text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a "sunny" romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqué. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqué subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say "Next," and move on. <br /><br />Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and "set things straight." Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's "lover". By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.<br /><br />It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.<br /><br />Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes "not really acting" but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all. | 1 |
I really enjoyed this drama from Sidney Lumet. The best word I could come up to describe it with is insane. It throws the viewer around for an hour and fifty minutes and doesn't let you breathe until the credits start to roll at the very end. Trust me, this movie will keep you guessing the entire way through.<br /><br />The story is very well crafted and almost brilliant. It's almost like a more complicated Tarantino type story. The acting is all amazing from all of the leads and even the small parts, excellent cast. I also loved the cinematography, it gave it the real feeling as if it were an independent film. It was all great.<br /><br />This movie is excited, exhausting and heartbreaking. It's almost hard to watch but you'll be glad that you did. | 1 |
Everything in this film is bad , the story , the acting , the effects but its funny , funny , funny !!!Scott Valentine with the army uniform thats ten sizes too big is so bad with the permanent attempt at a scowl on his face as the leader of a special ops group its hilarious ! The ''terrorists'' are as scary and realistic as the ''raptors'' , this is so phoney and bad at everything it tries you have to laugh .The part where the giant T-REX who somehow snuck on board a ship and then somehow got below is blown up and you see the metal pole sticking up where its head was is the perfect ending .If your into bad films , this is the pot of gold , the mona lisa of b-b-bad !!! | 0 |
Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.<br /><br />Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.<br /><br />We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.<br /><br />So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.<br /><br />This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.<br /><br />It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.<br /><br />This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.<br /><br />And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?<br /><br />Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.<br /><br />For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.<br /><br />This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes. | 0 |
1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).<br /><br />Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today. | 0 |
Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful "Swept Away" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!' | 0 |
This was the one movie to see about the Civi War. My aunt actually played in this movie as an extra in the Justin and Madeline wedding scene, and my uncle was an extra on a horse. The script was genuine, and accurate. The costumes were tastefully done, the seqence was in order and even the accents were good. I dearly love Patrick Swayze and James Ried. They were the best 2 choices, and it even had a great supporting cast. The Civil War is my favorite thing in American History, and I love movies about it. I have seen quite a few, and this movie and it's sequal North and South Book 2 took the cake. If you haven't seen it, rent it. As soon as possible. It's quite an eduation. | 1 |
1928 is in many ways a "lost year" in motion pictures. Just as some of the finest films of the silent era were being made in every genre, sound was coming in and - while reaping great profits at the box office - was setting the art of film-making back about five years as the film industry struggled with the new technology.<br /><br />"Show People" is one of the great silent era comedies. The film shows that William Haines had comic skills beyond his usual formula of the obnoxious overconfident guy who turns everyone against him, learns his lesson, and then redeems himself by winning the football game, the polo game, etc. This movie is also exhibit A for illustrating that Marion Davies was no Susan Alexander Kane. She had excellent comic instincts and timing. This film starts out as the Beverly Hillbillies-like adventure of Peggy Pepper (Marion Davies) and her father, General Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper, fresh from the old South. General Pepper has decided that he will let some lucky movie studio executive hire his daughter as an actress. While at the studio commissary, the Peppers run into Billy Boone (William Haines), a slapstick comedian. He gets Peggy an acting job. She's unhappy when she finds out it is slapstick, but she perseveres. Eventually she is discovered by a large studio and she and Billy part ways as she begins to take on dramatic roles. Soon the new-found fame goes to her head, and she is about to lose her public and gain a royal title when she decides to marry her new leading man, whom she doesn't really love, unless fate somehow intervenes.<br /><br />One of the things MGM frequently does in its late silent-era films and in its early sound-era films is feature shots of how film-making was done at MGM circa 1930. This film is one of those, as we get Charlie Chaplin trying to get Peggy's autograph, an abundance of cameos of MGM players during that era including director King Vidor himself, and even a cameo of Marion Davies as Peggy seeing Marion Davies as Marion Davies arriving at work on the lot. Peggy grimaces and mentions that she doesn't care for her. Truly a delight from start to finish, this is a silent that is definitely worth your while. This is one of the films that I also recommend you use to introduce people to the art of silent cinema as it is very accessible. | 1 |
This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it. | 0 |
The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10. | 1 |
Before seeing this film, I suggest the viewer puts away any expectations that the victims of the crimes depicted will get equal treatment and consideration as the perpetrator. There have been many films about crime victims. This one is about the murderer.<br /><br />"Dead Man Walking" finds realism in simplicity of the story: there are no crack lawyers coming to save William Poncelet and no dramatic story twists. The film does not attempt to put him in a good light; he is guilty, he is repugnant, is a racist, and was responsible for heinous murders. Given all this, we are asked to do something very difficult: look at him as a human being despite his crimes. In this way, the film challenges the notion that the death penalty provides "justice". Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the film raises questions about whether the guilty can find redemption, inequity in the justice system, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.<br /><br />Great performances by both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. In particular the last moments of the film show the true depth of Penn's ability. | 1 |
Airplane apart, I don't think I've ever laughed at a film so much in all my life.<br /><br />I love football like mad, but I tend to hate almost any song or film about football as they tend to be unrealistic. This wasn't.<br /><br />I watched it once, it was over 2 years ago & it was brilliant. Everyone I know loved it. I remember the gay physio, the sloping pitch at about a 45 degree angle and 'Shoes' (a player so named because he once turned up for training in a new pair of shoes). Brilliant, that's what goes on in park football.<br /><br />A definite 10/10. If anyone from the TV industry is reading this, considering all the crap you repeat on English tele, please have the sense to show this again (and the Muppets while you're at it). Also does anyone know if this was shown on BBC or ITV. I think it was ITV, so it's worth asking them if they plan to show it again. They should do. | 1 |
I loved this film. I first saw it when I was 20 ( which was only four years ago) and I enjoyed it so much, I brought my own copy the next day. The comedy is well played by all involved. I always have to rewind and rewatch the scene where Mr. Tsanders explains why he found water at 6 ft in one area and 227 feet in another area. Also look for Jason Robards father who plays Mr. Retch. Talent ran in that family. | 1 |
Very different topic treated in this film. A straightforward and simple description of local Chinese customs, by looking at the daily operation of a public bath, run by the old owner and his retarded son, when older son returns home, wrongly believing his father has died. How every man in town makes his daily visit to chat, play games, discuss personal matters and get honest advice, besides the usual spa-like therapies. When old man dies, strong and loyal family ties make older son take charge, so public bath operation is not disrupted. And finally, the arrival of modernization to end this way of spending relaxed hours and getting along. The public bath has to be demolished, making place for a commercial complex to be constructed. | 1 |
Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth herself at 18 "eager, expectant a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. <br /><br />For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "
and then Joan does
" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.<br /><br />There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion. | 0 |
