Stupid, pointless film. Thank you Golan Globus, for this cinematic abomination. May you burn in the seventh ring of Hell for all eternity. | 0 |
This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.<br /><br />This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.<br /><br />I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"<br /><br />In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)<br /><br />One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.<br /><br />One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie. | 0 |
Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!" | 0 |
In this desperate and thoroughly silly attempt to keep Hammer's Dracula franchise alive despite having lost most of its power long time already, our legendary vampire is brought back to life in the swinging London of 1972. Exactly hundred years after he was destroyed by his archenemy Van Helsing, an occult disciple named Johnny Alucard (get it? get it?) gathers his flamboyant friends in an abandoned church, among them Van Helsing's great granddaughter Jessica, and performs a satanic ritual that resurrects Dracula in a haze of smoke. Dracula's only mission is to wreak havoc upon the entire Van Helsing lineage and fragile Jessica is the ideal victim to achieve this. This is probably the only 70's film that goes immensely over the top in trying to look like
a 70's film! Considering the previous six Dracula films were all set in the Victorian era, director Alan Gibson really wants to stress the fact we're in the 20th century now and thus he stuffs his film with insufferable hippie-characters, hideous 70's fashion trends and awful 70's music. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing seem hopelessly lost in this setting and their performances regretfully show it. The opening sequence (a flashback) and the showdown climax are fairly enjoyable, but everything in between is painfully boring and the complete opposite of scary. The greatest elements in this series of films have always been Dracula's dark castles and the exhilarating coach races and, obviously, this installment lacks all of that. Luckily for the fans, Hammer Studios contemporary released other films revolving on vampires that are much better ("The Vampire Lovers", "Twins of Evil", "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires"
). Not recommended. | 0 |
No, "Lifeforce" is not a great movie.<br /><br />It's not a good movie.<br /><br />It is, however, an average movie with some good effects and a compelling storyline (and, of course, Mathilda May). It may actually be one of my favorite SF/horror flicks for the very simple reason that they try to reason their way through the science of the space vampires. How often do you see that? Not even in "Alien" (the SF/horror flick of all time) does science come into the story at all. In "Lifeforce" they are trying to make reason of an unreasonable world.<br /><br />Now, do I think it's successful? No. I think the movie has the issue of a massive ensemble cast that Hooper is straining to keep collected and on track and that the viewers have to focus on more than one 'villian' and there are one too many road trips.<br /><br />To be honest, the movie is eye candy and fun to watch. but there is great potential here for a superior remake to take a hold of what Hooper was trying to do and really create a strong, scary, SF/horror movie.<br /><br />If the remake does happen, however, I demand that Mathilda May have a cameo. | 1 |
Some changes for the better (the special effects are more elaborate), some for the worse (Scott Grimes, a likable kid in the original, has turned into an awkward teenager), but generally this sequel is about on a par with the original - which doesn't say much. The PG-13 rating is questionable; although the film is not scary at all, there is some brief but quite explicit gore, and some out-of-place nudity. (*1/2) | 0 |
First off, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That may make you want to see it, but it is not bad in a good way. It's boring, implausible, poorly shot, ridiculously scripted, and lacking in cool disaster effects.<br /><br />Worse, it is intensely patriotic without a trace of irony or fun, wallowing in a sense of Japanese uniqueness and victimhood. Everyone abandons the Japanese in their hour of need. Particularly the Koreans. The most noble characters choose seppaku -- going down with their ship as their beloved island sinks. "Only Japanese would think this way," says the prime minister.<br /><br />If this movie in any way reflects the Japanese opinion of their place in world opinion, the first thing they should do to rectify the problem is stop making movies like this. | 0 |
This movie over does it on the cgi i mean sci-fi really they over did it the original '' BATS'' is better it does not use cgi like the sequel. in this movie its the simple people running from mutated killer bats. and really bats in Afghanistan?! the plot involves u.s army soldiers finding a terrorist and being attack by bats and dying<_< but the reason i gave this movie 3 stars is because the way the camera zooms in on the soldiers. the acting is bad and this doesn't even look like a horror movie. in all this movie is a fairly good TV movie for sci-fi channel. but if like sci-fi's movies you'll like this movie because you just like channel 43 oh and if you fall asleep during the movie don't be surprised. oh sorry i think i give it 2 stars instead. | 0 |
This is not a good movie at all. I cannot believe that after fifty years, this movie gets the National Award when there have been such gems from Marathi cinema that have been so systematically ignored. This is a very overrated movie that got very, very lucky. It was given the National Award, harvested the popular opinion and now is going to represent India before the international audience. Anyone with even a marginal understanding of good, quality cinema will know very well that this will not even be nominated at the Oscars.<br /><br />I cannot understand where to start. There are just so many things that are wrong and lacking in this movie that it amazing it even got considered for the National Award. That this movie is awarded as the best movie to come out this year goes to show the biased judgment of people who hold the reins of Indian cinema and the diminutive understanding of the people who blindly appreciate this movie.<br /><br />The topic chosen is great. It is important that such movies be made but only by people who are able to handle them. Sandeep Sawant does not measure up to the task not even close. His direction is jumpy, confused. There is no clear thought process. He tries, but is not able to explore the depth of the characters, especially the grandfather. He is not able to show the initial horror, anxiety and then hopeless detachment and yet the insurmountable courage of the grandfather. He wastes our time in the hospital when we should have been shown the time pair spend together. He is trying to cram in everything without any priorities. He does not understand his subject properly and that really counts against him.<br /><br />However, the cast does not help Sawant either. Worst job Amruta Shubash. She is a terrible actor and a terrible choice for this or any sensible acting job. How did she get 'Tee Phulrani'? Extremely lucky and/or extremely influential and/or extremely pitiful casting. Having said that, she goes out of her way to do an even terrible job in this movie. Her act of the MSW should have gone to the more responsible actor Sonali Kulkarni. Amruta Subhash did not understand it. MSW's work under constant emotional stress and yet it is important for them to project a calm, strong exterior, as this is reassuring to the patients. Amruta Subhash's Asawari seems even more scared and in need of support than the people she is working for.<br /><br />Second worst Arun Nalawade. I have never seen a more wooden face in Marathi film industry (it is abound and everywhere in today's Hindi cinema though). He is the producer and so he chose himself; no second thought, no consideration. Any good actor would have jumped to play this role even if he had to pay the producer's to do it, but Arun Nalawade would not let anyone else do it. Over ambitious and obtuse, he contributes to bring down the movie more than everyone else combined. His acting lacks research and even the basic acting skills. My choice for this role would be Vikram Gokhale.<br /><br />The music is uninspired. The movie is technically lacking. It could well have been an FTII project job.<br /><br />On the up side; brilliant performance by Ashwin Chitale. It is amazing that such a young boy could give such a respectable performance. He put many of today's actors to shame. Unintentionally maybe, but he brought his own innocence to his character and that made it a memorable performance. Also, Sandeep Kulkarni really gave a very believable performance. Really put in all his efforts and it shows. The script too is well written.<br /><br />'Shoestring budget' cannot be a valid argument to praise this movie. Lack of funds dogs all of the Marathi movies. Cricket and Hindi movies sponge all the money and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. It is a sorry state of affairs but yet not reason enough to praise any immature movie that comes out. 'Doghi' was brilliant movie and it too was made on a shoestring budget. 'Doghi' also lacked technically but it was well researched and well made. It was abound in details and supported by wonderful performances by everyone and that made it rich cinema. Why did it not receive the accolades it so very deserved? only proves my point of biased judgment.<br /><br />Lack of research and not of funds, is what makes 'Shwaas' such a bad movie. | 0 |
