text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I happened across this movie while channel-surfing and it seemed to be yet another poorly- made Christian film about The End Times (which I find rather entertaining because they take themselves so seriously). To be fair, I only saw the last 30 minutes, so I missed the part about UFOs and the Sci-Fi stuff. But it was long enough for me to categorize it as an embarrassing and appalling representation of the Christian faith, as well as a rather pathetic film in any artistic sense.<br /><br />As a film, the script was terrible, the acting was mediocre, and the pacing was poor. The cinematography and direction were sub-par: no interesting visuals, no layered plot line, no creativity. Don't just blame it on the budget- films can still be interesting without special effects. This wasn't. Christian films cannot excuse their mediocrity and unoriginality in the artistic sphere just because of their message. And the message here was hardly "Christian."<br /><br />**Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is targeted towards Christians**<br /><br />First off, it is unethical in any business to bait-and-switch your customers. I don't like being told I can win a free iPod only to realize I have to spend $300 at participating stores first. Nonchristians don't like being told they're watching a Sci-Fi film and then get bombarded with Christian propaganda that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Hidden agendas don't win you any friends, much less converts. <br /><br />Secondly, you should not use overt threats to convince people your beliefs are true. The actors who represented Christians came off as callous, smug bullies when dealing with the skeptical "unbeliever"-- they even go so far as to stage the rapture in order to scare him into believing. Representational dialogue: "Turn to Jesus- OR GO TO HELL!" "Fine, don't believe me- BUT YOU'LL BE SORRY!" "The day you die, I can guarantee you'll wish you paid more attention to this Jesus stuff- WHEN YOU LAND IN THE BELLY OF HELL!" OK, I may be exaggerating, but it certainly came off in the same manner. If you think this is a "clear message for Christ," you're wrong. I don't recall Jesus using threats and coercion. And I don't think people can make an authentic decision to believe in him out of fear. So Christians, please don't use this as a "witnessing tool" for your "unsaved" friends. It is heavy-handed, offensive, and inaccurate in portraying a true Christian message.<br /><br />Thirdly, the theology was bad. Apart from characterizing Jesus as a means of hell-insurance, it gave no room for debate or discussion and didn't attempt to engage the issue of whether UFOs or alien life could exist. Instead, it offered one pat answer: "UFOs are the devil's scheme to deceive people when the rapture happens," which is neither biblical nor widely-accepted by most Christians. As the Bible doesn't mention UFOs or aliens, you can't use it as a source to draw conclusions one way or the other. The rapture isn't necessarily even a widely-accepted, sound biblical concept, though nowadays most evangelical Christians seem to believe it because of a popular book series. If you do your research (as so many of the supportive reviewers are suggesting), the idea of two comings of Christ (the first as the rapture) is a relatively new phenomena in Church tradition, popularized by some traveling evangelists around the turn of the 20th century. The majority of orthodox Christians will probably find this film's message to be a pretty big stretch that rests on a lot of unsupported presuppositions.<br /><br />Basically, this film misses the mark both as a worthwhile piece of entertainment and as an accurate representation of Christianity and its beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it. | 0 |
'Identity . . . . I am part of my surroundings and I became separate from them and it's being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what's inside our identity is everything that's ever happened to us' (Ntozake Shange qtd in "Fires in the Mirror").<br /><br />Pieces like Decalogue V used to intimidate me. I felt that if I accepted them, than I would be compromising something. What I thought before really isn't worth getting into. I understand what Naturalism is trying to say. I experienced a tangible katharsis, and one that fell into existence piecemeal, and one that's still alive, that I still have to reckon with. It's still working inside me. <br /><br />The film wasn't sympathetic, per se. It doesn't need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. There are certainly wicked people; whether or not they should die is for another film. What Decalogue shows is that good, beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up. <br /><br />The 'science' of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate Decalogue V. It's not worth the writing space to go into why I would not let myself before, but I see now the worth in making art like this to 'make' people, or perhaps to make people do something. <br /><br />There's a method to Lazar's compromise of his . . . light. Much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. This should not be too strange of an idea: after all, how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. I wince when I say it, but Naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when I have the power to say to myself, 'this ruin, this process, this natural process, makes me want to buck the system.' <br /><br />I do not think Naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity, telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. Instead, I think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments, that we are, of course, free to ignore. We can ignore it all we want, if we want to give the Naturalists more corpses to bury. <br /><br />For surely, despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters' likely and catastrophic fate, they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. I do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what's to be done with what they see. As has been mentioned, there's danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. There's danger in the hopeful disparaging the Natural because it doesn't correspond to their world view.<br /><br />And I don't think that the 'hopeful' need be either wealthy or fortunate. I have not seen it, but it seems that the film American Beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. There are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is, who grieve because they can't find anything that separates them from their landscape. <br /><br />Landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed, but in reality, landscapes do not enact. They change, sure, and dramatically, but only by a large set of Natural law which no one truly have power over. But it cannot be changed itself. | 1 |
I went to see Ashura as 2005 Fantasia Festival Kickoff. Man, that was one cool kick off. The director was supposed to be in Montreal for the Canadian premiere, but due to health reasons, he's still in Japan...oh lord I hope he gets better and makes plenty of other movies.<br /><br />The plot is pretty simple, but somewhat original...the demons are roaming in Edo in Japan and Swordsmans called "Demon Wardens" are slaying them and fearing the rebirth of Ashura, the demon goddess who's sleeping and supposedly is very kick-ass.<br /><br />It brings us to Izumo...some kind of elite swordsman called "Demon Slayer" and his buddy Jaku who's the typical violent jealous asshole...<br /><br />Seems boring? Well now it thickens....<br /><br />Izumo took his retirement from killing demons since he slayed a young kid on the "impression" that he was the demon, he never knew, but he did killed her. So Izumo went on with his life and recycled himself in Kabuki theater. In a boat joyride on a nice night, Izumo spots a girl hiding on a bridge and it changes his life and restart to slay demons...for the good cause, the cause of love...and damn...the guy knows how to handle a sword and to pull an entertaining massacre.<br /><br />Izumo carries the movie as far as playing goes...he is the total package...he knows how to fight(hell yeah he knows), he's witty, he's intelligent and he has that grit. You never have to yell :"NO IZUMO, IT'S A TRAP" The guy already knows it he has that common sense. He's really the perfect hero.<br /><br />As far as cinematography goes, the esthetics are pretty interesting. It's by far, the movie that looks the most like a manga. It's creamed full of special effects and nothing, at all cost will prevent this movie to look realistic...it's pretty amazing. Lots of colours an "unreal" photography, other than that...it's pretty straightforward...but like I said, the main character is carrying the movie A must see, a tale lead by masterful hands | 1 |
Zombie Nation 2004 R<br /><br />Hey, I was bored. I looked in my Comcastic little box to find a movie to watch. Zombie Nation? Hey, I love zombie movies. Says the filmmaker has some sort of cult following in the description. Funny how it doesn't warn me not to watch this film. I could've used that advice.<br /><br />Zombie Nation is just like Troll 2 in that it's completely misnamed. It has little (if anything, depending on your point of view) to do with zombies, and takes place all within one city. This film revolves around a crooked cop, who acts as badly as possible (he has to be trying to suck this much), while he arrests women for trivial bullshit and then kills them. Yup, he's a serial killer cop. Not only is this film flawed in thinking that it's a zombie flick, it also gets its serial killer facts completely wrong. Serial killers enjoy killing, they live for it and they get down and personal with it. This guy knocks out the women, and injects them with some poison. He doesn't even have sex with the corpse or dismember it. Talk about boring! Eventually, one of the whopping five women he kills has Voodoo protection done to her and for no apparent reason, all five come back to life and head off to kill this guy. They were all buried or tossed into the ocean, but you wouldn't know it buy the sharp clean clothes they're all wearing. The women then act very poorly and take their revenge. Oh yay.<br /><br />This film was crap in every category. Crap acting, crap writing, crappier sets, and crappier make-up effects. The women don't look zombie-like, unless you count really dark make-up around the eyes to be the de facto definition of what makes a zombie. They can all talk, behave, think, and act perfectly human. The gore is weak compared to even many PG-13 films and the nudity is beyond brief. You see glimpse of breasts in the opening sequence... Then the exact same breasts later! Go figure. Guess only one actress was willing to go topless for this trite. The police station is so badly constructed that you can see where they stopped painting the walls of the warehouse they're obviously filming in. You can see the pipes and the bad lighting and the overly sparse set-up and even, unless you are blind, you can see the director failing. Steer clear, it's a waste of time.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as "Principal Amzy" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down. | 0 |