As a guy who has seen all the seasons, I can say that JG constantly surprises me. I mean, after you saw him shifting from laughter to paranoia instantly throughout the seasons and after every little gesture of his made u believe he is a gangster, u thought to yourself: OK he is a good actor and he can get into a gangster's skin. But after seeing him opening his eyes and struggling for his life, I mean I could almost feel the pain he "made" us believe he was going through. I was so touched by his performance that I immediately thought at Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. These guys were definitely the best of their generations and even more. But nowadays they are either old or dead (Brando) and it's OK that they make less movies and their performances are "lighter" than they used to be. I can't wait to see Gandolfini in other movies where he delivers a totally different role. Can u recommend me some of his older movies where he gives a memorable performance? | 1 |
The plot was really weak and confused. This is a true Oprah flick. (In Oprah's world, all men are evil and all women are victims.) | 0 |
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was funny and sad and yes, the guy Andie MacDowell shagged was hot. Interesting, realistic characters and plots as well as beautiful scenery. I think my Mum would like it. I still think they should have been allowed to call it the Sad F**kers Club though... | 1 |
By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though! | 1 |
Giant Robot was the most popular Japanese TV serial ever seen on Indian TV. It was targeted to children and we saw a robot for the first time in our life. <br /><br />Many Indian children must have even seen a machine for the first time outside the school textbooks. <br /><br />The serial also showed a child in an adults organization fighting evil. No doubt, many of us who have seen Giant Robot in our childhood long for our own robots and as a stopgap arrangement look upon our computers in the same way. <br /><br />This show also portrayed ideal adults, (referring at Jerry, Johnny's buddy friend and Unicorn chief Azuma). We grew to respect Japanese progress and still view Japan as the ideal Asian nation.<br /><br />BTW, at that time, there were no satellite TV channels in India and the govt owned broadcaster did not show much of Disney cartoons. I guess that was how child serials like giant Robot got appreciated. Nowadays there is Pokemon etc but they are no so fascinating or alluring as Giant robot. | 1 |
I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, Marvin Mange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physical comedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you'd be laughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volume turned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was a disaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider's hilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."<br /><br />The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop who gets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a mad scientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as a result starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a "supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrun horses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people's cows and trying to seduce their goats, but surely that's a small price to pay? It just didn't do anything for me. <br /><br />The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all of Hollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange's commander on the police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same as his doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I was anxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell's first "serious" acting job (can anything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fame as a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knew from that: she's cute as a button. What she doesn't prove here is that she has any discernible talent as an actress. And what's with Ed Asner as Police Chief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He's the size of some of the cows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through. I'm surprised he made it through the filming. There's a brief cameo at the end by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer of this.)<br /><br />Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the police car, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - the orangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles - 2/10. | 0 |
As good as Schindler's List was, I found this movie much more powerful as it is a documentary and based on real life. It details the story of the Frank family, and Anne in particular. Although it is a bit slow moving at first (detailing their family life before the war); it becomes very powerful.<br /><br />Due to some of the footage and photos of the camps, I would not recommend it for children but for adults, it illustrates the horror of the Holocaust through one young girl. Highly recommended. | 1 |
From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.<br /><br />"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.<br /><br />I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.<br /><br />To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10. | 0 |
I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to them, I say. | 1 |
I just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.<br /><br />For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a "who done it?"<br /><br />The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through the whole movie.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Although the production and Jerry Jameson's direction are definite improvements, "Airport '77" isn't much better than "Airport 1975": slick, commercial rubbish submerging (this time literally) a decent cast. Jack Lemmon is the pilot of a packed airliner which gets hijacked by art thieves and crashes into the sea (all the publicity claimed it was near the Bermuda Triangle, but there's no mention of it in the film itself). When the rescue ships come to raise the airplane out of the water, we see all their cranes dropping (rather blindly) into the ocean and it's hard not to laugh (imagining the cranes plugging the plane, the passengers and the waterlogged script). NBC used to air what appeared to be the "director's cut", with at least an hour of extra footage--mostly flashbacks--injected into the proceedings with all the subtlety of a "Gilligan's Island" episode. Most exciting moment is the plane crash, and some of the players have a little fun: Lee Grant is an obnoxious drunk, Brenda Vaccaro a no-nonsense stewardess, Joseph Cotten and Olivia de Havilland are flirting oldsters. Still, the personality conflicts and the excruciating military detail eventually tear at one's patience. ** from **** | 0 |
Here we go another pop star breaking in to the grand TV land and from my observations from her pop careers directors saying yeah your great gwen you could be a real star maybe some day you'll be in the A list movies, they would do anything to expand the show, there just not a pretty face but have an acting ability as well almost overnight. gwen has some how found the Ability to act by watching actors like James dean or Clint eastward, please give the real people in the world that have to sit behind that box and have to suffer pop stars effort's in trying to act. Please gwen stick to your pretty pop videos with your jap posse and don't insult the British with your efforts as an actress. anyway i'm going back to my working class job and think to myself god, i could do that. but yeah remember i'll be working till i'm 65 if i live that long and yeah you put your feet up girl with your royalties every three months, pah marry into money right xxx | 0 |
This is a "docu-drama" of (mostly) the later years of KW's life, with nearly all the parts played by actors (but spot which TV quartermaster plays himself!). It was made for the BBC4 arts channel but my guess is there will be syndication and DVD releases soon. KW is ably played by the excellent Michael Sheen, here repeating his previous stage role with great success. Most of the supporting cast are also very good, and a nice touch is the recreation of period TV appearances with the new actors. This is not, however, light viewing - anyone familiar with KW's diaries and general unhappy demeanour will already know how twisted he could be in later life - so don't expect 80 minutes of Carry On styled buffoonery, since the emphasis is decidedly downbeat throughout. Recommended, but it's tragi-comic, indeed. | 1 |
Just finished watching American Pie: Beta House and I gotta say, this was such a garbage pile of crap. The first 3 American Pies were hilarious, the last 3 were a joke and should not have been called American Pie.<br /><br />As you figured out from the title of the movie, Beta House, is about a fraternity, freshmen, girls and, the most original part of them all, falling in love. Of course, the guy that has his way with the chicks is Stifler, who, along with his mates, tries to complete another apparently impossible task. It was unrealistic and super fake. Its just really predictable and the plot is so weak. Both sides of the college battle to see who gets the whole thing (something like that) To sum it up: awful acting + dull script + wrong use of the American Pie franchise = total waste of time! This movie is unbearable. I give it a two out of ten, although most of it sucked there were lots of nudity and pretty girls, like 2 funny scenes :) | 0 |
After my 6 year old daughter began taking riding lessons I started looking for horse movies for her. I had always heard of National Velvet but had never seen it. Boy am I glad I bought it! It's become a favorite of mine, my 6 year old AND my 2 year old. It's a shame movies like this aren't made anymore. | 1 |