This is one of the most predictable movies I have ever seen. And this supposed to be funny..... Boring, boring, boring. Find the fast forward button at your remote and use it... I can`t say I laughed once, and the only good feeling this movie gave me was relief when it ended. | 0 |
I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense. | 0 |
...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much. | 0 |
Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!! | 1 |
I'll be blunt. I'm not one for politically correct movies where the woman plays the bad ass who's not going to take any crap from anyone. If any one of the cast members wanted to, they could have just taken her out in a heartbeat. It was entertaining on MST 3K, but don't rent the real version. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you? | 0 |
About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment. | 0 |
The Curse of Monkey Island has always been my favorite of the series. A vibrant visual look, an excellent soundtrack and brilliant voice-cast all create a memorable and humouristic adventure.<br /><br />Graphics wise the game is definitely not a let-down. Though some corners have been cut the over-all feel of the game is reminiscent of Disney Feature Length Animations. The gameplay is simple and even a novice will get the hang of it soon enough. The game also offers a little extra for the more experienced players with its Mega Monkey Mode.<br /><br />The voice-cast is one of my favorites. Dominic Armato's sympathetic voice makes Guybrush complete and Alexandra Boyd is simply charming as Elaine. Earl Boen makes for a wonderfully sinister yet over-the-top villain, LeChuck. Also the game's charm is added by memorable characters like Wally (Neil Ross), Murray (Denny Delk) and one of my personal favorites Haggis McMutton (Allan Young, voice of Scrooge McDuck). My hat also goes off to the late, great Kay Kuter and his memorable secondary-role as Griswold Goodsoup.<br /><br />Michael Land's tropical and wonderful soundtrack once more graces the Monkey Island adventure, comprising of some of the best tunes in the business. The game isn't perfect and some locales are not as well detailed as other, but I had no gripes with the simple ending of the game which I found very satisfying. | 1 |
How I Spend My Vacation puts closure to the television series that aired from 1990 to 1992. I've always enjoyed the series for what it is. I've never compared the series to the Looney Tunes of the old days. The video release was split up in four or five episodes (I can't remember as I'm writing this) for television and it's included in the episode list of the series. What's good about this series is that All the main characters of the show have a major role in the story. We see what they all do during their summer vacation in different parts of the world. Elmyra is with his parents in a Safari, Plucky and Hampton crossing the country with Hampton's parents, Fifi is in some beach, etc. The climax is very good and at the end all Tiny Toon characters reunite for the start of a new year in the "Looniversity", thus practically ending the good run of this tv show. | 1 |
I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show "the gritty reality of war" like this "wonderful foreign film" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly "gritty" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me. | 0 |
I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee. | 0 |
Todd Rohal is a mad genius. "Knuckleface Jones", his third, and most fully realized, short film has an offbeat sense of humor and will leave some scratching their heads. What the film is about at heart, and he would almost certainly disagree with me on this, is how a regular Joe finds the confidence to get through life with a little inspiration. Or not. You just have to see for yourself. The short is intermittently making rounds on the festival circuit, so keep your eyes peeled and catch it if you can - you'll be glad you did. It is hilarious. And check out Todd's other short films also popping up here and there from time to time: "Single Spaced" and "Slug 660". | 1 |
The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.<br /><br />Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.<br /><br />This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is. | 0 |
"A Gentleman's Game" uses the game of golf in a country club setting to illustrate an adolescent's discovery about honesty, prejudice, and other life lessons. Several times I thought I knew where this film was heading, only to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that the filmmakers ever knew where it was heading, either. The defining moment in this movie is probably the scene in which Gary Sinise mocks "The Karate Kid" and debunks any notions that he's going to become a mentor to the adolescent golfer. It's refreshing, in a way, that this movie refuses to follow most of the simplistic and over-worked movie formulas. However, too much of it still comes off as contrived. At the drop of a hat people drop all pretenses of civility, or fail to stick up for the things in which they believe, or are exposed for something far less respectable than their place in society assumes. Unfortunately, there is often no resolution to these moments. And except for the fact that the club serves as backdrop for them, there is no real continuity or linking of them. It's a shame that the writers and director could not salvage a better film, especially given some of the talented actors and potential in the setup. | 0 |
... for Paris is a moveable feast." Ernest Hemingway<br /><br />It is impossible to count how many great talents have immortalized Paris in paintings, novels, songs, poems, short but unforgettable quotes, and yes - movies. The celebrated film director Max Ophüls said about Paris, <br /><br />"It offered the shining wet boulevards under the street lights, breakfast in Montmartre with cognac in your glass, coffee and lukewarm brioche, gigolos and prostitutes at night. Everyone in the world has two fatherlands: his own and Paris." <br /><br />Paris is always associated with love and romance, and "Paris, Je T'Aime" which is subtitled "Petite romances," is a collection of short films, often sketches from 18 talented directors from all over the world. In each, we become familiar with one of the City of Light 20 arrondissements and with the Parisians of all ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds who all deal in love in its many variations and stages. In some of the "petite romances" we are the witnesses of the unexpected encounters of the strangers that lead to instant interest, closeness, and perhaps relationship: like for Podalydès and Florence Muller in the street of Montmartre in the opening film or for Cyril Descours and Leïla Bekhti as a white boy and a Muslim girl whose cross-cultural romance directed by Gurinder Chadha begins on Quais de Seine. I would include into this category the humorous short film by Gus Van Sant. In "Le Marais" one boy pours his heart out to another boy confessing of sudden unexpected closeness, asking permission to call - never realizing that the object of his interest does not understand French.<br /><br />Some of the vignettes are poignant and even dark. In Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' Loin du 16ème, Catalina Sandino Mareno (amazing Oscar nominated debut for Maria full of Grace) is single, working-class mother who has to work as a nanny in a wealthy neighborhood to pay for daycare where she drops her baby every morning before she goes to work. One of most memorable and truly heartbreaking films is "Place des Fêtes" by Oliver Schmitz. Aïssa Maïga and Seydou Boro co-star as two young people for who love could have happened. There were the promises of it but it was cut short due to hatred and intolerance that are present everywhere, and the City of Love and Light is no exception. Another one that really got to me was "Bastille", written and directed by Isabel Coixet, starring Sergio Castellitto, Miranda Richardson, and Leonor Watling. Castellitto has fallen out of love with his wife, Richardson but when he is ready to leave with the beautiful mistress, the devastating news from his wife's doctor arrives...<br /><br />I can go on reflecting on all 18 small gems. I like some of them very much. The others felt weak and perhaps will be forgotten soon but overall, I am very glad that I bought the DVD and I know that I will return to my favorite films again and again. They are "Place des Fêtes" that I've mentioned already, "Père-Lachaise" directed by Wes Craven that involves the ghost of one of the wittiest and cleverest men ever, Oscar Wilde (Alexander Payne, the director of "Sideways") who would save one troubled relationship. Payne also directed "14th Arrondissement" in which a lonely middle-aged post-worker from Denver, CO explores the city on her own providing the voice over in French with the heavy accent. Payne's entry is one of the most moving and along with hilarious "Tuileries" by Joel and Ethan Coen with (who else? :)) Steve Buschemi is my absolute favorite. In both shorts, American tourists sit on the benches (Margo in the park, and Steve in Paris Metro after visiting Louvers) observing the life around them with the different results. While Margo may say, "My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright..." Steve's character will find out that sometimes, even the most comprehensive and useful tourist guide would not help a tourist avoiding doing the wrong things in a foreign country. | 1 |