This film basically try to portray the heroism of firefighters by making the whole movie revolve around a American dad with a good heart that puts others before himself. Now I know they try to show Jack Morrison(Joaquin Phoenix) as a typical American father that is a firefighter but like there is just nothing interesting in about him what so ever, thus when the movie gets to the climax there is just little to no emotion. This movie basically tries to make the life of a firefighter exciting but it just comes off as boring as any other jobs except you save lives or property by extinguishing the fire. John Travolta plays the captain of the fire station but anyone could have played his role and he is a dull character as the rest of the film. What could have been a good film is that the firefighter are put way up as heroes because they are firemen and turns the whole scenario into a uninteresting melodrama.<br /><br />4.9/10 | 0 |
I agree with so many of the other reviewers here. This was a great film and an even better novel by Robert Fish. Unfortunately, I believe the author died before he could see this film made. The performances are all top rate, with the three principles (John Glover, Ben Cross, and Veronica Hamel) seemingly made for their roles. The exteriors, both in Europe and Israel, seem very authentic, and the 4-hour miniseries length was just right for the telling of this story. Fortunately, I DID tape this when it was on television and have enjoyed watching it ever since. I can say unhesitatingly that it holds up even to this day. I gave it a rating of 10. If you haven't read the book, you should really find a copy. This would be an outstanding film to release on DVD with extras that could easily include interviews from the cast. | 1 |
the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...<br /><br />the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel. | 0 |
...an incomprehensible script (when it shouldn't have been) dependent on a rather flaky voice-over.<br /><br />The animation, however, show real talent.<br /><br />Quite visually impressive. | 0 |
MAJOR SPOILERS!! THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!!<br /><br />Commenters have touched on the major theme of "honor" in the film, and too many comparisons to "Braveheart." I'll point out a few things about this movie that I have not seen other comments touch on:<br /><br />This movie has a decidedly different take on abortion. The first character to get pregnant is the villain's (Roth) girlfriend, and when he coldly suggests an abortion, she states it is too late for that. The shame of her situation ("I'm to have a bastard's bastard.") leads her to commit suicide in a much later scene. The second character to find herself pregnant is Mary, Rob's wife, after a rape by Roth's character (and at least one sex scene with her husband, Rob). Late in the movie, as Rob is leaving for a final confrontation with Roth, Mary asks what she should do about the pregnancy of questionable origins, with a tone hinting of abortion. Rob replies in a noble tone, "it's not the fault of the child," and then states what he thinks the name should be, girl or boy. I find this "pro-life" stance on the part of the hero to be very un-Hollywood. Rob walks from the darkness of the house to the bright outside to make this comment -- not coincidental symbolism.<br /><br />Another related theme is Roth's character is a bastard, someone who evidently does not know who his father was, and has few kind words for his mother, though he wears a picture of her in a case hung from his neck. Is it coincidence that Roth (devoid of family stability) is the walking definition of psychopath, while Rob is the strong husband/father figure, and of course the hero. In the final sword fight between Rob and the villain (Roth), the former slices the latter deeply across the chest -- the left side of the chest, over the heart. His employer and pseudo-father figure (John Hurt character) holds the mother's picture in his hand and gazes at it, before snatching it from the neck of the dead Roth.<br /><br />Also what I find interesting was the direction of the rape scene, which was not quite graphic but neither was it off-camera and implied. I found it surprising in it's somewhat matter of fact depiction, with Mary convincingly showing the characteristics of someone going through the ordeal, and subsequent post traumatic stress (as we call it now). My point being that the rape was neither sensationalized nor just implied, which I find an interesting middle road for Hollywood to take.<br /><br />In the final fight scene, I have to correct an earlier commenter: The weapon Roth chose was a rapier (or perhaps a short sword), the weapon Rob chose was a Claymore. Someone was really doing their homework on this entire scene. Roth would have the upper hand in such a situation, but of course the Claymore is a distinctly Scottish weapon. What is even more striking to me (as a fencer and someone who has read a bit on the subject) is that this final sword fight is one of the most convincing of any film ever made: The actors seem actually trying to kill each other -- not the usual slashes to the opponents blade we see in most movie fights (including the movies opening fight). Even more true to history, Roth is seen several times using the rapier as a thrusting weapon, which is it's purpose by design! (Rapiers were edged, but primarily a thrusting weapon with the edges used mainly for parrying an opponents thrust.) Rob uses the Claymore in broad slashes, as it's design intent. The fight goes down as I would expect it to -- Roth effectively wins. Though Rob wins the day by grabbing Roth's weapon (more symbolism) and striking him dead with a powerful slashing cut.<br /><br />Folks, it is RARE to see this level of historical accuracy in a movie sword fight.<br /><br />I'll also note that for whatever reason, I remember 1995 (the year of release) distinctly as a time of distrust of the U.S. government. Hollywood was obviously tuned into that, with the release of both "Rob Roy" and "Braveheart," and I think the anti-government leanings are why both films get so much comparison. <br /><br />I think the different perspective that this film gives is refreshing to avid movie fans, tired of the same old, not so hidden messages from Hollywood. | 1 |
I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), "Baise-Moi" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. "Baise-Moi" is another one of those "blame everything that goes wrong on society"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill
) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though! | 0 |
WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS deserves to be a better known film directed by Otto Preminger, the man who gave the world LAURA. And this time, he's got the same co-stars: DANA ANDREWS and GENE TIERNEY. It must be said that Tierney here is under-used in what amounts to more of a supporting role while the spotlight goes to Andrews.<br /><br />He plays a tough, hardened cop used to dealing with a bunch of thugs in too vigorous a way until one night he accidentally kills a man in the process of arresting him. When suspicion falls on a cab driver (TOM TULLY), he goes along with the investigation into the murder but starts to feel guilt because he's in love with the cabbie's daughter (GENE TIERNEY). Tierney, by the way, looks a little too elegant for the girl she's playing here and doesn't seem to fit into the squalid background elements of the story.<br /><br />The story takes a grim turn as the investigation goes deeper and it's discovered that the murdered man had a silver plate in his head from his service as a war hero. By the end, it turns into a morality tale with Andrews developing a conscience over his crime.<br /><br />It's fascinating as film noir with capable performances from a strong supporting cast. A good entry in the field of noir, forcefully directed by Preminger and nicely played by Andrews and Tierney, despite the slight miscasting of her character. | 1 |
Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.<br /><br />Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.<br /><br />I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment. | 0 |
The movie that would be included if Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a home game version! The source material for tacky comments in this movie are endless. I found the video of Terror in the Jungle at a garage sale. What a find! | 0 |
John Leguizamo's one man shows are hit or miss: Mambo Mouth showed off his intense characterizations and great timing but the material was average, Spic-o-Rama accomplished the former as well but this time the material was funny, Freak is a classic followed by his disappointing Sex-o-holic. But his stuff in Freak showcases his genius and when he's in the spotlight he's without peer.<br /><br />Freak's semi-autobiographical look at the journey of a young man has power and resonance I don't think even it's creator knew about. By allowing us the chance to see his soul, Mr. Leguizamo gives us an opportunity to project our own life onto his and there can be no greater gift a performer can give. The willingness to drop 'the Wall', expose and share is too terrifying for most actors-they use characters to hide behind-but JL goes full-throttle and gleefully smashes any pretenses. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor were our best cultural observers/comedians/actors because they spoke from their heart about whatever they noticed in society and the truth provided slashing humor. Combine that with a great actor's gift of mimicry and being in-the-moment (not to mention a sense of humanity) and you'll see John Leguizamo has the power to do the same. At least in Freak he does.<br /><br />From birth to his first big break and every life altering moment in between, a viewer sees our host and other characters in their most private moments all the while experiencing the pain, hope, and humor that comes with. Looking drained and lean muscled-tight JL is ringing with sweat by evening's end having offered up his crazy life for an audience; Spike Lee's fluid camera work captures the actor's nuances down to the last lip curl and slow blink. The scenarios range from drinking with his machismo-fueled father (when he was 9) to seeing A Chorus Line with his gay, deaf uncle; his first girlfriend's vicious humiliation when he strips naked, eager to have sex. A nightmarish first sexual encounter with a large German woman in the back of a Kentucky Fried Chicken follows an unsuccessful attempt to pick up a "drunk lapsed Catholic" in a bar on St.Patty's Day. Climaxing in a serious showdown with his mother and father, it's here that he shows his true genius: he plays a scene between these two characters and himself and his brother with such a strong dramatic/humourous intensity, you forget you're watching only one person. There's no costume changes, bad wigs, lighting tricks, or makeup. Just an actor giving his all. It's simply amazing.<br /><br />Other actors/comedians that stand out right now are Eddie Izzard and Chris Rock but they don't dive into themselves as deeply as John Leguizamo does; that's not a criticism, not by a long shot. I love their work but Freak is different. It's moving in a no-b******* way. It's the best one man show out there and no one will be able to touch it for a long time. | 1 |