One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.<br /><br />The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like "Love Man" by Otis Redding and "Big Girls Don't Cry" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" and Frank Zappacosta's "Overload", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.<br /><br />The dancing in "Dirty Dancing" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.<br /><br />All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's "Be My Baby" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment. | 1 |
A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.<br /><br />This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.<br /><br />In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10 | 1 |
This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even "Escape from New York," which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the "Escape" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't. | 0 |
This is one of the dumbest films, I've ever seen. It rips off nearly ever type of thriller and manages to make a mess of them all.<br /><br />There's not a single good line or character in the whole mess. If there was a plot, it was an afterthought and as far as acting goes, there's nothing good to say so Ill say nothing. I honestly cant understand how this type of nonsense gets produced and actually released, does somebody somewhere not at some stage think, 'Oh my god this really is a load of shite' and call it a day. Its crap like this that has people downloading illegally, the trailer looks like a completely different film, at least if you have download it, you haven't wasted your time or money Don't waste your time, this is painful. | 0 |
Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with "Shaun Of The Dead" in 2004, movie on to "Hot Fuzz 2007", early 2008 he came out with "Run Fat Boy Run" and now comes this, "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.<br /><br />The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy "Paul". I Rate this film 81%. | 1 |
I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.<br /><br /> | 0 |
A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it! <br /><br />The plot just barely dodges being called "corny". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.<br /><br />So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy. | 1 |
Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended. | 1 |
Kirk and the crew are visiting a federation mining colony on a remote planet rich in mineral resources. The Devil in the Dark is the Horta, a very unusual silicon based life-form which tunnels through solid rock. The Horta has been killing miners and, it is decided, must be destroyed. But how? <br /><br />It is hard to continue this review without writing a spoiler, so instead I simply concentrate on the technical aspects of the episode and touch on its themes. The special effects are OK, but many of the scenes with the Horta look a little absurd. The acting is fairly average for TOS. Some of the miners are a little awkward. Nimoy has the most difficult role of all in Devil in the Dark, and he pulls it off well. <br /><br />Why is this still a favorite of mine?<br /><br />Devil in the Dark is really an anthropological and ecological morality play disguised as an adventure. More than many episodes of this great TV series, it brings home the importance of maintaining an open mind and at least some degree of empathy toward others. Plus, it involves one of the most interesting, if not probable, plot twists in the original series. <br /><br />Enjoy! | 1 |
Unfortunately, one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering, silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate, clichéd screenplay. Hollow Man is a rather useless film.<br /><br />Practically everything seen here has been done to death - the characters, the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft!) - with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. However, it is just the same special effect done over and over again, and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. I was hoping before watching Hollow Man that the Invisible Man theme, which is hardly original in itself, would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. This is not so. It isn't long before the film turns into an overly-familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics - the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it's almost impressive.<br /><br />On top of all this, Kevin Bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. Good points might be a passable Jerry Goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts), a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. I was tempted to give this film three out of ten, but the effects push Hollow Man's merit up one notch.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Despite the lavish production numbers and wonderful costumes this film is a chore to watch. The murder-mystery plot is just a vehicle to mount the musical numbers on but it often brings the proceedings to a staggering halt besides not being very involving. Although there has obviously been a lot of money spent on them the numbers are badly staged and poorly photographed. It's obviously a pre-code film because the girls often wear very little clothing and there's even a song singing the praises of marijuana! The performances are all one-note although it's nice to see Carl Brisson in a musical but when Victor McLaglen, as the police Lieutenent, lurches into view for the umpteenth time on the hunt for clues, you may want to throw in the towel or at least fast-forward to the next number. Pity the patrons who were trapped in the cinema on its release though! | 0 |
i have now seen the whole of season one and can say i have not enjoyed a show of this standard in a long time it great to see a show like this in the pipeline and hope that there are many on the way the season final was the best bar none cant wait for season 2 as far as i am conserned things can only get better like how will milles continu to change will rick get his family back and how will they get off the church roof with acting of this level it is easy to see why the show is such a big hit with people as long as people as making shows like this i will keep watching i think its hard now to come up with an original idea as so many shows have coverd a large range of subjects so to see one as original as this is refreshing | 1 |
Okay, I grew up on Who, but haven't loved a Doctor since Tom Baker. Christopher Eccleston made me love Who again and I'll be furious with him forever for leaving. <br /><br />The writing is grand, the acting superb, the directing (which was dreadful in the old days) is just fantastic. I was very skeptical about this programme, and watched it merely out of being forced, but am now a huge fan and love it (I have a ringtone of a Dalek screaming "Exterminate" then). <br /><br />A few of the things I love about the new programme -- 1) people actually notice when Rose (Billie Piper) disappears off the planet. Some of the old shows an assistant would drop off for a while, and then come home like nothing has happened, no one noticed. 2) Chris Eccleston's doc loves Rose -- romantic or not will be debated, but there is no doubt that 9 loves and cares about his companion. He'd destroy the world if he had to to save her, which the old show was lacking -- often a doctor wouldn't care if he never saw his assistants again. 3) They talk and think like real people -- when Rose is shown something outlandish or new (such as aliens) she acts like a real person would -- gobsmacked. I never liked it when an assistant from the old show, who never saw anything alien, would just fit right in and adapt instantly. I want to see the surprise on Rose's face when she sees a plastic dummy come to life. She gives that to me. <br /><br />The few things I don't like about this series: 1)nearly everything happens on earth (London or Cardiff) and I was sort of hoping for a more off-world sort of show. 2) That Eccleston left so quickly, he really made the show brilliant. <br /><br />But I can let those few things go -- I far more enjoy the series than I ever expected to, so I don't mind if they have stuff set on earth. <br /><br />Just don't take this show seriously -- it's fun, it's smart, it's entertaining, but it's not a super-serious heavy duty show. It's pure fun, and pure British, and I can't get enough. Watch it with an open mind, and just put your brain into neutral and enjoy!<br /><br />ps -- don't watch series 2 or later. series 1 was brilliant, the first few episodes of series 2 were good, but don't watch it once it gets to Love and Monsters. Utter rubbish, completely destroys the show. | 1 |
Awful in a bad/good way...this movie has officially become the worst "made for TV movie" in my book...except for the camp value it offers, I give it a 1 in quality and a 10 for the camp value. Suggestion: Watch with friends, champagne and plenty of popcorn...you'll want to throw some at the screen! Preferably friends who like Chris Noth from his 'Sex in the City days'...this movie is dreadfully funny. This is definitely the lowest point in the careers of all cast members...honestly, I don't know how they controlled the laughter as the lines were delivered! Daniel J. Travanti is absolutely pathetic. EVERYONE participated in the school of over acting; and poor Joan Van Ark, I believe she was the only one taking this theater of the absurd seriously...she is credited as a producer though. Her "Mom" jeans and bad plastic surgery are scene stealer's. This movie also crosses the oh so delicate line of social incorrectness when they introduce a mentally challenged character into the plot. This is an obscure movie showing on Lifetime listed as {With Harmful Intent}....has anyone else had the pleasure? | 0 |
I sat down through 2 hours of pure boredom. I look here on IMDB, even though it is not high on the list, it is in the top 250. I was a little surpised. Even though, yes. I am very impressed with Robin and Matt's acting abilities, they still didn't save the movie. I'm not sure what I really didn't like about the movie. Maybe it's because I dispise math. Maybe I'm not too much for dreary talking for 2 hours. Even though I loved "American Beauty", but that was it. I just want my 2 hours back. It was a big waste of my time. If I'm missing something in this movie, please E-mail me. I am curious why this is on the top 250. And don't say "Because it was a good movie".<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