I personally LOVE this film amidst the Halloween series. I've found, after watching it with many friends, that you enjoy it completely, or find it absolutely unbearable. Personally, i've watched it dozens of times, and it never gets old. There is a great back story within the movie itself, and a lot of different things are finally explained. It's a rather short movie, at just shy of 90-minutes, but it's definitely a thrill ride.<br /><br />The shape seems to be pretty brutal in this film, but the acting is still there with the way he walks, stalks and kills. There are a lot of neat little screen shots with Micheal appearing in the background, which adds more of a spooky element to the movie. | 1 |
I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.<br /><br />Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.<br /><br />While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.<br /><br />What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.<br /><br />If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).<br /><br />9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this. | 1 |
This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.<br /><br />STUPID US.<br /><br />Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.<br /><br />The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".<br /><br />Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. <br /><br />AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. | 0 |
One of the most entertaining of all silent comedies is Pudovkin's short 'Chess Fever', a mad tale of how a rigorously intellectual board game could disrupt even the most carefully planned central economies. Such an unpromising comedic subject as chess found an earlier outlet in this delightful short. Two young men play the game earnestly against an artificial background, a painted set. This is in contrast to earlier Lumiere shorts such as 'L'Arrosseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', wherein the human activity was deliberately framed by a natural setting. The difference in activities (natural=feeding baby, watering garden; artificial=chess) is possibly significant.<br /><br />The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.<br /><br />What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.<br /><br />What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them. | 1 |
As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.<br /><br />While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.<br /><br />So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.<br /><br />Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.<br /><br />I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs. | 0 |
Brown returned to his role from the year before (in "Slaughter") for this rough follow-up film. In the original, he had avenged his parents' slaying by wiping out a huge mob organization in Mexico. Here, he is the one being pursued (retaliated against) by a money launderer portrayed by McMahon. When the first assassination attempt fails, Brown is back in action once more, kicking gangster butt all over the place while trying to protect his new girlfriend Hendry. While the original film was, overall, a better and more coherent movie, this one delivers all the exploitation aspects in far heavier doses, making it more pleasing to fans of the genre. Aside from a fairly dreary opening on horseback and a downright deadly car ride down a city street at night, this movie clips along at a very brisk pace. Every few minutes there appears one or more of the following: drug use, sex, nudity, gunplay, murder or some other action. Brown is his usual reliable, amiable self, helped by his amazing physical presence which goes a long way in glossing over any stiffness in his acting. McMahon is a riot! With tinted glasses and his hair parted down the middle (!), he is shown meting out orders to his gang of thugs and is overheard making passionate love to his fur-clad bimbo. Seeing Johnny Carson's sidekick in a role like this is a perverse thrill. Stroud makes an impression as an intense, racially-bigoted hit-man while Peters adds just a tinge of class as an upright police detective who enlists Brown's aid. Sadly, no mention at all is made of Brown's original sidekicks Don Gordon and Stella Stevens. Suddenly, Brown now has a girlfriend (Hendry) who is likable enough, but lacking in the voluptuousness and personality that Stevens had before. Williams does an outrageous turn as a pimp who can seemingly pick any girl out of a bar and make her an instant member of his harem. The cinematography and overall direction is less polished than the first film, but this one does have a drive and a sense of danger that exceeds the original's feel. The film spends a lot of time in the sewage of organized crime, drugs, prostitution and other vices, but it retains interest through the creativity of its action scenes and the now-startling lack of political correctness. One odd note: A key supporting player in the first film was shown getting shot to death, but pops up here in a different role. | 1 |
At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.<br /><br />After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like "As a matter of fact I do," and "Are you crazy??" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.<br /><br />Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no "Ok, here's what we're gonna do..." scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.<br /><br />This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: "Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.<br /><br />When filmmakers don't have a cool "hook" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.<br /><br />Skip it. 3/10 | 0 |
The Good Earth is a great movie!!!Everybody must see...It is tear-jerking and very heart warming. It caters to the enhancement of values-formation on perseverance, humility and the love of family...The story can be related to our life today especially that poverty is at the threshold. The way on how we respond to such problem is very crucial and if a person is not strong enough to face such, he may be left defenseless and useless. I am very pleased on how the characters justified their roles even the young actors...Their emotions has captivated the audience. The movie may have been done in black and white, but the story is so captivating that you do not want to end. That makes it really great! There should be a re-make for this very nice movie. | 1 |
The Regard of Flight, written and performed by Bill Irwin, is a true classic theatre piece which translated quite well to the small screen. Full of quick and sparkling dialog and some of the best physical comedy of the decade, it is head and shoulders above 99% of "Comedy" as it is presented today. I am sure it will one day take its rightful place with such great shows as "The Fantastiks", and "Waiting for Godot." Why it isn't available on DVD yet is a mystery and a tragedy. | 1 |
i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even "tragical"), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it´s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i´m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you´re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won´t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.<br /><br />"mr. smith" from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with "strange" appetites here, but that´s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy..... | 1 |