I saw this movie for the first time a little over a year ago. I've seen it 4 more times since. I had never heard of it before and I consider myself knowledgeable of classic cinema. A true, polished, diamond in the rough.<br /><br />This gem of a movie revolves around Jon Voight (lead character "Conrack") as a young schoolteacher assigned to Yamacraw Island to teach the islands' children, all in one school. At first, the students reveal they know very little of the world beyond their island home. The heart of the movie is Conrack finding inspiration to awaken their young minds to the world around them. The students quickly reward their teacher with an eagerness to learn and a remarkable ability to grasp concepts that, only a short time before, had been foreign to them. Conrack uses unconventional and clever teaching techniques that happen to be, oh a little fun! God forbid. Learning AND fun? Together? Can't be, or so says the ones in charge. To avoid a spoiler, I shall just say that Conrack finds resistance with the boss man....and the ending is truly bittersweet.<br /><br />I am a 35 year old white male with some teaching experience, so I should identify with the lead character, Pat Conroy (aka, Conrack, Mr. Petroy). But I don't, I identify with the black kids. As a kid, I was bussed to the school on the other side of town from the 4th to the 6th grade, circa 1979. These kids in the movie remind me of my classmates then. Luckily, in 4th grade as a 8 or 9 year old, one doesn't understand racism. I just remember we were all being kids, playing 4-square, kickball, hide-and-seek, and running relays.<br /><br />This movie is very moving. There are delightful and poignant moments from beginning to end, non-stop. I found myself many times with tears in my eyes, then suddenly laughing out loud. It's a funny movie.<br /><br />"Git away from that winda!!".... "Sir, if you're prepared to accept crap, I should tell you that rabbit just did it in your lap."..... "So, you the white schoolteacher, Mr. Conrack. My grands LOVE Mr. Conrack. You a good looking teacher, you a good looking white man."..... "wind 15 mph from the east. Small boat warning. Small boats beware. Big boats OK, don't gotta worry 'bout nothing.".... "not a fry cook, but Eleanor Roosevelt, not a share-cropper, but (something Latin)...that's Latin..hey wait!".... "Conrack sing like a frog....I sing good, whatcha talkin' 'bout?!".<br /><br />It still mystifies me that I still hear nothing about this movie or that it has very little reputation or following. I intend to seek out more reviews, comments, background, and "making of" tidbits, if they are out there. What amazes me is the acting given from the untrained kids. One of the kids, Mary, I understand was an actress, and you can tell. However, the other kids have plenty of lines and genuine reactions. I wonder how they did it! I'm guessing that Conrack and Mary had precise dialogue to work with while some of the scenes unfold naturally or ad-libbed.<br /><br />Conrack is a special movie. In my opinion, it is one of the very few movies that are so good AND so unknown. Others in that category are King Rat ('65), Dark Passage ('47 with Bogie and Bacall), Gods Must Be Crazy ('80), and Bad Day at Black Rock ('55). I recommend them all. But first, take a seat in the class of Mr. Conrack. | 1 |
Alright, this film is the representation of several things. For starters, this film is about a disgruntled student who brings a gun to school and shoots roughly 9 students. One student survives and is in the hospital with extensive head injuries. The lead character is what several people who consider a 'loner/goth', despite the movie's stating of her not being so. She seems quite mysterious, but was also the only unharmed student in the victimized classroom. She's questioned, due to having a history of knowing the shooter and having a record of being on the phone with him the night before. Anyhow, she's a very brief and distant person who seems to despise society. Yet, due to some, at first unexplained events, she spent roughly a year out of school, failing the grade. She has the desire to graduate, and the principle practically cons her into the only possible way she can pass is to spend time with the survivor, the girl in the hospital.<br /><br />These two leads are nearly entirely opposite, and they are quite that on a social level. While Alisha is a quiet, inwardly disturbed, anti-social 'goth' girl who spends her time entirely alone (even though she seems to read quite often, somewhat of a closet/out of the closet bookworm), the other girl is a rich, popular 'bubbly' girl who seems always incredibly optimistic and trapped in her own fantasy world, ignoring the outside world and its realism to survive. I feel both of these roles to a marvelous job of representing MOST 'cliques' in the modern highschool, but more importantly shows how two entirely opposite girls who know nothing of each other eventually open to each other. While the injured girl learns a deep, meaningful truth on her once sheltered life and the outside world, Alisha learns that complete abandonment of society and locking everything inside is not always the best thing.<br /><br />Many people will look to the connection between these two girls and see one of two things. Either, a snobby, hateful girl who wants he rest of the world to suffer as she does, taking it out on an innocent girl, OR the story of a seemingly trapped, fantasized girl who meets an outcast to society and learns not only not to judge, but that she is actually, perhaps, one of the most intelligent people she's known. In other words, people may see this film as a focus on Alisha teaching the other girl a lesson about life, but it isn't about that.<br /><br />This film is about SEVERAL things. While it is about all I have stated, it is also representative of how people deal from a large, life-changing catastrophe. Truly, this movie is not very symbolic, but instead incredibly straight forward with its message, as long as you aren't afraid to open your mind, and your heart, to some emotions you may not be familiar with being portrayed so miraculously.<br /><br />Overall, this film is one of the best I've ever seen. The acting is brilliant, the storyline and representation is deep and meaningful, and the emotion flowing through-out this film will have anyone not only relating, but possibly crying. This film is by far heart-wrenching, and very impactful, and if I ever believed any film could alter a person's life... this would be the first that could have changed mine.<br /><br />I adored this movie, if you ever want a movie that's moving and impactful, while incredibly entertaining and REAL, watch this. | 1 |
I can pretend no knowledge of cinematography or Mr. Angelopoulos. But I know Greece and I love her people. In July my 14 year old son and I traveled to Cappadocia, Turkey in search of some remains of the neighborhood where his great grandfather Iordanis lived until the great exodus of Anatolian Greeks in 1923. Reading the summary of the film (refugees from Odessa) I thought that perhaps I might learn something more about the forced migrations of modern Greeks. If I did not have a home in Rhodes, had I not been to Greece 28 times in as many years, were I not familiar with dozens of islands and cities in Greece and if I had never enjoyed the friendship of these ebullient, life-intoxicated people, I might have believed that this lamentation had something to do with modern Greece. As a professor at a New Jersey State college, let me assure you that I am familiar with the history of the period covered in the film. Indeed, my wife's uncle was murdered by the communists during the communist grab for power. My mother-in-law lived through the Italian invasion and German occupation...barely. These characters on the screen speak Greek, they listen to Greek music but who are they? No, they are not even vaguely Greek. Of course they are not people at all but simply allegories. They are that which the artist invents when life does not entirely fit or is inadequate to his perception of how it was or should have been. All represent some aspect of post WWI Greece that greater outside forces consigned to a fate they didn't deserve. As we joked in the late 70's in America: "The Revolution didn't happen." For an ideologue/artist, this is no joke. It's in fact grounds to put us through two and a half hours of torment. And it's all because the various Powers (Eleni's soliloquy of "guards" in different colored uniforms) didn't allow the generation after the "aristocrats" of 1919 (Spyros) to follow the call of peace and freedom (the music of Nikos and his fellow musicians, i.e., the Movement, the Cause). This dark, surreal revisionism smears the true and heroic efforts of the Greek people to sustain their lust for life through the tragedies of the 20th century, to achieve more than any of their Balkan neighbors, to have become so politically evolved and globally integrated. | 0 |
I did not like the idea of the female turtle at all since 1987 we knew the TMNT to be four brothers with their teacher Splinter and their enemies and each one of the four brothers are named after the great artists name like Leonardo , Michelangleo, Raphel and Donatello so Venus here doesn't have any meaning or playing any important part and I believe that the old TMNT series was much more better than that new one which contains Venus As a female turtle will not add any action to the story we like the story of the TMNT we knew in 1987 to have new enemies in every part is a good point to have some action but to have a female turtle is a very weak point to have some action, we wish to see more new of TMNT series but just as the same characters we knew in 1987 without that female turtle. | 0 |
I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted / written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.<br /><br />I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie. | 0 |
After you've seen this small likable and comical film, you will for sure feel better. Cheer to Yves B. Pelletier to have given birth to this small magnificent movie moment, that according to me, will be recognized as a marking movie of year 2004 for the Quebec. The actors Isabelle Blais, Emmanuel Bilodeau, Sylvie Moreau and Stéphane Gagnon all deliver a touching performance. I would compare the feeling that this wonderful story gives you to the ones that Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain have given me. So if you've like the Jean-Pierre Jeunet magnificent film, I would say that you should also like the first movie from Yves B. Pelletier, Les Aimants | 1 |