The summer has been so full of Blockbusters and comebacks of films, and not to mention some of the disappointments of those comebacks, that I was woe to find a film I could just sit down and enjoy. <br /><br />In case you don't want to read further down the page (there aren't any spoilers), I'll sum it up here: It's more mature than Ella Enchanted (there are some questionably violent parts, plenty of death, and a handful of scenes with a little blood, not for small children), but doesn't try to be overly corny or overstep its bounds. Think of it as a bit more serious, bit more magical Princess Bride, and you'll be close. <br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I am, perhaps, not as prodigious a movie goer as others... Maybe once or twice a month, if I feel active. I'm also a huge Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan. I get bored of remade repetitive story lines and films with more flash than filling faster than you can count to 10, and this film is the diamond in the rough.<br /><br />By the end here (August), I was tired enough of fractured expectations from the big hits that I averted seeing Bourne Ultimatum in favor of Stardust. Having had my hopes thoroughly muddied by Transformers for my Fiction addiction, the previews of Stardust seemed appealing, but I was certainly wary.<br /><br />As many others here, I was utterly surprised. I had gone in thinking to see another generic fantasy movie clichéd from here to breakfast. Don't be fooled, it is most definitely a fairy-tale, and it does indeed have witches, magic, and utterly requires suspension of disbelief... But the most refreshing thing I found, is that it's NOT based on anything I've seen or read in the past 15 years, and it's actually a really good movie.<br /><br />((Unlike 90% of the other movies which seem to persistently re-appear like thorns in a side, perhaps a sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas? I could read a book this year, and in two years the movie would be out as another "Epic fantasy tale, the likes of LotR and the rest" so says the NYT and such and such no doubt.))<br /><br />Stardust didn't have me bolted to my seat because of jam-packed action at every turn, nor was I sweating bullets because of plot-hook after plot-hook threatening to tear the dramatic tension apart and echo throughout the theater in a loud boom. It didn't even use enormous blasts of sound to grab my attention to what's happening on screen (Transformers, I'm looking at you). It's not trying to show off the latest CGI techniques, nor did it offend my intelligence with dimwitted dialogs and story lines that are simple enough I could've figured them out in 3rd grade (boy I hate those). <br /><br />I just... watched. Watched, and enjoyed a refreshingly CREATIVE storyline unfold before my eyes. Sure, I may have known what was going to happen throughout most of the film, but it makes you forget that. It even made my heart twinge at some parts, but the most important aspect I noticed is that I left the theater feeling better than when I'd gone in.<br /><br />It truly is a gem. After so much slush this summer with so many remakes and films that fell short of my expectations, this was like a cold sweet cup of tea to cap off all the hard work I'd done sitting through the others trying to come out of them with my money's worth.<br /><br />It's probably not for everyone, but do yourself a favor; If you enjoy fantasy films that stand the test of time alone (Princess Bride, Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, etc.) then you should really see this movie. This little diamond is finding its way into my DVD collection the moment it hits stores, you can trust me on this.<br /><br />Simply wonderful. | 1 |
I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!<br /><br />Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.<br /><br />***7/10***<br /><br />On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled. | 1 |
I love the beach boys and their music. So, being that I am a filmmaker, I thought, wow, a Beach Boys Movie sounds great. Well, WRONG! I just actually turned off HDNET, the channel the movie was playing on, because it was so bad. Someone above mentioned about editing... well, they should have at least looked at the monitors while they were filming. I don't know if anyone else caught the mustache falling off the face of one of the guys after he kissed his wife and then he smoothed it back on with his hands. Ever heard of re-taking a scene! Acting was terrible. Direction was terrible. Make-Up was TERRIBLE!!! Possibly the worst make-up job I have ever seen. Brian Wilson's "fat" cheek's looked like pl-ado. <br /><br />This is honestly the first time I have ever commented on IMDb, and I know it really doesn't make a difference... but come on, what the hell were the producers thinking?!?!!? | 0 |
I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is "so bad it's good", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/1 | 0 |
A man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called "Gaydar". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...<br /><br />Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all. | 0 |
Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.<br /><br />This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.<br /><br />This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn. | 0 |
This movie was made only 48 years after the end of the Civil War--most likely in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. In the film there are recreations of battles and the people of the era that look rather impressive and realistic. It also provides a different and more balanced view than just its contemporary, BIRTH OF A NATION--a patently absurd and racist film. Because of this, this short film would be excellent for use in the classroom to discuss the war and tell the story of a very young man that runs away to enlist as a drummer. The boy makes good and is a hero, though the film ends rather melodramatically--a definite convention of the day. Not a great film, but a decent plot, decent acting and little of the over-the-top acting you often saw in other films of the day.<br /><br />One annoying aspect of this film was the too frequent use of title cards to describe or set the stage for stuff that was really obvious. It got annoying from time to time. | 1 |
If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy | 1 |
This is a film that I love above all others. I try to revisit the main film locations in Oakworth and Oxenhope whenever I can, which help to re-establish those magical qualities that this film seems to embody so uniquely - recalling a gentler and more mannered age, with its unspoken assertions that people really do matter, that family life is not just another disposable, and that life really is worth living (though sometimes, we may doubt that). In short, a film that soon brings tears to my eyes, helped perhaps by the deeply evocative music - some tunes are jaunty (like the Perks' tune, played on a trombone, sometimes with spoons), the stirring melody when the family first set off for Yorkshire not knowing what lies ahead, and the haunting little tune played on a solo clarinet (or is it an oboe?) that precedes sudden child-felt changes in fortune.<br /><br />This is as much a film for adults as for children, appealing to the eternal child in us all - a key that effortlessly reactivates those deep and apparently long-lost values and feelings buried inside us, which are normally swept aside by the demands of modern everyday life. This is a film about basic human goodness and decency in which we the viewers are left to make of it what we will, and there are welcome touches of humour sometimes added for good measure, such as the arrival of the aunt or, on a more earthy level, the bedroom scene on Perks' birthday - "All right Bert - as it's your birthday!" I must know every scene, every line of this film, and yet so great is the magic that each time I watch, it is like I am opening a box of delights for the first time, savouring each moment - sometimes humorous, sometimes....well, very different. As Peter says in the film: "it's perfect - more perfect than you know". And so it is!!! | 1 |
Stephane Rideau was already a star for his tour de force in "Wild Reeds," and he is one of France's biggest indie stars. In this film, he plays Cedric, a local boy who meets vacationing Mathieu (newcomer Jamie Elkaim, in a stunning, nuanced, ethereal performance) at the beach. Mathieu has a complex relationship with his ill mother, demanding aunt and sister (with whom he has a competitive relationship). Soon, the two are falling in love.<br /><br />The film's fractured narrative -- which is comprised of lengthy flash-backs, bits and pieces of the present, and real-time forward-movement into the future -- is a little daunting. Director Sebastien Lifshitz doesn't signal which time-period we are in, and the story line can be difficult to follow. But stick it out: The film's final 45 minutes are so engrossing that you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. By turns heart-breaking and uplifting, this film ranks with "Beautiful Thing" as must-see cinema. | 1 |
I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.<br /><br />The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.<br /><br />Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. <br /><br />The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Yes, it can be done. John De Bello and Costa Dillon cleaned out the garbage of their minds and come up with the worst comedic, horror , Sc-Fi musical. If there is any acting, it is terrible or way over the top. Special effects; take your pick...very low budget or kindergarten. Every cheap cliché thought of is used. No doubt a fun movie to watch. Worth a cold six-pack or two. Point the finger at radiation if you need an excuse. Mutant tomatoes grow to almost the size of a tow truck and begin attacking mankind. San Diego is a good place as any to start. Scientists and an absent minded military must find the way to stop this red rolling menace. This cult favorite features: David Miller, Eric Christmas, Al Sklar, Tom Coleman, Sharon Taylor and John Qualls. | 0 |