I loved this movie. The scenery was breathtaking, the plot had some nice twists and turns, and the characters were well rounded. On two fronts, however, "Rob Roy" scored far above average. First, I have rarely seen a "popular" film in which the quality of dialogue was so high. There were many verbal slashes and thrusts to accompany the brilliantly choreographed swordplay. I could give numerous examples, but why should I? Just watch the film. Second, this movie understood a principle rarely acknowledged any more. For a drama to succeed, it needs not only a hero, but a really believable villain. If you don't have one, there's not much joy in rooting for the good guys. And "Rob Roy" has not one, but three--the Earl of Montrose, his henchman Kilairn, and Archie. Not one-dimensional villains, either, but fully fleshed and very nasty. It takes a bit more patience than "Braveheart"--there's more dialogue, and the accents are a bit tough, but it's a much more clever and subtle piece. (As I said, I loved this movie!) | 1 |
Much to your presumable happiness fair readers, Cage and Hopper did meet and fortunately not in a Lynch moviebecause RED ROCK WEST is way better than any Lynch movie
. Nicolas Cage is a thirdrate actor, the porcelain babe is a surrogate femme fatal, only daddy Hopper is as mean as ever
. RED ROCK WEST is, despite the trite cast, one of my favorite American thrillers; in a word, a thriller with some twists.<br /><br />One notices mainly the gusto, the awesome pace, the thrills, the nice suspense, Lara Flynn Boyle's cute tight small ass, Cage's enviable physical shape (though undeniably ugly, with sharp, bird features, thick eyebrows and thin, rare hair, Cage displayed a fine overall shape
), Hopper's consummate routine, some moderately but truly funny moments, Cage's play with his intended persona, Hopper's rigid, psychopathic allure, Lara's meanness, Cage seems a roamer, the archetypal gloomy roamer of the noir cinema, hungry, tough if needed, naive, dirty, tired. Lara Flynn Boyle performs as the cold mean seductress, Walsh as her heartless husband, and Hopper as the Lynchian hit-man he's already done before.<br /><br />Cage looks indeed rather groggy or dizzy or very confused and having a severe hangover. But this might be his regular look. | 1 |
At the time, "My Left Foot" was the little movie that could. It was hugely popular, and everyone applauded the fact that such a small, independent film could make it all the way to the Oscars.<br /><br />Since then, movies like "My Left Foot" are a dime a dozen, so it might be hard in retrospect to understand what all the fuss was about. It's certainly a well made and competent film, but it's clear that the bulk of its success rests on the shoulders of Daniel Day-Lewis, who immerses himself in the role of Cristy Brown, a man living with cerebral palsy. Day-Lewis pulls off the same bit of stunt acting that had won Dustin Hoffman an Oscar the year before for playing a man with autism in "Rain Man," and the Academy followed suit by giving Day-Lewis the same honor.<br /><br />The only thing really separating this film from a big budget Hollywood production is just that -- its budget. In every other way it's just as formulaic as any standard product. That's not to say it isn't a good movie, but it's not a masterpiece.<br /><br />Grade: A- | 1 |
I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Ruby<br /><br />in Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good movies<br /><br />also, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.<br /><br /> | 1 |
"Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl. <br /><br />It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives. <br /><br />He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once. <br /><br />Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that. <br /><br />The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in. <br /><br />This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed. | 1 |
I just got home from seeing "Radio." I've not seen such an inspiring story in a long time. My kids are ages 8 and 5 and I would like to take them so that they may "feel" the message as I did - you should seek to find the best in people and love them for who they are, not judge them for their differences. Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ed Harris both deserve Academy Awards for this movie. I don't know why we can't have more movies like this, rather than the junk that is served up at theatres on a daily basis. | 1 |
It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini. | 0 |
I'm not bothered by the sleazy hosts, nor am I bothered by the cynical, self-righteous stance the makers of this crap take.<br /><br />What I AM bothered about is that the vast majority of the episodes are fake. I wouldn't even be surprised if ALL of the episodes were staged. Hence this isn't a reality show but something far worse even than Oprah: garbage television with zero comma zero appeal. Like daily TV soap opera but with more action and fighting and less plot.<br /><br />The premise would have turned out great - if only it had been executed without cheating the viewer. If only this idea were free of all the legal complications/trappings that would most certainly ensue due to what would happen with real people, and what is eventually aired. Hence the only way to create this """reality show""" was to get some rather desperate actors and make them improvise (and what pitiful and unconvincing improvisation it is most of the time!). Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who finished grade school? Most reviews I read here don't even mention that any of this is fake, let alone that all of it might be. Wishful thinking or just boundless naivety? <br /><br />The actors hired in this pathetic show are the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel unemployed actors who are miserably waiting on tables, waiting eagerly for a call from a talk show (or this crap), which is when they finally get a chance to make several hundred bucks. I even recognized one actress (in the role of "cheater") that I saw years earlier in "The Jerry Springer Show". And I only saw 6-7 episodes of "Cheaters". How many more of these loser actors are there that appeared in Springer and "Cheaters" that I don't even know about?<br /><br />However, to compare "Cheaters" with Springer isn't fair to the latter. The Springer show is not all fake; a bulk of the episodes are unstaged - hence often highly entertaining. There is no value to be found in "Cheaters", unless you're a struggling actor and want to get tips on how NOT to act in front of the camera.<br /><br />The producers use various (very cheap, transparent) tricks to create the illusion of realness, to give their footage that elusive documentary feel. But it's all in vein. In the end, the more intelligent train-wreck-seeking viewer is left with absolutely squat. "Professional wrestling" has more credibility than this. | 0 |
I have seen tons of trash, in every language, about every topic and of every trend of film-making. From every period, every director and any kind of budget available. That said I really have to declare:<br /><br />This is one of the three worst movies I have EVER seen.<br /><br />It's painfully bad. It's pompous. It's grim. It's incomprehensible. It's annoying. It's a really bad mess. It is a piece of you-know-what.<br /><br />And, what's more important: it lacks a point. And even if it had one, the characters are so unreal and annoying that it's impossible to overlook the lack of cohesion of the whole thing.<br /><br />It's just weird for the sake of being weird.<br /><br />I actually felt sick watching this trash. The theater where I saw it (Lincoln Center in New York) was full when it started. By the end of it, half of the audience had walked out. There was a Q&A programmed at the end but nobody stayed. With the exception of about two sickos everybody else ran for the door, myself included. <br /><br />Save 2 hours of your life. It's probably one of the worst ever done.<br /><br />If there is a movie theater in Hell, this movie will be playing 24/7, for eternity... | 0 |
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own. | 0 |
One of the best movies ever, the idea of a double interpretation involves we all. <br /><br />Would be Prot a schizophrenic or an E.T? (No doubt in my opinion, but let's keep the question open...). Kevin Spacey, the big screen monster, plays Prot as it should be done. Let's not forget Jeff Bridges and his great psychiatric. <br /><br />Lastly, a masterpiece that speakes for itself. Can keep our eyes wide open from the beginning to the credits and our minds thinking even when the movie is over. If you still didn't watch it, go right now! And again, again... | 1 |
I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.<br /><br />It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.<br /><br />This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.<br /><br />The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie. | 1 |
The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to "the shadowy world from which it came!" Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!<br /><br />To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution! | 0 |