This effort is based on the true story of Jim Morris, a high school science teacher/baseball coach, who is inspired by his players to try out for the pros and fulfill his life-long dream of playing in the majors. Dennis Quaid, no stranger to sports films, plays Morris with enough conviction to make the part work and the producers do a credible job of recreating the real-world events that led to Morris brief stint as a relief pitcher for the woefull Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The first half of the film, dealing with his rag tag bunch of High School Baseball players (all of whom look way too old to actualy be in High School) is less effective and probably a bit too long. Overall the film does suffer from some pacing issues and a few extra subplots that we probably could have done without. However, it is still a fairly involving movie with an inspirational theme that proves once again that baseball is the national pastime for a reason. GRADE: B- | 1 |
One of the major aspects of "Malenkaya Vera" (called "Little Vera" in English) is that it was the first movie from the Soviet Union that featured a sex scene, albeit a short one. The title is important: Vera is the Russian word for "faith", identifying that punk Vera (Natalya Negoda) has little faith in the Soviet system. And as the movie shows, there's not much faith to be had in it. The opening scene shows the bleak industrial town of Zhdanov, nearly a hell on earth. When Vera's lover Sergei (Andrey Sokolov) moves in with her family, it leads to some unexpected events.<br /><br />Like in many Russian movies, people's names describe their characters. For example, there's Viktor (remember that "victor" means winner). All in all, this is a good look at the Soviet Union while it was collapsing - and we can see why it was collapsing. Really good. | 1 |
Unimpressive and extremely low budget sci-fi without any charm and appeal. Even the scenes related with the fall of the asteroids are stolen from other movies with the same plot. It's just a bad rip-off of "Asteroid" (with Annabela Sciora) and "Deep Impact" (with Morgan Freeman). Mr. Hopper seems to be anxious to slip away from this pointless and dull sci-fi entry.<br /><br />I give this a 2 (two). And don't say I'm not a good guy! | 0 |
"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.<br /><br />Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.<br /><br />Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining"). | 0 |
Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha<br /><br />Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.<br /><br />The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.<br /><br />Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw. | 0 |
This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible. | 0 |
I just discovered this obscure '70s horror movie while browsing on YouTube. For a low-budget effort, it has plenty of compelling moments in gradual pacing in leading to the surprisingly shocking finish. While there is one woman who takes off her shirt constantly, the fact that she's a nymphomaniac makes those scenes important to the story and there's one scene with the curly-haired young man as he attempts to seduce her that turned me on before his pulling back made her screaming mad. The young nurse who comes in and gets hired is alluring herself and I'm not surprised she posed for the cover of Playboy. Some characters are very irritating and some scenes do seem ridiculous. For the most part, however, Don't Look in the Basement (That's the title I saw on YouTube) provides enough drama and chills for an entertaining B-movie. | 1 |
George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" isn't the flick for you. "Death Bed" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of "Death Bed" in Thrower's FAB Press book, "Nightmare USA" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of "Death Bed" in everything from the "Phantasm" films to Michele Soavi's "Cemetery Man" to the magic-realism/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed "Death Bed" with a number of fantastically bizarre films. | 1 |
This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good. | 0 |
Awful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a "vanity" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of "lookers" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, "My kid could do better than that!" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better. | 0 |
This is a family film, which to some people is an automatic turn off. It seems that too many people do not want to see films that are not loaded down with failing arms and legs, gratuitous violence and enough expletives to fill the New York phone book. This film is none of those. It is cliché, it is formula, but it is also fun. It doesn't ask you to think, it doesn't demand that you accept the film as reality. It simply does what a good film ought to do, which is to willingly suspend disbelief for two hours and enjoy the adventure. The cast is good, while not excellent. As another commenter pointed out the John Williams sound score was, as usual, excellent. And the fact that a lot of the film was shot in Huntsville at the real space camp made it even more believable. <br /><br />It was ironic that the original release of the film was delayed for some months due to the Challenger Shuttle disaster, which may have played a large part in it's original theatrical opening, but the film eventually has helped to focus the dreams of many young people back towards space and the possibilities that lie therein. SO sit back with your kids and prepare to enjoy. | 1 |
It was good to see John Denver again though he passed several years ago. I found this film to be very heartwarming and a great film to sit by the fire on a cold winters night recollecting what Christmas is all about. The scenes of Georgetown, Colorado were magnificent and make one want to move there immediately. As I sit here in my own mountain seen in So California I loved the story and the plot. I hope all who see this somewhat older film enjoy it as much as my mother and I did. Merry Christmas! A great film for all the family too see. Enoy and tell others about it. Thanks for the memories. We need to have more films like this come out of Hollywood. | 1 |
If you like Deep Purple, you will enjoy in this excellent movie with Stephen Rea in main role. The story is about the most famous rock group back there in 70s, Strange Fruits, and they decided to play together again. But, of course, there is going to be lots of problem during theirs concerts. Jimmy Nail and Bill Nighy are great, and song "The Flame Still Burns" is perfect. You have to watch it. | 1 |
Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course. <br /><br />Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there. <br /><br />It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time). | 1 |
The Box is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. To explain my experience, let me use this word picture: Imagine that you have been binging on pixie sticks and paint fumes for the last month while watching nothing but Twilight Zone reruns. The resulting coma lands you in a hospital, where the nurse seems to get a kick out of shooting adrenalin into your IV. The dream that you have while in the coma will be something like this movie.<br /><br />SUMMARY: A man shows up at the door of a couple. He gives them a box with a button on it. Press the button, they will get a million dollars in cash and a person they don't know will die. I'll try not to spoil anything, but from there things devolve into a plot so intertwined and complex and purely original that it will make you question your sanity. But hey, most of us have been sane for a while now, and change is good.<br /><br />PROS: Amazing storyline, overall good acting, not a slow moment once it gets going. It asks questions of human morality that are rarely, if ever asked in popular culture. This movie is deep, it has meaning. Its not summer blockbuster special effects fluff (not that there's anything wrong with that); this movie had a relatively low budget and it showed in some places. But i think it is perhaps that very thing that makes me like it so much.<br /><br />CONS: The first twenty minutes, before it gets going, are really quite slow. At the end of the movie, you will be so confused that you just have to sit down and think for a good half hour. I can guarantee that this movie will not get rave reviews from your peers or most critics; it is far too strange and there aren't explosions every three seconds. In fact there are no explosions of any kind in this movie (besides your brain popping from trying to understand exactly what the heck just happened). Personally I don't think this is a bad thing, but many will.<br /><br />RATING: Easily a 9/10. I have never had an experience like watching this movie. The only reason I can't give it a 10/10 is that it is just too wrapped up in itself. There are several large things left unexplained at the end that are still bugging me as I sit here writing this. But overall, this is the best experience I have had in a movie theater in quite a long time. But be warned, you will not like this movie if you can't sit back, turn on your suspension of disbelief to about 150%, and prepare your brain to do some impressive acrobatics.<br /><br />Visit www.thestuffblag.com for more reviews | 1 |
Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.<br /><br />For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.<br /><br />Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.<br /><br />She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.<br /><br />Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.<br /><br />Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.<br /><br />And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I. | 0 |
This one is a great one! Robert De Niro and Cuba Gooding have teamed up to make a powerful and very influential film. This is the true story of the first black US Navy diver and the obstacles he faced in attaining his certification at the hands of a racist Master diver. Along the way, he must also face plain old bigotry from all of his classmates, none of whom want him in their class. They move out of the barracks when he arrives. Ultimately, he becomes certified and goes on to have a great career as a US Navy diver. Watch this one! It's a great tale of courage and honor. As the story unfolds, we get to watch racism slowly dissipate and everyone begins to respect men one at a time. | 1 |
I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ... <br /><br />Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).<br /><br />Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.<br /><br />On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie." | 0 |