What a stupid waste of money! 30,000 square feet of rebuilt ancient Rome, 2 millions cubic meters of 50 feet tall buildings, 10,000 costumes, 2 years of works, an International Ancient History Committee (sic!), some first class actors and actresses . The final result? An empty TV-movie for a single-digit IQ attendance. | 0 |
I will never forget this film or the events that lead up to Jonestown in Guyana. It just seems so tragic but needs to be told. Powers Boothe give a commanding performance as the leader Rev. Jim Jones from obscurity until total madness. It would have won him an Academy Award easily if it was released in the movie theaters. It is the kind of mini-series you won't forget. You won't forget the images of the cult's brutality, control, and obsessiveness of it's leader. His rise and fall and the threat from the outside world to destroy what he considered to be paradise. The mass suicide is horrifying, almost unreal to anybody's imagination as to why so many people (900+) went willingly or resisted JOnes' orders. They don't make mini series like these anymore where we're left with out mouths open and hungry to know what happened to the others. | 1 |
Pop quiz: you're a part of the modern armed forces in peacetime on routine manoeuvres and you find yourself thrown back in time with a chance to change history. What do you do? Well, if you're a Hollywood studio, you change the Japanese G.I.s in G.I. Samurai (aka Timeslip) to the crew of an American aircraft carrier, have them debate stopping the attack on Pearl Harbour for 90 minutes and then go home and hope that no-one reminds you that Japan did it first and with more balls in 1979 with this Sonny Chiba movie. But unlike its Hollywood counterpart The Final Countdown, this sees its premise through: thrown back 400 years into the Japanese feudal wars, its peacetime soldiers decide that their best hope of getting back lies in provoking history by trying to change it by joining with a warlord to conquer the country cue lots of tank and helicopter vs. samurai action, including a very impressive unrelenting 25 minute battle sequence featuring a cast of thousands inflicting serious damage on each other. And yes, there are decapitations.<br /><br />Of course, things don't go as planned, and even superior firepower doesn't stand up as well as hoped to thousands of soldiers. Even before that, the soldiers are falling out with each other into those who want to go home, those who want to go to war and those who want to rape and pillage for the Hell of it. Impressively directed and surprisingly well thought through, the soft rock and country and western songs are sometimes a distraction, especially when they feature English lyrics sung by Japanese singers who audibly can't pronounce the words let alone speak the language, but it's a forgivable flaw in a surprisingly good sci-fi actioner.<br /><br />Optimum's UK DVD is a good transfer of the uncut 138-minute version. | 1 |
This film offers absolutely no imagination in it's premise nor in it's execution but these are just two things that come to mind after watching this so-called comedy that has no energy to speak of. Story is about nit-picky over analytical insurance risk manager Reuben Feffer (Ben Stiller) who finds his new wife Lisa (Debra Messing) cheating on him with a scuba instructor (Hank Azaria) after only one day on their honeymoon. Upon returning home Reuben and his best friend Sandy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) go to a party and run into Polly Prince (Jennifer Aniston) whom they went to school with years earlier.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT***** Polly is forgetful and sloppy and lives carefree which is the opposite of who Reuben is as a person but they start to date and Reuben starts to change as a person as he starts to try out new things such as salsa dancing and eating spicy foods. But one day Lisa comes back and wants to remain married to Reuben but he really doesn't want to but Polly decides to leave as she doesn't believe in marriage to begin with.<br /><br />This film is the second directing effort by John Hamburg who wrote two generally unfunny screenplays in "Zoolander" and "Meet the Parents" but those two films seem like classics compared to this stale piece of drivel. It's very easy to say something is not funny but I think with this film it's even easier to figure out why. This film is totally and utterly predictable from start to finish with every scene looking as if it's only happening because of the ridiculousness of the script. Hamburg who also wrote the script seems to have written this without any thought of trying something different and at times he seems to be trying to generate the same energy as "There's Something About Mary" but instead the events seem incredibly forced. Did anyone really think the blind ferret was funny? If you do, your easy! A few times during the film characters would inexplicably have these emotional speeches that are supposed to summarize everything but all they achieve is overstating the obvious. Stiller works a lot but maybe he should work less and just wait for the better scripts to come his way because this film doesn't work as a comedy or as a romance. | 0 |
Someone asked why it was canceled I tell you why Because "reality" makes money. the show surface was canceled so that they could replace it with a "reality" show, this will haunt NBC, I and about half of my high school, about 1000 people total have vowed to boycott NBC, until they bring this show back. in my area (I don't know about other places) but they had a great thing going with the Sci-Fi channel where the Sci-Fi channel would show last weeks episode at 7:00 and then NBC would show the week's new episode at 8:00 this was great because it gave you a little refresher as to what happened in the last episode. I was so angry when I learned that the show was canceled and they were going to just leave them on top of the church like that! | 1 |
Assy McGee is a show that you really have to be a certain age to appreciate. Otherwise, it's likely you'll miss the references to 80's cop films and simply think it's a running gag about a walking rectum. Think it's brainless, infantile poop humor? Go watch the Stallone film 'Cobra' and you'll see what I mean. This show actually has very subtle humor, which says a lot, both for a show that aired on adult swim, and for a show about a walking ass.<br /><br />All the standard genre clichés are in place that made movies like Dirt Harry and Cobra so great and ripe for parody. Sanchez is Assy's partner, who is - as per the genre - level-headed and constantly apologizing for his partner's homicidal behavior. The police chief is, of course, a fire-breathing hard case who lives to scream "I want your badge on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!" The over-the-top, and sometimes completely nonsensical manner in which the 1980's 'Renegade Cop' film is parodied suits the subject matter well. For instance, while breaking up a bus robbery, one of the criminals stops to ask Assy, "Hey, where are you going, asshole!?" To which the title character snaps off the one-liner: "I'm going... to shoot you." <br /><br />Highly recommended for anybody who loves 80's action movies, and has actually viewed enough of them to understand the humor. | 1 |
Oh man, this movie was toe-cringing bad. Bad look, awful story...the list of good things is shorter than the list of bad things about this movie.<br /><br />Yes sure it's supposed to be a comedy and all but something tells me that this movie was supposed to be the real deal. The movie most certainly does not start of as a comedy but more as an adventurous movie with fun elements put in it. You can especially tells they were serious with this by the acting, that was in a serious and non-comical way, with the exception of a couple of over-the-top sequences obviously. It seemed to be me that at first they tried to make a real and serious adventurous science-fiction movie, perhaps even a franchise but soon began to noticed how bad it all was and simply decided to insert some more and deliberately overdone comical sequence, to make the movie seem more like a comedy and prevent it from turning into a complete disastrous mess.<br /><br />The movie is a weird attempt to mix adventurous swashbuckling pirate movies with serious science-fiction action. The movie was obviously inspired by the "Star Wars" movies and its success. The movie isn't even too ashamed to copy entire sequences and even the way the story progresses, sets, characters and robots show similarities. They tried to hide this by putting in some obviously spoofing sequences but I'm not falling for it. So the movie is not even original on its own, despite its original concept. You can say that this movie is a poor man's "Spaceballs", without even really being fully a spoof.<br /><br />The movie is bad looking, with some video games special effects (in some sequences even literally), awful looking costumes (coat of mail and swords in outer space?). The sound is at times even laughable. Seems like they shot some sequences without sound and then forgot to add all of the required sounds later again in post-production. the mixing is also really bad. They tried to conceal this by putting the sound down to a minimum at times and by tuning up the Bruce Broughton musical score.<br /><br />At times the movie is so busy trying to make the movie look humorous that it totally forgets to tell the story. It makes the story of the movie seems extremely messy and poorly written, with an almost completely undeveloped main plot. It also doesn't help to make the movie really ever flow. Lots of thing don't get explained and some are even dropped after a while. The movie begins as a 'pirate' movie, who constantly are looking and steal water, since its scarcely and there is only one planet in the entire galaxy remaining with water on it (yeah right!). However this plot line gets soon abandoned, especially in the middle part of the movie, in which the movie seems to become a totally different one, with different motivations. It's just like the one weird and bad, silly sequence after the other, without really making a click. It also keeps the characters way too shallow and uninteresting to care about.<br /><br />Sad to see that actors like John Carradine, Anjelica Huston and a still young and unknown Ron Perlman were attached to this disastrous movie.<br /><br />OK I admit that I liked some of the moments, especially the ending when they go through the time-warp was original and fun but really, non of this all was enough to save the movie.<br /><br />I didn't even liked the movie in a campy kind of way.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