One: your screen will be filled with beautiful effects and colours. These do nothing for the story, but they will keep your lazy eyes occupied for some 50 minutes. A good example is the eternal use of a computer screen that shows each fingerprint from the database as that print is compared with the one they want to find out about. Yeah, right.<br /><br />Two: these guys being like real professional Pros, they will engage each other in intriguing Pro talk: "Look, Grissom, these are what we call fingerprints. Everybody has them, and they are different on each person. So, with these fingerprints we can actually find...".<br /><br />Yup! Exactly like real pros would talk to each other if there wasn't a completely uninformed and stupid audience around.<br /><br />However, not everything about this show is bad. Some stories work to some degree, and the colours _are_ really beautiful. They use red, blue, green, yellow... all of them colours I've loved since kindergarten. | 0 |
I first saw this movie as a younger child. My sister had told me about it and I thought it would be more of a kid's movie. However it remains to also be an incredible movie. True that the subject behind the movie is ruff but also true this movie will never stop touching your heart.<br /><br />I was only 6 when I first saw it and just yesterday, 7 years later, I saw it again. For the first time in a long time. Even after I knew how it ended, I knew that I had seen it a billion, bizillion times I wept like a teeny weeny little baby. When I saw it a few years back I finally got the idea and the seriousness of the film. So I stoped watching it for a while. But yesterday I didn't change the channel, I watched it. By the end I was astonished at how much it still made me laugh, cry, think, and above all, believe in mericals again. I haven't belived in a long time and this movie got me out of my shell and opened up my heart. This movie wasn't just impacting. I was also so impressed with the actors. Especially Bobby. So if you are wanting to see this movie for the first time I suggest seeing it alone. With tissues. And being ready to discover your young, sweet, innocent side and the side that still has hope. This movie touched my soul when I was only 6, and even in this time of trying to figure out who I am this movie helped me realize both what I don't and still do want to be in life. | 1 |
People who say that some of what the Looney Tunes cartoons show is inappropriate for children have apparently forgotten something: they weren't originally intended for children. They were produced for the cinema, to be shown before feature films, and so they could show anything that they wanted. "Tweety's S.O.S." has that bad puddy tat Sylvester finding Tweety aboard an ocean liner and boarding the ship to try and get him. But two things work against Sylvester: Granny is vehemently protecting the canary, and Sylvester easily gets seasick (we don't see him throwing up, but with his green face, they make it perfectly clear that he was doing just that!). And then of course, the seemingly cute Tweety has a bad-ass streak.<br /><br />It's just great to see how these cartoons weren't afraid to go all out; whatever they thought about showing, they showed. We need to understand that cartoons weren't always supposed to be cute entertainment for children. Really funny. | 1 |
I am not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still "Halloween 3"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.<br /><br />The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).<br /><br />The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.<br /><br />There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!<br /><br />Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace. <br /><br />My rating: 4/10 | 0 |
Iam not sure if discussing the television series is exactly where the comments should be drawn to,however it is on the television where the The Lone Ranger really made a name for himself.Iam not even referring to the original radio broadcasts of this masked rider of the plains,Iam though referring to a point where in a little boy, about 9 or 10 years old,I was to see the movie,"The Lone Ranger"and never forgot it.I can recall that I was on a line or we were moving toward the Paramount Theater-the theater was located in the theater district,if I remember correctly.It was directly across,going East to West from the building that has the ball that drops on New Years Eve-This is of course if anybody doesn't know, New York City.High Above the street on the roof tops there was a time and maybe even still today huge billboards would advertise what was being shown and so on.It was at that point in time that I looked up and was never more impressed as I was when I looked at that billboard to see The Lone Ranger across the roof tops-It was great-It made an impression and was never forgotten.That day we went to see The Lone Ranger-It was the story of how the Lone Ranger was born-The terrible ambush that the Texas Rangers rode into and the subsequent rebirth of one of its fallen heroes.It was in this film we learn that The Lone Ranger will not shoot to kill but to injure so as to let the law be the judge.That type of thinking is so worthwhile that we might be good to learn something from history.This is where we learn that Tonto discovers the fallen Ranger and upon seeing the symbol of the boyhood friendship that The Lone Ranger established years earlier when he as a younger person came to the aide of a injured young person in Tonto-For the aide given, Tonto gave to his faithful friend, a symbol of his thanks which now was part of a necklace that Tonto recognized.Tonto said,"you are Kemosabe".The Lone Ranger said,"kemo-sabe,that is familiar?Then Tonto tells the story of this "trusty scout"(the meaning of Kemosabe)I think the Lone Ranger is one of the true heroes of the silver screen and one of the great heroes of television.It should also be stated that these very respected individuals Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels sought to live there lives according to the legend of The Lone Ranger-It may very well be that there is an inspiring story in the story of the Lone Ranger and his faithful companion Tonto.I myself was so pleased by the ability to find and buy the DVDs, that I stayed up all a Saturday morning and watched The many episodes now available.Long Live The Lone Ranger and His faithful companion Tonto-Hi-Ho Silver- | 1 |
I have 2 complete sets from time life, This is my favorite movies of all time. Love all the actors and actresses.. Awsome picture..Love Patrick Swazy..This is the film, that showed his true talent. But yet, he does not get credit for the display he preformed! Much credit has been missed in these films.Love the way they portrayed the dry and dusty monologs of the civil war..Making it into one of the greatest love stories of all time, and showing through all obsticals of life, what true freindship means..How 2 divided countries split.But yet all and all the freindship remained solid, even though the war divided kinships and freindships up.But through it all, till the very end, they remained and taught us the viewer, how true freind ships can still remain till present day! Simply the best..Gone with the wind doesn't compare to this film.Patrick Swazy at his best,.After seeing this movie for the one hundred thousand time. I became a big fan of Swazy..And have followed his career ever since..have all his movies after he made North and South! | 1 |
Clyde Bruckman borrows the premise of this short from Buster Keaton's "Seven Chances," recently tepidly remade as "The Bachelor." In the original, Buster has 24-hours to get married in order to inherit a large sum of money. In this version, musical teacher Prof. Shemp has only 7 hours (After all, it is a short!). This is one of the better Stooges shorts due to the storyline and wonderful routines (Including the telephone booth scene with Moe & Shemp, reminiscent of Laurel & Hardy's "Berth Marks" and the Marx Brothers famous stateroom scene in "Night At The Opera - here the boys hold their own in their variation of this routine). I'm not a huge Stooges fan, but this one should be noted by any student of comedy as one of their very best since the early 30s shorts. | 1 |
This could have been great. The voice-overs are exactly right and fit the characters to a T. One small problem though; the look of the characters, mostly the supporting or guest characters look exactly the same. The same bored look on every face only with minor changes such as hairlines or weight size. It looks kind of odd to see a really big guest star's voice coming out of a lifeless form like the characters here. If I am not mistaken Kathy Griffin did a voice-over for this show and it looked too odd to be funny.<br /><br />There is a few other problems, one being the family plot. The Simpsons did it much better where you could actually buy most of the situations the characters got themselves into. Here we get too much annoying diversions, like someone having a weird fantasy and then we are supposed to find that funny but for some reason the delivery is a bit off. As you can probably tell it is hard for me to put a finger on exactly what is wrong with this show because it basically nothing more than a clone of the Simpsons or even more "Married with Children".<br /><br />If I should point a finger on what is totally wrong with this it probably is it's repetitiveness. Peter Griffin is not really a bright character but neither are any of the others. Lois should have been named Lois Lame because she is sort of one-dimensional. Seth Green as the kind of retarded son is the best thing about this show and that is the most stereotypical part on the show.<br /><br />So what more can I say. There isn't exactly anything wrong with this show but in the long run you have to admit that it takes a lot of work to do what the Simpsons has done for almost two decades. | 0 |