I'm a big horror film buff, particularly of the 1980's subgenres. Name one I've probably seen it. Last year, a new little horror movie that seemed to slip under mainstream radar called "Saw" was about to hit theaters. I was moderately excited. Having not heard anything about it, I thought it looked quite promising judging by the previews and posters (well, except the back and white ones with the severed hands and feet...those just looked terrible!) I saw the film on opening night. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. This movie was literally mentally and psychically painful to watch. Because it was scary?...NO! Because it was one of the most awful movies I had ever had the displeasure of seeing! First off, the construction of the screenplay and editing was utterly atrocious, even by horror movie standards. Starting off a sequence in an interrogation room with a victim (Shawnee Smith) who recently survived a serial killer's attack, then showing a flashback of what she survived? NOT SCARY! It was impossible to feel any type of tension WHATSOEVER knowing that the aforementioned victim was perfectly alright. Sure, that reverse-bear-trap thing was creepy...but WHY should I feel in the least bit frightened when CLEARLY, you just showed me she survived the ordeal? Unfortunately, the entire film was constructed this way. It starts with two guys in a cellar. Then, they show flashbacks of how they were abducted...NOT SCARY! Why? Because we already know what's gonna happen to them, seeing as how we JUST SAW the result of the attack. THEY'RE FINE! Move on with the story! Even more unfortunately, the actual story was meager at best. I couldn't have cared less for these annoying, pitiful excuses for "characters" and the acting didn't help. Cary Elwes was solid for the most part and then suddenly towards the end he started crying like a lost infant while straining to keep his American accent in tact (it didn't work the audience I saw this with was in stitches). This drove him to a rash and idiotic decision even the most simple-minded wouldn't attempt. He had other options. Better ones. SMARTER ONES. Even given his intense emotional state (horribly communicated through horrible acting), it was still irrational. I didn't buy it. BAD WRITING ALERT! Furthermore, even when certain sequences were played straight-through and flashback-free, they were painfully predictable. I constantly found my foot tapping impatiently waiting for the dumb sequence to end. This happened for the entire film. I saw every single "twist" coming. Twenty minutes into the film, I had already called the killer's identity, not to mention his connection to his "accomplice(s)" as SOON as they appeared on screen. Better acting might've been able to overshadow the awful script. Instead, the actors might as well have had "RED-HERRING" or "ACCOMPLICE" tattooed across their foreheads.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, I was utterly outraged I had wasted even a fragment of my life on this film, and the entire theatre was laughing hysterically at the downright horrendous finale. Seriously, you'd think they were watching a Monty Python movie. I would've been laughing too, had I not been so angered at the film's total and utter failure to accomplish ANYTHING it set out to do. When we left, there was (no joke) a line to speak to the manager of the theatre to get their money back (didn't happen). I was absolutely positive the movie was going to be a box-office bomb. The following week, you couldn't have imagined my shock to find out "Saw" had hit number one at the box office and EVERYONE was talking about it (mostly individuals who found "Napoleon Dynamite" to be a thought-provoking epic tale and thought "satire" was some type of rubber). I am so utterly sickened to hear people praise this film that I often feel as though I'm going to vomit. It's entertainment for the most feeble and simple-minded of the human race. Those who find some weird Jigsaw clown-puppet riding on a tricycle threatening (it's a doll knock it over and leave what's so frightening about that?).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I own every "Friday the 13th", love my splatter movies, thought "Napoleon Dynamite" was hilarious, can't get enough of Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, or Leatherface, have a font appreciation for unknown horror gems and rank "Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers" amongst my Top 10 Favorite Slashers. However, I realize these films aren't the most sophisticated American cinema has to offer I appreciate them for what they are quick, easy fun. "Saw" is cinematic garbage. The film attempts to be a smart and semi-sophisticated, nasty little thrill ride, and bogs down to an irritating, annoying waste of time, money, energy, and celluloid. Atrocious on all accounts. Every single copy should be incinerated, along with its feeble-minded fans. Shame on all of you.<br /><br />Will I see "Saw II"? Maybe after I take a double-shot of Liquid Drano before I gouge out my own eyes and impale white-hot shish-kabob brochettes into my ears and colon. My Rating: 0/10. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
*** Spoilers*<br /><br />My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.<br /><br />The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.<br /><br />All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.<br /><br /> | 1 |
What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's "Comic Book Whore" CD on Interscope records. It is awesome! | 1 |
Who doesn't remember The Muppet Movie???<br /><br />Kermit the Frog is now an American culture icon. What child doesn't appeal to this character?<br /><br />As the first actual Muppet film, the movie simply called, The Muppet Movie did very well. Kermit takes a Hollywood agent's advice and goes out of his home swamp to respond to the ad. Along the way he meets up with a pig, a bear, chickens a rock band and a few other quality puppets. Watch for dozens of cameo appearances like Madaline Kahn, Steve Martian, Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks and several more. I grew up watching this movie and I loved it. | 1 |
The true story of a Spanish paraplegic, Ramón Sampedro, who fought for decades for the right to be euthenized. This film, along with the Best Picture winner of the same year, Million Dollar Baby, caused a stir that year with their depictions of disabled persons desiring death. Both advocates for the disabled and (unfortunately for the disability advocates) conservative pro-life groups protested both films, and their Oscar nominations. The nominations also came during the entire Terry Schiavo debacle, just to put it all in some historical perspective. The protests, especially from the disability groups, against Million Dollar Baby make some sense the film clearly depicted, without wavering, the life of a paraplegic as worthless. The film's central character, Maggie Fitzgerald, becomes a paraplegic, doesn't seem to get any counseling whatsoever, no help whatsoever, and immediately wants to die. The film is, honestly, pretty dumb and uncomplex. The Sea Inside, based on the true story, is certainly a lot more thoughtful on the subject. It most likely got railroaded into the same category as Million Dollar Baby without its protesters having even seen it, an incredibly common phenomenon. The film does give time to many different sides of the argument. And it immediately declares that the wish to die is that of the protagonist and the protagonist alone. It is guilty of a couple of crimes, though, and I'd still understand why disability groups could have a problem with it. First and foremost, there's the protagonist's meeting with a paraplegic bishop. I don't look kindly on the way he's depicted. His orally operated wheelchair is depicted as absurd, and there's almost a comic sequence where his effeminate, boy-toy servants are dragging him, in his chair, up the stairs. He can't even reach the room in which Ramón is located, and one of the boy-toys is forced to carry the conversation between them. I had to think, gee, maybe if Ramón lived in a slightly more wheelchair-accessible household, he wouldn't spend his entire life in bed, and might find life more fulfilling (who knows how closely the film depicts the reality). Director Amenábar (The Others) also includes some laughable scenes that try to make this film about suicide more life-affirming, like a cross-cut sequence where Ramón looks thoughtful and his lawyer's baby is born. But besides a few ugly moments, the film is very good. It hurts that someone may want to die when they have the ability to bring so much joy and insight into the lives of others. However, in the end, our lives do belong to us. Shouldn't we have the right to choose? The film's strongest asset is its supporting characters, and the actors who play them. It depicts how Ramón's fight and decisions affect those around him with a beautiful precision. The family members in particular are great, and Ramón's final departure from them is absolutely heartbreaking, and had me in tears. My favorite performance in the film comes from Lola Dueñas, whom I also felt gave the best, or at least certainly most undervalued, performance in Almodóvar's Volver last year. | 1 |
Incredibly ARTISTIC NOBODY COULD MAKE THEM NOW I THINK.It seem to be perfect the biggest and the greatest musical ever made listen to the beautiful songs the are quite poetry.I'M Italian AND ADMIRED BY American MUSICAL. why can't you do something like that now?American were the best and for that i absolutely show my devotion to you with this movie.there are words to describes the perfection of this movie. all of a sudden my heart sings, what makes the sunset? i fall in love to easily,jealousy...and the scene with Tom and Jerry. the greatest without reserve. if you you doesn't know your eyes are not open my friends you must see it and appreciate...wake up! | 1 |
I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.<br /><br />Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.<br /><br />Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later. | 1 |
Despite the solid performance of Penelope Ann Miller, this movie was an awkward mess. The lead character's American accent was ridiculous and he never seemed comfortable as a result. There was no chemistry between the two actors and I'm still not sure what Ann-Margaret was doing there. | 0 |
Having just watched this with my mother (Who got it for Christmas) i was thrilled to find something different to the usual stuff i usually watch. All of the stories were detailed and you are able to feel strong emotion towards each character from the very beginning. Every storyline is followed through brilliantly, making you feel completely different things for every single character. The cast is amazing, my personal favourites being James Read and Lesley-Anne Down, as George Hazard and Madeline Fabray/LaMotte/Main. The whole thing is in depth and wonderful, making very compulsive viewing, i recommend it to almost everyone. | 1 |
I have spent the last 5 years in the entertainment business and most recently find myself working for the company that made this movie, which is a REAL pity, because I like these folks, I just can't believe ANYONE could possibly make anything as bad as this?!!!! This was crap from every possible angle. From camera work to dialogue to acting to costumes and production design was one of the worst films I have ever seen! The actors in this film looked like they had been taken straight off of a porn that was being shot in the San Fernando Valley and put on a set with an even less talented crew.<br /><br />I just can't get over the fact that I am sitting on some of the best material I have ever read and contacts within the industry that could help me make my dream a reality and have hit every roadblock possible? Yet the folks behind this spectacle of a film have no problems putting it together and in fact, sleep well after it is released.<br /><br />Life, what a trip! | 0 |