Offbeat, slow-paced, entertaining erotic thriller with many graphic and "blasphemous" scenes that will undoubtedly disturb some viewers. However, it'll be hard even for them not to appreciate the several imaginative sequences this film contains, or to ignore Krabbe's first-rate performance. Verhoeven maintains an intriguing ambivalence throughout the film, playing with the meaning of the hero's visions-omens. Unfortunately, in the last 5 minutes everything turns into a blur, and the unsatisfying ending is certainly not as good as the rest of the movie. (***) | 1 |
I am continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action. What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were, Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine wines and cheeses, they take time to mature.<br /><br />Bring Surface and Invasion back - P L E A S E !!!!!!! | 1 |
I first saw this movie at a Saturday matinee when I was very young. I thought it was cool and often thought about it. Well I finally resaw it on DVD. It was still very entertaining but in a different way. It has to rank as one of the goofiest, campiest, 1950's sci-fi movies. It seemed filled with stock military footage. The dialogue is stilted and effects are crude. There is one line of dialogue that had me in stitches. The line Jeff Morrow says while on the beach with the babe. Rent it if you need a movie to watch with a bunch of drunken friends. It is a classic. | 0 |
Ida Lupino was one of the few women to break through the directorial glass ceiling in Hollywood under the studio system. Not surprisingly, she also tackled proto-feminist themes that, when touched at all, were approached in so gingerly a manner that it was seldom quite clear what was being talked about. In Outrage, she treats rape and its aftermath, and though throughout the short movie it's referred to as `criminal assault,' she leaves, for once, no doubt about what happened.<br /><br />Mala Powers (in her official debut) plays a secretary-bookkeeper at a big industrial plant; she lives with her parents but is engaged to a swell guy (Robert Clarke), who just got a raise and now makes $90 a week. Leaving the plant after working late one night, she finds herself being stalked. In the ensuing scene the best in the movie she tries to escape her pursuer in a forbidding maze of buildings and alleys but fails.<br /><br />When she returns home, disheveled and in shock, the police can't get much out of her; she claims she never saw her attacker (who manned a snack truck outside the factory). Trying to pretend that nothing happened, she returns to her job but falls apart, thinking that everybody is staring at her, judging her. She goes into a fugue state, running away to Los Angeles on a bus but stumbling off at a rest stop. <br /><br />Waking up in a strange ranch house, she learns that she's been rescued by Tod Andrews, a young minister in a California agricultural town. She lies about her identity and takes a job packing oranges. The two fall vaguely in love, but it's clear to Andrews that Powers is keeping dire secrets. When, at a company picnic, she seizes a wrench and cracks the skull of Jerry Paris, who was trying to steal a kiss, the truth about her past comes out....<br /><br />It was a courageous movie to come out in 1950, and that may explain and excuse some of its shortcomings. Lupino never recaptures the verve of the early assault scene, and the movie wanders off into the bucolic and sentimental, ending up talky and didactic. Yes, Lupino had important information to impart, but she didn't trust the narrative to speak for itself. Her cast, pleasant but bland and generic, weren't much help, either, reverting to melodramatic postures or homespun reassurance. But Outrage was a breakthrough, blazing a trail for later discourse on what the crime of rape really is, and what it really means to its victims. | 1 |
Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.<br /><br />Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this. | 1 |
Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before! | 0 |
Beside the fact, that in all it's awesomeness this movie has risen beyond all my expectations, this masterpiece of cinema history portrait the overuse of crappy filters in it's best! Paul Johansson and Craig Sheffer show a brotherconflict with all there is to it. As usual a woman concieling her true intentions. The end came as surprising as unforssen as the killing of Keith Scott by his older brother.<br /><br />The scenes in 'wiking land' are just as I remember it from my early time travels. - To be honest my strong passion for trash movies makes this one a must have in my never finished collection.<br /><br />I recommend this movie to all the people in love with the most awesome brother cast from One Tree Hill.<br /><br />-Odin- | 1 |
This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?<br /><br />Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful. | 1 |
Ben a out-of-town cop is convinced his sister was brutally killed and wants to bring her killer to justice, but he's approached by Stefan who believes his sister was a victim of a werewolf cult. So Ben, his sister's best friend and Stefan travel to Transylvania to put a end to this evil.<br /><br />This is incredibly awful B-grade stuff and I wondered how it even got released. It makes the original 'Howling' look like a masterpiece. What was Christopher Lee thinking, as this has to be his worst performance I've seen.<br /><br />There was a lot wrong with this real cheap-ass film, ranging from the really hammy and wooden performances from Annie McEnroe, Reb Brown, Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning (not to forgot Lee), cheesy fashion (those sunnies), cheap and lame special effects, bad use of lighting, the humour... if there was any, trashy 80s music (with some of the film just focusing on some unknown band playing), werewolf's having orgies which is a sight to see and a tiresome story with flat and annoying dialogue. I thought if it was that bad it would be awfully funny, but I was wrong. <br /><br />The positives were the location and settings of the film looked great, but that's about it... actually I'll add Sybil Danning short stripping scene too.<br /><br />During the end credits the band plays their crap-house song during a weird montage of scenes from the film, which I beckon the question why?<br /><br />An awful piece of mess, however at least it isn't boring.<br /><br />1/5 | 0 |
Brian Dennehy, Bill Paxton, Joe Pantalino and, best of all, Jeff Fahey, all in one film. Wow is all I can think to say about that. These are four of the most underrated actors in the biz and they work beautifully together. It's like poetry the way they play off each other and ooze the natural ability to seem as though they had been best buddies for eons for even shooting the film.<br /><br />The film itself is fine and one that can be quite intense to view the first time, and the four stars help the re-watch-ability to a great extent. I cannot describe how good it was to see Bill Paxton and Jeff Fahey together on screen, the greatest moment being when they watch a couple from a distance and fill in the vocals themselves, it almost brought a tear to my eyes.<br /><br />A good film, a great cast, go see. Why? Four words, Fahey, Dennehy, Paxton, Pantalino. | 1 |
This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4. | 0 |
Okay, I just had to sound off on this one... Like a tremendous mental-gimp, I've just sat through this film in its entirety.<br /><br />You'll note that the trivia section of IMDB points out that portions of the raising of the 747 were "borrowed" from Airport 1977. This really doesn't scratch the surface... Virtually all exterior shots of the plane skimming the ocean, landing in, sinking, and even the at-rest shots are borrowed from Airport '77. All of the "raising" shots are pulled from '77, including most of the interior flooding clips, with the exception of Dennis Weaver's drowning. I couldn't help but wonder if Olivia Dehavilland might come floating by at any moment, or maybe a "dead" Tom Sullivan. Another eye-roller: Dennis Weaver's name in this film is Stevens, which is to compensate for the fact that Airport '77's plane is owned by the Stevens Corporation (headed by Jimmie Stewart of course).<br /><br />This is a veritable calvalcade of actors who don't work much, or at least haven't worked in a while, which might have been the first clue that it was going to be a real stinker.<br /><br />I've rated this film a 2 - It's quite worthy of a "1", but if this film can't offer any other redeeming quality, at least somebody helped Coolio, Max Caulfield, Nicolle Eggert, and Dennis Weaver make their car payments that month! | 0 |