I must begin by saying that this is one of the most annoying films I have seen in my entire life! Annoying factor number one: Never seeing the "son's" face (for the entire movie). And the infinitely more annoying factor: That incessantly ringing phone..nothing but listening to the phone ring over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...you get my point. The old man was being harassed but the VIEWER was too! At first the film was interesting to me but it deteriorated VERY quickly. The film may possibly have been good as a short but was definitely not enough to maintain anything approaching feature film length. I guess what I am trying to say is that the message about racism (which finally put in an appearance during the last two scenes of the movie) is secondary to this old mans being harassed. Who cares to sit and watch what is really nothing more than an old man spouting obscenities at someone prank calling him?? If you've never seen a movie that just gets under your skin and drives you CRAZY...check this one out! | 0 |
This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up. | 0 |
My first post at the IMDb has to (unfortunately) be to warn others not to waste their time with The Cavern! There is no story, no character development, no scares, and no good lighting. It doesn't make any sense. If you enjoy bad acting, people running through small portions of caves, bouncing cameras posed at bad angles, and people screaming while the screen is in complete darkness, you'll love this movie. I could shut the lights off in my house and scream too, and I wouldn't have to pay for the rental. The only thing that scared me was that someone actually made a movie this awful.<br /><br />... one of the worst movies I've ever rented. | 0 |
I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.<br /><br />Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother
" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.<br /><br />The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.<br /><br />The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.<br /><br />If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts. | 0 |
I just finished watching this (last weekend) and found it absolutely hillarious, some of the scenes I just couldn't stop laughing at! Dennis is soooo amazingly thick sometimes, and just says the stoopidest things...but at the same time he's just being cool to impress his girlfriend (who gets arrested anyway!) The beach scenery is very tranquil...until along comes Robbie Coltrane...! Not the greatest movie ever made but certainly something to think about renting on a Saturday night when you haven't got much else to do (like I did). You might need to hunt around for it though - I was lucky, as my local video store stocks it. | 1 |
Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient. | 0 |
SPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.<br /><br />Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?<br /><br />...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right. | 0 |
Ever had one of those nights when you couldn't sleep and just turned on the tube to see what was on? That is how I ran across this tripe. For myself, I would have been better served tossing and turning for the 97 minutes I wasted with this film.<br /><br />In its attempt to "be real" this movie's characters come off as such gangsta stereotypes that the story should have been the premise for a Wayans brothers movie. The dialog? Please! It sounded like a white man was trying too hard to write this film.<br /><br />The editing was horrible. One of my "favorite" scenes involved a car chase down a bunch of narrow alleys. Cut to the characters being chased, though, and they are driving through a park complete with baseball fields in the background.<br /><br />When any of our "homies" get shot in this film, he bleeds miraculously through clothes that have no holes, which is more than I can say for the plot of this predictable load of....baking soda.<br /><br />Indie films can be great even if they are low on budget and effects, but they still need to have some cinematic integrity. If I could have given it a 0, I would. If you watch it, I hope it is on cable, because even the cheapest rental would be too much to pay. Actually, 97 minutes was too much to pay... | 0 |
Wow this really is stereotypical, terrible trash. i feel sorry for anyone who may have wasted their money to see this.<br /><br />i am pretty sure i did not laugh once during this whole movie, i just cannot believe they would make such a terrible movie.<br /><br />i will now be more wary when i watch late night movies.<br /><br />this is most definitely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i am not saying it is the worst movie in existence (though it could be), but i don't think i have seen anything so stupid and unfunny it my life. it makes the Scary Movie series look intelligent.<br /><br />1/10 i'd give it a 0 if they would let me | 0 |
DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (Lucio Fulci - Italy 1972).<br /><br />Definitely a prime candidate for the most insane movie title ever conceived and that's quite an achievement in giallo-land. Originally, the film was titled even more absurdly, "Don't Torture Donald Duck", literally translated from its Italian title. A small Donald Duck figure features briefly as a toy, but hardly enough to render a title like this, but, apparently, it was changed in fear of legal ramifications by Disney. I railed quite a bit against Fulci's earlier LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971), but here all the right ingredients are present. A surprisingly effective mystery, a good cast and imaginatively shot against an unusual rural setting. Everything just clicks. I think it's justly hailed as one of the director's most accomplished achievements.<br /><br />The story is set against the backdrop of a small mountain-side town in Sicily, where someone is killing young teenage boys. Among the suspects, the most obvious one is a young woman, Maciara (Florinda Balkan), a self-proclaimed witch who is seen suspiciously unearthing the skeleton of a baby and sticking pins into way effigies. Guiseppe, the village idiot is under suspicion as well, since he made a feeble attempt to profit from the disappearance of one of the boys and walked right into their trap. By the time a quick-witted newshound (Tomas Milian) arrives from Milan to cover the murders, he immediately begins to question the authorities' assumptions, when he meets two other potential suspects: Don Alberto, the local priest (Marc Porel) with a high-minded attitude, and Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a bored young woman from the city with a troubled past of drug offense, who also fancies having sexual relations with the young boys in town. Talk about your prime red herring.<br /><br />Fulci nicely contrasts modernity and tradition with the newly constructed elevated highway meandering through the Sicilian hills, past old towns where life is still firmly rooted in tradition and superstition. One could debate about the film's political stance as The North versus The South, or as commentary on small-town virtues - society's conventions in general - that are all too often dangerously close to tipping over into moral disintegration, chaos and - ultimately - self-justice by the populace. The film has often been lambasted because of its anti-catholic tone, but it's hardly an important element here, except for obvious plot-related reasons, which would be giving away too much. It's actually rather tame compared to a film like Joël Seria's DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL (1971). Probably, the film's rather unflattering portrayal of small-town Sicilian values (when another boy is killed, the local populace are depicted as a retarded lynch-mob) might be cause for some offense in Sicily, but - considering Sicily's problematic relation with the rest of Italy - hardly problematic for other Italians, I would think. The film vanquished into obscurity far too quickly to have much impact anyway.<br /><br />When talking Fulci, the amount of gore is usually a prime subject for discussion. Although eyes-gouging scenes are lacking, the film does contain two very graphic scenes. In the gross-out finale, the killer falls of a cliff, smashing his face along the rocks on the way down with gruesome results (albeit, not very realistic). And the chain-whipping sequence with Florinda Balkan in the graveyard shows Fulci's penchant for sadistic violence and typically, he's not holding back at graphically showing what most film-makers would merely hint at. Surely, one of the most horrifying scenes in Fulci's repertoire. <br /><br />Above all, this is a taut, well-written, effective little mystery, nicely lensed by Fulci, with an impressive cast of genre-regulars like Barbara Bouchet, Marc Porel (not very convincing as a priest), Tomas Milian and Florinda Balkan (mouth-foamingly crazy as the town's witch).<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 8/10 | 1 |