A somewhat typical bit of filmmaking from this era. Obviously, It was first conceived into this world for the stage, but nonetheless a very good film from beginning to end. Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to do their stage performance act for the silver screen and both do it effectively. There is very little in the way of story and anyone not familiar with this type of off beat character study may be a little put off by it. All in all, though, A good film in which Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to overact. | 1 |
This is the first movie I've seen from Singapore and it's great. If you don't know a lot about Asia, its languages and its culture, then this film may be a bit confusing for the non-informed people. As an Asian-American who's double majoring in two Asian languages (one of them being Mandarin) and has taken some Asian American Studies classes, this film was easier for me to understand, but even without that kind of knowledge, I believe this movie is still accessible to its foreign audiences as long as you keep in mind that it's a coming-of-age type of movie. The film is definitely worth seeing just so that you get the chance to see what kind of issues Singapore's young teenage boys are struggling and having to deal with. This is an awesome coming-of-age movie, but filmed and shown in a more artistic and original way. The actors are outstanding. | 1 |
What keeps us going - or at least what I feel the writer wanted us to keep us glued at an early point is our desire to know whether Martinaud has done the dirty deed. Without spoiling so much, of course there is a red herring and a twist. But then we discover that this is the story of Martinaud's imperfections and his difficulty in coping. When there is the revelation - we begin to sympathize and pity him because as the story progresses we are made to think he is the sick, perverted pedophiliac that we're predisposed to have in mind. One of those things he has to cope with is the distant gap he and his wife have even though they live on the same roof. These problems of course are given their denouement in the film's shocking finale.<br /><br />This movie demands your patience and it has certainly tried those of restless teenagers sitting at the rear. They were heckling obviously because they aren't partial to "central location" films. Although there is a bit of travelling, when we get to the woods and the beach. And we realize that Gallien isn't as clever as we are made to think he is.<br /><br />The Inquisitor is 5/5 | 1 |
Always enjoy the great acting of Drew Barrymore and her great performance in this film, where she plays a very very complicated young gal,(Holly Gooding),"Skipped Parts",2000, who leaves New York and travels to California and shares an apartment with a up and coming writer, George Newbern,(Patrick Highsmith),"Far Harbor",'96. Many strange things start to happen to Holly and she seeks to find her brother in a mental institution after he killed her father. If you look close enough you will actually see the mother of Drew Barrymore in real life appear as her mother in this picture. If it was not for the good acting of Drew Barrymore and George Newbern, this film should be seen only on Halloween Night! However, it sure has it's surprises in the END!!!! | 1 |
I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason). | 1 |
I was really surprised with this movie. Going in to the sneak preview, knowing nothing about the movie except for the one trailer I'd seen, I thought it was going to be a Dude Where's My Car kind of crap fest. I was expecting bad sex jokes and farting and a pathetic lead character who will get laid in the end because that's just how movies work. Instead I got a smart, surprisingly original movie about a decent, average guy who just never had sex.<br /><br />Yes, the film is chock full o' sex jokes and vulgarity and the occasional hey-look-a-nipple!, but it's done much in the spirit of Bad Santa rather than Sorority Boys. All the characters are people you probably know in real life, redeemable friends who are just trying to hook a brother up and live their lives.<br /><br />I went in thinking this movie was going to be total crap, and I was very surprised. Yea, it's pretty over the top (c'mon, it's a movie about a 40 year old virgin!), but it's very smartly done.<br /><br />In the end, you're really pulling for this guy to get laid, which says a lot about the movie because honestly, did you really care if Ashton Kutcher found his car or not? | 1 |
A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.<br /><br />The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel. <br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a "Green Screen" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch. | 1 |
I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong male, who finds love - and this film delivers!<br /><br />Towards the finish you do not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating! Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone 'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title. His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of his own. The result is a great film noir. | 1 |
First love is a desperately difficult subject to pull off convincingly in cinema : the all-encompassing passion involved generally ends up as a pale imitation or, worse, slightly ridiculous.<br /><br />Lifshitz manages to avoid all the pitfalls and delivers a moving, sexy, thoroughly engrossing tale of love, disaster and possible redemption, while tangentially touching on some of the deeper themes in human existence.<br /><br />The core story is of Mathieu, 18, a solitary, introverted boy who meets Cédric, brasher, more outgoing but just as lonely, while on holiday with his family. As the summer warms on, they fall in love and, when the holidays end, decide to live together. A year later, the relationship ends in catastrophe: Cédric cheats on Mathieu who, distraught, tries to take his own life. He survives and, in order to get perspective back on his life he returns to the seaside town where they first met, this time cloaked in the chill of winter.<br /><br />If the tale was told like this it would never have the impact it does: much of it is implied, all of it happens non-sequentially.<br /><br />The intricate narrative is essential to getting a deeper feeling of the passions experienced, through the use of counterpoint and temporal perspective. Fortunately, the three time-lines used (the summer of love, the post-suicide psychiatric hospital and the winter of reconstruction) are colour coded: warm yellows and oranges for the summer, an almost frighteningly chill blue for the hospital scenes and warming browns and blues for the winter seaside.<br /><br />Both main actors put in excellent performances though, whilst it's a delight to see Stéphane Rideau (Cédric) used to his full capacity (I'm more used to seeing him under-stretched in Gael Morel's rather limp dramas), Jérémie Elkaim (Mathieu) has to be singled out for special mention: you can feel his loneliness, then his almost incredulous passion, then his character crumbling behind a wall of aphasia. Beautifully crafted gestures get across far more than dialogue ever could.<br /><br />The themes touched upon are almost classic in French cinema: our difficulty in really understanding what another is feeling; our difficulty in communicating fully; the shifting sands of meaning
The film's title "Presque rien" (Almost Nothing) points to all of these and, indeed, to one of the key scenes in the film: In trying to understand why Mathieu attempted to kill himself, a psychiatrist asks Cédric if he had ever cheated on him
"Non
enfin, oui
une fois, mais ce n'était rien" (No
well, yes
once, but it was nothing). Cédric still loves Mathieu he brought him to the hospital during the suicide attempt (none of which we see) and tries desperately to contact him again once he leaves but cannot understand that he has lost him forever, because something that seemed nothing to him (a meaningless affair) is everything to Mathieu.<br /><br />Whilst the film is darker than the rather unfortunate Pierre et Gilles poster would suggest, it is not without hope: we get to see Cédric's slow, painful attempts to get back in touch with life, first through a cat he adopts, then through work in a local bar and finally contact with Pierre, who may be his next love. But here the story ends: A teenage passion, over within the year, another perhaps beginning. So what was it? Almost Nothing? Certainly not when you're living it
| 1 |
very disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.<br /><br />It's a shame, really.<br /><br />The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about. | 0 |
I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and "dark" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie. | 0 |
I watched "Elephant Walk" for the first time in about 30 years and was struck by how similar the story line is to the greatly superior "Rebecca." As others have said, you have the sweet young thing swept off her feet by the alternately charming and brooding lord of the manor, only to find her marriage threatened by the inescapable memory of a larger-than-life yet deeply flawed relative. You have the stern and disapproving servant, a crisis that will either bind the couple together or tear them irreparably apart, climaxed by the fiery destruction of the lavish homestead.<br /><br />Meanwhile, "Elephant Walk" also owes some of its creepy jungle atmosphere to "The Letter," the Bette Davis love triangle set on a Singapore rubber plantation rather than a Sri Lankan tea plantation.<br /><br />Maltin gives "Elephant Walk" just two stars, and IMDb readers aren't much kinder, but I enjoyed it despite its predictability. Elizabeth Taylor never looked lovelier, and Peter Finch does a credible job as the basically good man unable to shake off the influence of his overbearing father. Dana Andrews -- a favorite in "Laura" and "The Best Year of Our Lives" -- is wasted as Elizabeth's frustrated admirer. The real star is the bungalow, one of the most beautiful interior sets in movie history. | 1 |
This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. <br /><br />It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. <br /><br />As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. <br /><br />As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.<br /><br />Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. <br /><br />Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! <br /><br />In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't. | 0 |
This movie made me laugh so much. It was a bloody joke to tell you the truth. So unbelievable and the worst plot ever. The acting as well was bad. I don't how come so many popular Bollywood actors and actresses took on to do this movie. The script must have been somewhat of a joke. The visual effects in this movie was excrutiatingly painful to watch. I believe that a kindergarten kid could have done a better job of the visual effect and a monkey could have done a better job of coming up with a plot.<br /><br />The plot has numerous attempts at copying major Hollywood movies like The Terminator but it fails miserably. I laughed my head off seeing this movie. A total disaster in Indian cinema history! | 0 |