midnight madness is the ultimate scavenger hunt movie for all time. michael j fox and paul reubens make respective pre- fame appearances. laughs abound everywhere and the intrigue of who will emerge victorious at the end of the great all-nighter will keep you on the proverbial edge of your seat. a true must see! | 1 |
There's simply no redeeming quality about this film. OK, some of the costumes are OK, but they're nothing you can't see in, say, the Conan flicks. And what's up with Ator's hair? I can't believe this is part of a series! I will say one thing about this film: it was deemed bad enough for a righteous lampooning by the early cast of MST3K and I suggest to anyone that's curious enough to see how bad this film is to watch that version of the film for moral support if nothing else. | 0 |
What can I say? This was one awful movie to watch. I am normally not very critical of gay cinema in general, due to the fact that most are usually low-budget, but this really pushed me up the wall. I mean, is this was has happened to gay cinema? Haven't gay producers and directors learned anything from Gus Van Saints and Ang Lee's films?. Just having to sit through the entire movie was like being in a dentist's chair and having my wisdom teeth extracted. I kept on praying for moments where I would feel any sort of connection with any of the characters, but that never happened. Most of the characters performances were just not very convincing. It was like watching one of those badly produced made-for-TV movie specials on a local access TV stations. I cannot tell u how greatly disappointed It was seeing this film after being a big fan of Tori Spellings other works and the directors last work on "Latter day saints." It was definitely not worth the wait. Definitely, a few hours of my life I will never get back and will certainly not be purchasing it on DVD. | 0 |
When I first saw the ad for this, I was like 'Oh here we go. He's done High School Musical, but he can't coast along on that so now he's making appearances on other Disney shows'. Personally, I love The Suite Life and I'm a big fan of Ashely Tisdale. But for some reason, I'm not too keen on Zac Efron, although all my friends think he's the best thing since Jesse McCartney. But he really annoys me. Anyway, I watched the show (taking a break from English coursework) and was pleasantly surprised. The performances were good all round, especially from the regular characters on The Suite Life, and Zac Efron wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. All in all, a pretty good show. | 1 |
To this day, there isn't a movie I've seen more times than The Chipmunk Adventure, nor has any movie brought me more happiness. This is by no means the greatest film or even the greatest animated film, but to an 8 year old girl in 1988 it was the coolest, funniest, most exciting film ever! I'm still equally as impressed today with the musical numbers, each one a standout song with wonderfully dramatic lyrics in the epic tradition of 80's pop (think Pat Benetar on helium, only catchier). <br /><br />Controversy has stirred over the blatantly suggestive tone of the Chipette's song "Gettin' Lucky With You", which to me seemed much more innocent at the time. However, looking at it as a rational adult, I can totally understand the concern; you've got three young girls in skimpy harem outfits passionately proclaiming "getting lucky is what it's all about". The Chipettes' were definitely sexualized tenfold for this movie.<br /><br />But this controversial issue doesn't even come close to overshadowing the Chipmunks' otherwise fabulous feature length animated adventure, I encourage parents and childless adults alike to check out this movie. Especially if you were a child of the eighties/early nineties like me. :-) | 1 |
WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Not that you should care. Also, sorry for the caps.)<br /><br />Starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that's all the more annoying for talking nonsense, it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. That's badly but accurately put.<br /><br />We know space travel is a risky enterprise. There's a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions, radiation, stress-related symptoms etc, and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. They knew stuff could go wrong. In fact, stuff had gone wrong. It's called learning. Granted, Appollo 11 wasn't safe by today's standards and there was immense political pressure, but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive.<br /><br />Assorted mistakes/comments I hadn't even to look up:<br /><br />1) Nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. Well duh. That's what I would've done. It was the apex of a propaganda war, after all.<br /><br />2) NASA gives green light despite the fact that Appollo 11 will probably blow up. (This is "only" implicit, though.) Yeah, that's why they let people and press watch in almost-real-time.<br /><br />3) The capsule ejection wouldn't work. Like it didn't work the time a chimp was in it. The one that survived? It was a test launch and the rocket exploded, the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. There's a video of it, you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere.<br /><br />4) One interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of Florida. I can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole, 'cause if not, I'm just aghast how he could get it so wrong.<br /><br />5) The technology then was primitive compared to today's standards. Actually, relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today, the reason being that it must not crash. It's even worse for spacecraft, because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren't that susceptible to radiation. (And the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway, so a complex steering system like the B2's wouldn't do.) What's with the fact that they were using "TV screens" rather than "computer screens"? It's the same damn technology. Actually TV monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition.<br /><br />6) "If that object wasn't part of the rocket, it could be only one thing." We see where this is going. Apart from the fact that the statement is wrong, who says it wasn't a rocket part? At least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you don't know what it is, it's by definition an Unidentified Flying Object.<br /><br />7) The voice-over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander's radiation foil was actually its hull. Which would make it thinner than a space suit.<br /><br />8) Neil Armstrong's near death during a practice flight is footage I can appreciate; I hadn't seen it before. As I said, any piece of manifest technology can go wrong, especially if it's not been tested sufficiently on account of being, you know, unprecedented.<br /><br />9)The trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the Moon's density) was at no time acutely life-threatening. Neither was the "fifteen seconds of fuel left", which was, in fact, "fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module".<br /><br />10) A "catastrophic chain of events" usually results in catastrophe. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. This, however, is a prime example of the rhetoric used.<br /><br />11) There's a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid, followed by the voice-over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior "can now be revealed". Turns out, he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. Hilarious stuff.<br /><br />12) It's mentioned that during re-entry, all contact was lost. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it's impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. Again, the gravity of this is implicit, but very purposely so.<br /><br />13) There was never a shuttle lost in space itself, while the voice-over presents this "fact" as evidence that Appollo 11 was a pile of crap. Appollo 13 was a near-loss, but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re-entry, respectively. In any case, comparing shuttles to Saturn rockets is somehow ... well, okay, just plain stupid. Even ignoring that, the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience.<br /><br />14) What the hell's up with the UFO? Even in the context of the movie, it makes no sense. Unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes, aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history, science, or rhetorics).<br /><br />Even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. Catch-phrases like "covered up until now", "publically revealed here for the first time", come up, but the film doesn't place any blame or offer a lesson or anything, which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. In the good old tradition of sensationalism, there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except "NASA scientist". Wow, so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor? Fancy that. What does this have to do with the point of the movie again? Oh yeah, which point.<br /><br />In summary, in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate, it's not even good entertainment. And believe me, I'm a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries; this film isn't funny, witty, quaint, it's nothing. | 0 |
Even though this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes good pyrotechnics. Its plot was terrible. Its horror wasn't really that good. Its sci-fi was even worse. But its pyrotechnics were excellent! (Mathilda May was extremely beautiful too.) | 0 |
Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.<br /><br />This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd. | 0 |
This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night. | 0 |