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie. | 0 |
1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.<br /><br />Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.<br /><br />I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.<br /><br />*My rate: 3/10 | 0 |
A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
The movie started off o.k. A couple of tourists on vacation in Mexico having a good time decide they should go on a hike. They uncover some hidden trails and end up and this huge temple like fortress. Angry villagers show up and try to deter them from climbing it, but because of the language barrier people get shot and the tourists end up climbing the stupid thing. Turns out the plants are evil blood-thirsty things that the villagers won't go near so they guard the temple so the tourists can't get off. There are a couple of scares in this movie, but nothing really makes sense. I mean they're PLANTS! Don't bother buying or renting the d.v.d. Wait till it comes out on cable. | 0 |
It is important and only fair to remember that, at the time this short was produced, a state of war existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan. Add to that the enormous ill-will that the beginning of the war created, as well as the Bataan Death March and other incidents and the only thing surprising about this short and others is that there weren't more of them. One other thing: my only problem with this short is that it seems to try to be funny, but it isn't. I'm not sure that anyone connected with it really tried to make the jokes work, or even cared. It would have been far better if they had done what Disney did with Education For Death and been totally serious. But this short gets a bad rap and shouldn't be judged out of context. The times were different then and that is an important consideration. Anyone expending energy trying to save the world from a sixty-year old cartoon needs to take a step back. As do I, expending energy defending that same cartoon. This should be available to interested parties, even if not in wide circulation. Not a nice cartoon, but sometimes life isn't nice. Recommended | 1 |
it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D | 1 |
This show really is the Broadway American Idol. It has singing, the British Guy, A guy who's sometimes nice, and a super-nice woman.<br /><br />Of course it is different because there is a sing-off, and there's dancing and some acting (we just don't see some of the acting). <br /><br />I gave this show a 7 because there are a couple tweaks that I know a lot of people (including me)would make if they were working for the show. The first thing that really needs to be changed is the judges deciding who goes home. I know they want to find the right Danny and Sandy, but America should have the power to decide who does home. There's really no point to the sing-off. The person with the lowest number of votes usually goes home anyway. Another things I'd change is to see them actually act on the show. What's Broadway without the acting? The last thing that need to be changed is the song the eliminated people sing at the end. The eliminated Danny always sings the same song and the eliminated Sandy always sings the same song as they exit. Since they sing it every week those songs eventually get annoying.<br /><br />I admit to not being a fan of the movie, Grease, but for some reason I am hooked. This show is very underrated. It has so many memorable performances and moments. | 1 |
METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.<br /><br />A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner! <br /><br />The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous at best. <br /><br />As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone." | 0 |
A few bratty kids unwittingly unleash an evil that has lain dormant for the past twenty years and have to reap the ill fortune that comes with that.The Campbell Brothers' film before this "Midnight Skater" was fun & their picture after "the Red Skulls" was all right. So why is "Demon Summer" so mind-numbingly bad? I really don't know, it IS better then their "Splatter Rampage Wrestling" but not be much as the basement level of acting is cringe-worthy and when a 'horror' film is as talky as this one is, that's not a good thing. The story's been done to death in many other better films, so why waste your time on this one? <br /><br />My Grade: D- | 0 |
"The Brotherhood of Satan" is a stupefying combination of conventional horror elements mixed with some imaginative characterization and direction (Bernard McEveety). It all starts out with father Charles Bateman (as Ben) driving out west with his pretty blondes: luscious Ahna Capri (as Nicky), and daughter Geri Reischl (as K.T.). Things get weirder and weirder for the trio, as they approach the town of Hillsboro, which is being gripped by a Satanic cult! <br /><br />When the dullish travelers hit Hillsboro, the "action" switches to the film's more interesting assemblage of characters: townies L.Q. Jones (as Pete, the sheriff), Strother Martin (as Doc), Charles Robinson (as Jack, the priest), and Alvy Moore (as Tobey). Their interplay is sometimes fun. Soon enough, it all gets very silly, and predictable. Mr. Martin is the stand-out (as you might expect); he considers the possibility of a Satanic cult to be a "cock-and-bull story", but is (of course) their leader. The "Come in, Children" ending is puzzling; unless, perhaps, it was the film's original title. | 0 |
Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too. | 1 |
Who would have thought that a movie about a man who drives a couple hundreds of miles on his lawn mower to see his brother, could possibly be good cinema? I certainly didn't. I thought I knew what to expect: one of the most boring experiences of my life. Well I was as wrong as I haven't been wrong too often yet, because this is one of the best, most realistic and honest Hollywood films I've ever seen...<br /><br />Giving a short resume of "The Straight Story" isn't very difficult. It's about an old and stubborn man who steps on his lawn mower and drives off to another state to pay his brother a visit when he hears that the man has had a severe stroke. That's already special on itself, but what makes it even more special is the fact that he hasn't seen his brother in ten years because of some stupid argument. In the meantime he has his share of bad luck and problems, but he also meets a lot of people whose lives he influences in one way or another with his philosophical approach to life. Despite all the difficulties he drives on for weeks, not knowing if he will reach his goal: seeing his brother again before it's too late...<br /><br />I can easily understand why there are people who don't like this movie and that's also the reason why I will not say that these people don't have a heart or things like that... This movie hasn't got any flashy action scenes, it is as slow as the lawn mower the man is driving on and no, you don't have to watch it for the nice soundtrack either, because there isn't any. But why should you watch it then? Well, the simple answer is the story. I haven't seen such a touching movie with such a powerful story very often and the fact that this actually comes from Hollywood and - to make things even better - from the Disney Studio's (that's right, the same studios that overwhelm us with sugar sweet nonsense) makes it even more special. I'm not ashamed to admit that I had the tears in my eyes a couple of times while watching it, probably because the whole situation of not seeing someone for many years because of some stupid argument is all too realistic for me.<br /><br />Some people will argue that the story is very shallow, but I really don't agree with that. Perhaps it is because they only see that old man driving on his lawn mower and don't want to think any further. If you look close enough than you'll understand that this man is doing all this because he knows he has once been wrong, that only his pride stood in the way of seeing his brother again and that he wants everybody else to see that too, so they won't make the same mistake. If that isn't deep enough, how much deeper does a story have to go for you then? <br /><br />I would also like to add that this movie really had it all. Some beautiful landscapes (finally an American movie that shows something else than the skyline of New York, Chicago or some other big city), some very fine acting by Richard Farnsworth, Sissy Spacek,... and a very understandable way of telling despite the fact that this is a David Lynch movie. I know now that I was completely wrong by assuming that this movie wouldn't be to my taste. It's one of the very best movies I've seen in a long time. This movie aimed for my heart and hit the bull's eye. I give it the full 10/10. | 1 |