The best martial arts movie ever made. This one movie is better than anything Bruce Lee ever did. A classic with a thoroughly entertaining and brutal climax. Jackie Chan is the king of martial arts movies and the true king of kung fu.It's a great pity that whilst Bruce Lee had been so overrated, it took Jackie Chan an eternity to become popular in Europe and America. Jackie rules!!!! | 1 |
Tim Taylor is an abusive acholoic drug addict. He's a coward and a child and has absolutely no redeeming qualities as an actor or a person. The only film with him in it that is enjoyable is "Galaxy Quest" and that just because his character - a boozed out washed up actor from a former hit TV show - was so close to real life for him. The rest of the cast is equally bad. I HATE the mother and the actress that played her Patricia Richardson, she sucks! Ever cliché is there, the stupid woman who is fat and likes opera and only cares about her children, while in real life she's proclaims family values and gets divorced after having twins. And the child actors were about as interesting as a root canal. | 0 |
This film would usually classify as the worst movie production ever. Ever. But in my opinion it is possibly the funniest. The horrifying direction and screenplay makes this film priceless. I bought the movie whilst sifting through the bargain DVD's at my local pound shop. Me and some friends then watched it, admittedly whilst rather drunk. It soon occurred that this wasn't any normal film. Instead a priceless relic of what will probably be James Cahill's last film. At first we were confused and were screaming for the DVD player to be turned off but thankfully in our abnormal state no-one could be bothered. Instead we watched the film right through. At the end we soon realised we had found any wasters dream, something that you can acceptably laugh at for hours, whilst laughing for all the wrong reasons. We soon showed all our other friends and they too agreed, this wasn't a work of abysmal film. This was a film that you can truly wet yourself laughing at. This was a film that anyone can enjoy. This was genius. | 1 |
Brilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our "brilliant" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.<br /><br />In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of "special" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a "solid metal" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.<br /><br />ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1/10. I give this a -10/10! | 0 |
Thinking that it could only get better was the worst assumption I ever made....<br /><br />Drivvle does not describe this movie appropriately enough!<br /><br />Not only is the plot thin, but I get more emotional acting from my pet fish!<br /><br />It was a shame to see Pete Postlethwaite, whom I respect as an actor trying to do the best with the little he had to work with...<br /><br />I think that a cardboard cut out of Stephen Baldwin would have done a better job , and in fact have been more animate.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs! This could really be hazardous to your health! | 0 |
I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say "unexpectedly" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details.<br /><br />"Victorian era" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.<br /><br />I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it. | 1 |
Jerk hazer Mike(David Zelina playing this college frat man as one major bastard you want to see die right away)and his college cronies leave hypoglycemic diabetic Sam(Caleb Roehrig)hanging on a wooden cross along with this scarecrow which is a legendary ghost story. They get PO'd at Sam who essentially goes into shock and aims a swinging punch at Mike that lands across his girlfriend Patty(Kristina Sheldon)instead so leaving the poor guy hanging is his punishment. Somehow, Sam's soul "emerges" with the inanimate scarecrow who comes from the cross to destroy everyone who left the poor guy there to rot. Mike and the gang send the uninitiated dorks back to bring Sam down but they are the first to receive a swinging blade across their throats. Mike and his posse head for the beach to gulp booze, play volleyball & bicker until the scarecrow arrives to end their little soirée. Sam's substitute brother Jack(Matthew Linhardt)is supposed to look out for him, but decides to sleep with new love-interest Beth(Samantha Aisling)instead. So when he receives a cell-phone message from Mike concerning how they left Sam hanging on the cross while they were off at the beach taking in the sun and sand, Jack is frenzied with fear. Beth's estranged father is a doctor and he agrees to see after Sam's condition after they cut the nearly dead young man down taking him to emergency hospital. Returning to the beach to confront Mike because of his negligence(..not to mention Jack's promise to coach Ramsey, played by UFC fighter Ken Shamrock, regarding no hazing), Jack and Beth will face the same straw-stuffed assassin that is bumping off the others. Coach Ramsey, who was part of a past hazing incident that went awry causing killer-scarecrow-mischief, has to confront some demons himself as he informs the survivors of the group about what they are up against.<br /><br />Babes, boobs, and blood..this flick follows the basic slasher guidelines. Yet, this flick also carries the typical slasher traits of corny characters, acting, dialogue and overall plot. The flick shows signs of it's low budget particularly in the violence as most of the real action takes place off-screen instead of showing it happening up, close & personal. What appears on screen is mostly the aftermath of the killer's vengeance:one fellow holding his guts, another with a stake(holding up the group's volleyball net) plunged through his chest, blood spatter after a woman gets hit over the head presumably with a large rock, one chick laying dead after the scarecrow hit her with the SUV, etc. There is also some dubbing problems where it's clear the sounds of their voices often don't match the movements of their lips..particularly the unintentionally hilarious sequence where Ed(Travis Parker), wannabe rock star, is singing to his buddies a horrible song they all seem quite impressed with. | 0 |
This is a more interesting than usual porn movie, because it is a fantasy adventure.The production values are high and the acting is(believe it or not) pretty good,especially Jenna Jameson.It`s also in widescreen which helps,it gives a feeling of a real motion picture and NOT a porn movie.But,of course it is a porn and a really good one with nice costumes,fine atmosphere and scenery.And by the way,the sex IS hot.<br /><br />Watch out for this one... | 1 |
This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version. | 0 |
Without question, this film has to be one of the greatest ........ in cinematic history. I have it watched too many times to remember, and each time it is like I am seeing the film for the first time.<br /><br />Where does one begin?<br /><br />Meena Kumari's central performance is undoubtedly one of the finest of her career, followed closely by Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam and Phool aur Pathar. Each movement and nuance of her performance, makes any other Bollywood heroine pale into significance. Her masterly interpretation of Kathak coupled with her grace, tragic vulnerability and poetic delivery of Urdhu, is like nothing ever seen on the bollywood screen.<br /><br />Pakeezah is perhaps the most stylised interpretation of the human condition; the photography, sumptuous cinematography and mise en scene, are so charged with symbolism and meaning, that the viewer is left breathless.<br /><br />Naushads music, is unsurpassed, his knowledge of the music of the courtesan gharanas is incredible, and the way in which he punctuates the narrative with dark atmospheric motifs and overwhelming romantic melodies is indeed remarkable.<br /><br />My only advice to anyone who seriously enjoys the spectacle of total cinema, should watch this epic mediation on life and art. | 1 |
This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.<br /><br />This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average. | 0 |
The only thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the TV show. This is also the main reason that fans of the TV show won't like the movie, but not the only reason. This movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. It approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making, and then gets even worse. I won't waste your time describing this movie in further detail; suffice it to say that I pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this c**p the first time. | 0 |
i just watched the movie i was afraid it's gonna disappoint me. i was rather surprised at the end though. The American pie franchise is still in my favorite franchise movies of all times. yes, it won't be true if i say that i enjoyed it as mush as i enjoyed the original ones. beta house along with the previous two pies definitely lost something that the first two pies had.it is not gonna become a classic as the first two already did. but what the hell-it is still funny with a lot of good moments and i think it should be the first movie to pick if you wanna have fun and relax after a hard day at work or school. beta house deserves 6/10 but i gave it 7/10 just for being another slice of PIE. | 1 |
This film was not about stereotypes, nor dance moves, nor pickup lines, really. This film was about the vulnerability of peoples' hearts. It was hard to believe that Kevin James could play in a convincing role, that Will Smith could satisfy without action, and that such a hackneyed genre of film could succeed in such a way. I don't intend to sound overly endeared with this film - it wasn't "groundbreaking" in any sort of way - but it was a film worth seeing. Was it believable? No. New York couldn't be so simple and there has been no human being in the history of mankind that has the "hutzpah" of Hitch. Sure, there are bar-studs, but not ones that can get any chick, at any time - excluding those raking in seven figures, of course. The thing that worked best for this film was its true focus on the dramatic side of things, not just on the comedy. It was a funny two hours, no doubt. But it was also two hours that made you sit in your seat, become immersed in the characters, and smile. | 1 |