This film makes about as much sense as an 'Ozzie & Harriet' or a 'Father Knows Best' episode. An old copy of Reader's Digest (circa 1962) would provide more insight into modern life, or the relationship between a father and a daughter, than this weird concoction.<br /><br />I was surprised with Diane Keaton. She appears to sleepwalk through the film. (Given the film's title, I realize that hers was a supporting role but even Martin Short managed a distinct, supporting character.)<br /><br />I can understand the attraction of an imaginary world created in a good romantic comedy. But this film is the prozac version of an imaginary world. I'm frightened to consider that anyone could enjoy it even as pure fantasy. | 0 |
Good to see I'm not the only person who remembers this great film. I have very fond memories of this movie - seem to vaguely remember back to when I was about 8 and I'd watch the kids TV shows after school (Broom Cupboard anyone?). This was the first and last film to scare me - and the images of the boy surrounded by mist on a hill will stay with me forever! Like most films of this era, it has a happy ending - aimed at children, but with a definite ability to capture an adults attention. The lovely Cornish scenery really sets the film up to feel isolated - and the "ghostly" scenes are simple but very, very effective! I'd love to try and find this movie again - see if it still hits home! | 1 |
I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed. | 0 |
This is definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story. | 0 |
I am and have been a serious collector of Christmas related movies, TV shows, holidays specials, etc., for over twenty-five years. Please heed my warning and do not be mislead by sterling reviews & media hype about this movie. This is not a Muppett movie as we have come to know them, and is certainly NOT for children. The fact that this was produced for a major TV network is/was no surprise considering their level of operation at this time. What is hard for me to believe, is that The Jim Henson organization stooped so low to become involved in this travesty of Christmas.I wish there had been reviews for me to read that would warned me before I wasted my hard earned money on this piece of trash. | 0 |
Aimless teens on summer break in a small Ohio town can't find any meaningful ways to fill their time. Some consider driving to Chicago; others are content to drink and bully their peers. In a random act of alcohol-fueled arrogance, the bullies rough up a homeless man and steal a strange book. The handwritten text turns out to contain archaic spells designed to summon demonic forces. A night or two later, one of them reads an incantation and is quickly possessed. He turns into a vicious killer and begins to quietly prey on his former peers.<br /><br />"Demon Summer" is an amateur production with a microscopic budget. The production values are low, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not be ambitious. Little in the way of special props or shooting locations were needed. The acting is especially weak and there is virtually nothing original in the screenplay. On the positive side, the special makeup effects are surprisingly good by low budget film standards. Despite this, the gore is minimal. Makeup effects aside, there is little going for this film, even for die-hard gore-hounds. Not recommended. | 0 |
How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.<br /><br />Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.<br /><br />Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.<br /><br />This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.<br /><br />Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.<br /><br />Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.<br /><br />Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.<br /><br />This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism. | 0 |
Although Kris Kristofferson is good in this role, who wouldn't want to see Elvis Pressly instead? With the drug addiction and the fall from supreme fame may have scared away Elvis' agent to be apart of the movie, it was a mistake. This would have been a perfect movie for Elvis. Even though the soundtrack is far from terrific, Paul Williams and Barbra Streisand do a decent job in creating an original soundtrack for this "period" piece / musical. Somewhat of a love story, this is more of a drama about the fall from grace and the gift of redemption. Like is most tragedies, the hero of the story was die. Also, Gary Busey is once again perfect in a not so perfect role. | 1 |
it's a great movie for the whole family. i don't think many people have seen it cause i ask people and they say that they've never heard of it before. Sophie Heyman is my aunt's sister in law. my favorite scene is the whole movie i can't even pick a favorite scene. my favorite character is Hubert because he is a funny yet smart dog. if someone hasn't seen it they are missing out on a great adventure. i've only seen it cause my aunt is related to Sophie and she got a copy from her. if someone is reading this i suggest buy the movie and i guaranteed it won't be a bad decision. i've seen this movie about five times and every time it gives me the same message, dogs are as smart as people just give them a chance. | 1 |
_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I have seen a few of Fred Carpenter's movies on Showtime, Pay Per View and video/DVD and I enjoyed most of these films especially with a few beers, (Carpenter knows how to entertain)"EDDIE MONROE" and "MURDERED INNOCENCE" are my favorites. I recently Viewed a Promo DVD of "EDDIE MONROE" and everything from the cast to the storyline and directing all worked smoothly. (Doug Brown's Music Score was sensational.) I enjoyed seeing Frank Sivero ("Goodfellas", "New York, New York" and "The Wedding Singer"), he is an amazing and very underrated actor.But I especially liked the performance of Paul Vario who played Uncle Benny, I looked up his acting credits on the IMDb and I found out this was his first starring role. Where has this guy been! Give Fred Carpenter credit for discovering Great New Talent, it's only a matter of time you'll be seeing this guy costarring with Pacino and DeNiro. As I mentioned Carpenter knows how to entertain and when your working with a limited budget it is amazing what Carpenter can Produce.(I read the VENT MAGAZINE interview and Carpenter has never made a movie for more than $400,000.00 dollars.) Before I watched "EDDIE MONROE" I saw "Rocky Balboa" and "The Good Shepherd" both great films. "Eddie Monroe" took me on a ride to a surprised ending because of a very good script, good performances from the entire cast(Craig Morris is a movie star waiting to happen and the lead Actress Jessica Tsunis was hot!) great Cinematography, Direction and Doug Brown's Music Score. As I stated I recently seen "Rocky Balboa" and "The Good Shepherd", if I were to write a comment about those two movies I would be saying some of the same things I have stated about "EDDIE MONROE", the only thing those two very good films don't have in common with "Eddie Monroe", they didn't cost a few hundred grand. Great movie and I didn't even drink a beer. | 1 |
I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium. <br /><br />"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.<br /><br />The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact. <br /><br />Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. <br /><br />Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.<br /><br />PS The concert was lousy. | 1 |
I'm glad the folks at IMDb were able to decipher what genre this film falls into. I had a suspicion it was trying to be a comedy, but since it also seems to want to be a dark and solemn melodrama I wasn't sure. For a comedy it is amazingly bereft of even the slightest venture into the realms of humour - right up until the ridiculous "twist" ending, which confirms what an utter waste of time the whole movie actually is. It is hard to describe just how amateurish THE HAZING really is. Did anyone involved in this film have any idea at all what they were supposed to be doing? Actually worth watching so that you can stare at the screen in slack-jawed disbelief at how terrible it is. | 0 |
Gandhi My Father is a well made movie. It nicely portrays the life of Gandhiji's Eldest Son Harilal. His character, his differences with his father, his love for his family, his desire to stand on his own, his failure, his ego.. Akshaye Khanna completely justifies the role of Harilal. Just not him, everyone did well in the roles they played. Darshan Jariwala is the best on-screen Gandhiji I've ever seen. But I will cut three points as there were few shortcomings.<br /><br />First, movie was fifteen-twenty minutes longer than it should have. Second, the movie needed more research into Harilal's character. Somewhere, the character looked incomplete. Also, his relation with his brothers was not shown. There was no mention of any other child of Gandhiji in the whole movie. I believe the character like Harilal should be having at least some differences his brothers as well, considering the egoist nature of Harilal.<br /><br />Anyways, despite some shortcomings, I liked the movie. Recommended... | 1 |
I heard they were going to remake this French classic in 2007, and I see it is in development for 2011. This will be a shame, as Hollywood kicked writer/director Jules Dassin out because of the infamous blacklist. They should not have the right to remake any of his films.<br /><br />I love "caper" films and "film noir," and this combines the best of both.<br /><br />Tony (Jean Servais) gets out after doing a nickle, and after he beats up his old girlfriend (Marie Sabouret), he plans a big score with his friends Mario (Robert Manuel) and Jo (Carl Möhner), What makes this a great caper flick is the attention to detail in planning the robbery. You see that reflected in the George Clooney Vegas capers. Nothing is left to chance.<br /><br />The caper goes off great but Grutter (Marcel Lupovici) sends his sons, Robert Hossein and Pierre Grasset after Tony and the gang. After blowing it with Mario, they kidnap Jo's son. Lots of bullets fly before it is over.<br /><br />A great film by a great director. The standard by which other caper films are measured. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.