What an unfortunate mess is "Shiner." I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.<br /><br />While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the "straight" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.<br /><br />With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.<br /><br />As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.<br /><br />Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing. | 0 |
SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:<br /><br />Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are "getting to know each other," bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, "Have you heard of the HIV virus?" and it sounds about as natural as asking, "Have you communicated with the nine alien races?"<br /><br />Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).<br /><br />Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: "They don't work, man!" Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas. <br /><br />Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.<br /><br />In sum: Beware! | 0 |
Happy 25th Birthday to Valley Girl! Great soundtrack, plausible story, wonderful performances...captures the spirit of the 80's; the slang of the mainstreams and the outcasts. A wonderful rendition of high school life and "gritty downtown" from a suburban perspective.<br /><br />The soundtrack contains songs by Modern English, Felony, Josie Cotton, Sparks, Payola$, Josie Cotton, The Plimsouls, The Psychedelic Furs, Men At Work, The Flirts and Bananarama.<br /><br />This movie truly is Romeo and Juliet (minus the double suicide) set in 1980's Los Angeles. Julie's dad, played by Frederic Forrest (Sonny Bono, anyone?) is hysterical as a hippie idealistic dad who wonders how he sprung such a materialistic offspring. Yet, he doesn't judge, ya dig?? | 1 |
As far as I know I've seen most of Lucio Fulci's films, with the exception of some later ones that are popping up on DVD now, and I would have to say this was his best "pre-zombie" offering. In fact it beats out his later movies hands-down. This is a tale of superstition and suspicion in a small Italian town out in the middle of nowhere, where young boys are dying mysteriously. It's no mystery how they died, I guess, it's more who's doing it. Is it a woman that the townspeople have always considered a witch? Is it a young woman that lives in a fancy modern house on the outskirts of town, who used to do a lot of drugs? Is it the village idiot, who gets nabbed early on because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You'll only know if you watch, and watch you should, for this is a top-notch mystery thriller, or should I say, a "giallo". I've seen this before but it's been a long time and upon a second viewing it was still as powerful as the first time. For those of you that only know Lucio Fulci for his zombie flicks, well, open your minds to this because it's well worth seeing and while the "monsters" in this are human, they're as nasty as anything dredged up in his later films. 9 out of 10 stars, see it! Please.... | 1 |
Regardless of what personal opinion one may have of Walerian Borowczyk grotesque yet beautiful gem "La bête" of 1975, one has to admit that this bizarre gem is an absolutely unique cinematic experience. Borowczyk erotic fairy tale was banned in several countries for a long time, and it is quite obvious why this controversial gem fell victim to stuporous film censors. "La bête" is a fascinating blend of intense and beautiful fairy-tale-like atmosphere, quite explicit eroticism and genuine weirdness that bravely refuses to take any compromise. The fact that beastiality (of sorts) is one of the film's central themes did certainly not help it with the censors, but it made it highly controversial and therefore known to a wider audience.<br /><br />Pierre de l'Esperance (Guy Tréjan), the head of a French aristocratic family, has arranged for his somewhat demented son Mathurin (Pierre Benedetti) to marry Lucy Broadhurst (Lisbeth Hummel), the young and beautiful daughter of a wealthy English family. Due to an old curse, Mathurin's uncle (Marcel Dalió) is strictly against the wedding. When Lucy and her mother arrive at the French estate, Lucy immediately gets fascinated with a portrait of the 18th century ancestor Romilda (Sirpa Lane), and with an old book depicting bizarre drawings. The story soon descends into a bizarre sexual fever-dream... Without giving away too much, I can say that fans of exceptional cinema should not consider missing this film. As bizarre as it is, "La bête" is doubtlessly also stunningly beautiful in style, settings and cinematography. The fever-dream-like atmosphere is present within- and out of dream-sequences. The forest estate and the imposing family mansion are magnificent settings, and the beautiful score and incredible cinematography build an overwhelming atmosphere for this grotesque tale. The very explicit sexuality ranges from erotic (elegant female nudity, ravishing actresses) to seriously demented and even somewhat disgusting (close-ups on horses' genitalia while having intercourse,...); in either case it is not likely to be forgotten. The entire cast of "La bête" is fantastic and all involved deliver great performances in eccentric characters (some of which are seriously demented). The film profits from an exceptionally beautiful cast, be it Lisbeth Hummel in the lead, Finnish actress Sirpa Lane (who sadly died of Aids in 1999) as the ancestor in the dream-sequences, or the relatively unknown but particularly ravishing actress Pascale Rivault, who plays the aristocratic daughter who takes ever opportunity to have sex with a black servant in a cupboard.<br /><br />I am intentionally not giving a full description of the most important parts of the plot as they simply have to be seen to be believed. Some scenes are among the most bizarre ever caught on film, the scenes with the eponymous 'beast' definitely being among them. Certainly not everybody's cup of tea, but very highly recommended to fans of controversial and unusual cinema. A true cult gem! | 1 |
'Anne Christie' was Garbo's 14th film and the first in which her husky Swedish voice was heard. She plays the lead character, Anna, who has struggled with being abandoned by her father Chris (a drunken barge owner played by George F Marion), and with the misfortune of the life she has has to lead to keep her head above water.<br /><br />Meeting Irish Matt (Charles Bickford) may mark the turning point for her ... or does it? Garbo looks and sounds great in this drama which, although looking rather clunky and moving at a slow pace, still manages to interest and engage an audience nearly 80 years later. Marie Dressler makes an impact in the role which gave her a second flush of movie success in films such as Min and Bill, Dinner at Eight, and Emma; while Marion and Bickford are more than adequate.<br /><br />An interesting slice of movie history. Garbo would do better talkies in the years following, but 'Anna Christie' will always be remembered for the first time she talked on screen. | 1 |
i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to "Atlantis:The Lost Empire"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of "Kida".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u | 0 |
Human Tornado (1976) is in many ways a better film than it's predecessor. The director knew what he had to work with and catered towards Rudy Ray Moore's limitations as an actor. It's a fun movie that's more technically sound and acted. The performers don't take themselves too seriously and it seems that this time around everyone is on the joke and goes with the flow. Rudy Ray Moore seems more relaxed in front of the camera and not as stiff like he was in Dolemite.<br /><br />I enjoyed the film very much and I highly recommend it. Just like his first film, it's catered towards a certain audience (I highly doubt that Mr. Moore was trying to broaden his audience at this point in his career). Check it out!<br /><br />Highjly recommended. | 1 |
When commenting on this film, one must realise that it is based on a true story, and must therefore be reviewed for the quality and accuracy of it's portrayal of the events, as well as its entertainment value. It may well be implausible that Jack Shepherd should surrender twice to Jack Wild because Wild had captured Edgeworth Bess. None the less, it happened. It must also be noted that the director was young and inexperienced, which explains why he relied upon tried and tested techniques. There were occasions when Clavell did not have the confidence to follow the script as written. The film would be better if he had. And yes, I used to have a copy of the script (Stanley Baker's copy - one of five), which I returned recently to my father, Rafe Newhouse, the writer. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.