Richard Brooks' The Last Hunt was a film star Stewart Granger couldn't even stand to hear mentioned he even tore up a vintage poster for the film when presented it for signing in his later years but then the director did run off with his wife, so it's understandable. For anyone else this is one of the best of the adult Westerns of the 50s, and years ahead of its time in its attitude to the environment.<br /><br />In many ways it plays almost like a sequel to one of Anthony Mann's Westerns that see their heroes dragged to their redemption kicking and screaming against it every step in the way. Here Granger's legendary buffalo hunter has already seen the light but, after a buffalo stampede costs him his herd of cattle in a fit of poetic justice, he's dragged back into the darkness by Robert Taylor's callous and proudly racist gunslinger, justifying it on the grounds that "I've already got the guilty conscience. I might as well have the money as well." Raised by Indians, he's fully aware of the damage he's doing as the disappearing buffalo heads for extinction, and he gradually becomes almost as consumed with self-loathing as Taylor is with hate. When the two men fall out over Debra Paget's squaw the sole survivor of a band of Indians Taylor kills and a white buffalo hide that's priceless to the hunters and the Indians for very different reasons, a showdown becomes inevitable, though the outcome certainly isn't.<br /><br />Taylor's is certainly ironic casting it was Granger turning down many of the epic roles MGM developed for him in films like Quo Vadis and Ivanhoe that gave Taylor his 50s comeback after years of steady decline. His hair color may not convince but his performance does, a shallow and violent man so consumed with hate that he doesn't wear a gun, the gun wears him. Granger's accent isn't always convincing, but he makes a good quiet hero in the Jimmy Stewart mold, trying to keep hold of his newfound decency and reconcile his actions with his beliefs before finally getting a chance to make amends. Russ Tamblyn's halfbreed skinner and Lloyd Nolan's one-legged old-timer also give as good as they get, but the real star is the script: tightly plotted with an excellent eye and ear for character not to mention an ending Stanley Kubrick borrowed for The Shining it balances historical revisionism with entertaining drama without ever selling either short. The new French DVD is extras-free but does boast a 2.35:1 transfer with an English soundtrack. | 1 |
I had never heard of this film before a couple of weeks ago, but its concept interested me when I heard it: an American man meets a European woman on his last night in Europe and they spend the night together talking. It sparked my interest, but I never expected it to be this great. Before Sunrise is a masterpiece, and it's also one of the most romantic films on record. To my surprise, it completely lacked the cynicism of the 1990s. It's impossible to really talk too much about it, since there is no real plot, so to speak (although there are plenty of thoroughly interesting things you could talk about; it is sort of like My Dinner With Andre, where there is a conversation, but it's not JUST the conversation that matters), but let me just say, see it. SEE IT! | 1 |
Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.<br /><br />The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.<br /><br />The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.<br /><br />Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.<br /><br />Overall 7/10 | 1 |
About a year ago I finally gave up on American television. I thought of giving up television completely until a friend who had lived in England showed me some programs that included The Office, Extras, Blackadder, and The League of Gentlemen. It was then that I decided to switch to British television. Among all the shows listed above, The League of Gentlemen is easily the most dark and twisted of them all, providing guilty laughs and material not found in any other comedy I've seen yet. Characters included are the most unhappily married couple, a butcher that puts ingredients in the meat that go unsaid (probably for the best), a deranged couple that look over a local shop that only caters to local people, and the worst veterinarian ever. This program is one of the best I've seen. | 1 |
This movie is just a lot of fun. I've seen it a couple of times, but it always has something funny that I remember. The "duckies and bunnies" car scene is one of my favorites, and I still quote Morone's versions of certain words!<br /><br />There are so many running jokes, that it's amazing. But I love Michael Keaton anyhow! | 1 |
This is a great movie. The best role Peter Strauss ever did. The music is good, the message harsh, the actors great and the story is both emotional and raw. Only in the seventies did they make them like this one! | 1 |
Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only "the names had been changed to protect the innocent," I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.<br /><br />Unfortunately, putting the name "Mr. Darcy" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name "Elizabeth Bennett" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making "Mr. Bingley" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story. <br /><br />There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants "a comfortable home." However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, "Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book. <br /><br />Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.<br /><br />The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place. <br /><br />Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous. <br /><br />Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of "love at first sight." Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally "loves her for her mind." <br /><br />This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad cliché. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous! <br /><br />The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other. <br /><br />All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill. <br /><br />Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel. <br /><br />The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces. | 0 |
A tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.<br /><br />To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.<br /><br />Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.<br /><br />What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.<br /><br />Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.<br /><br />With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation. | 1 |
If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.<br /><br />I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!<br /><br />In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you..... | 1 |
As with FOOTPRINTS (1975), I became aware of this one purely by accident: it was mentioned in a review of THE LIBERTINE (1969), which I researched when that film turned up on late-night Italian TV, as being in a similar vein; incidentally, I missed out on that screening of THE LIBERTINE (though I acquired it via the same channel later on) but did manage to watch the film by way of a rental of the English-dubbed R1 DVD during my sojourn in Hollywood in late 2005/early 2006. Actually, in view of the enthusiastic reviews for it, I was let down by THE LIBERTINE – being too light-hearted in nature for what was essentially a serious theme (the sado-masochistic relationship between a young couple)!; to be honest, for much of the time, I was afraid that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN would go the exact same route…but was subsequently amply redeemed by a wicked (if not exactly unpredictable) final twist.<br /><br />The film concerns the freethinking social attitudes and dazzling creative arts prevalent in this era: an eminent philanthropist (Philippe Leroy) invites a female journalist (Dagmar Lassander) at his fashionable home for the week-end; however, it transpires that he’s a misogynist who distrusts all members of the opposite sex and would rather dominate (or even kill) them! Therefore, for the first half of the narrative, we see the heroine enduring pain and humiliation at Leroy’s hands (including being forced to make love to a dummy in his own image!)…until the tables are subtly, but unsurprisingly, turned: she not only emancipates herself from his control, but teaches him that Man and Woman can co-exist harmoniously – except that Lassander’s following her own personal agenda as well!! <br /><br />The leads are perfectly cast, and the film itself often darkly comic for those in the mood; furthermore, it’s greatly abetted by a typically effervescent “Euro-Cult” score (from the ever-reliable Stelvio Cipriani) and the imaginative – even outré – look (the giant structure depicting the lower section of the female form, with a steel-trap where its sexual organ should be, seems to emanate from Freud: incidentally, this prop figured prominently in stills I’d seen previously from THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN…but it barely registers in the film proper!). Other bizarre touches include the preposterous radio program “Sexual Aberrations And The Stars”, and an idyll at a castle belonging to Leroy’s family complete with secret passage through the wardrobe and a dwarfish manservant. One of the highlights, then, is easily Lassander’s erotic dance virtually in the nude – an episode which actually spearheads the ‘humanization’ of Leroy; eventually, the two characters have a ‘showdown’ in the latter’s pool – amusingly set to a Spaghetti Western-type theme! <br /><br />In the long run, for all its stylishness, the film emerges as inferior to the similar but much more extreme contemporaneous Japanese masterpiece by Yasuzo Masumura BLIND BEAST (1969). Finally, it’s worth noting that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN was distributed in the U.S. by film-maker Radley Metzger’s company Audubon Films; he would even employ its production designer (Enrico Sabbatini) for his own CAMILLE 2000 (1969)! To get to the edition I watched: apart from the usual shortcomings in the English-dubbing department, the presentation here was further marred by a rather washed-out appearance and brief instances of distracting extraneous noise on the soundtrack! By the way, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the film’s running-time: its length given on various sources ranges anywhere from 84 to 108 minutes – all I can say, however, is that the copy I own ran for 87 minutes! | 1 |
This movie starts out with an execution of a practitioner of witchcraft and his mistress. His head is chopped off and buried separately of his body...sounds like "The Thing that wouldn't die" doesn't it? Well it does play out a little like that, but once the body is reunited with the head, all the interesting and gruesome deaths are done and the movie moves very slowly. I mean the movie is only 88 minutes long and I kept thinking "When is it going to end"? The characters in the movie are idiots for the most part and they pretty much deserve to die for being really stupid. The villain is also very bad as he is slow moving and really you wonder how he manages to do anything considering he is afraid of jewelery. The only thing to keep you watching after the head is reattached is the fact that there are so many boobs being flashed that you really begin to lose track. Still I want to see a horror movie, not a soft core porn flick and as a horror movie it is way to slow moving with way to many slow stretches to be even somewhat enjoyable. And don't read the back of the box as it made it out like there were flesh eating zombies attacking the town, there isn't...only a small scene where three or four zombies attack a house and are so easily repelled they are not a factor in the movie at all and their scene is rather pointless. So for the most part I say you should avoid this movie unless you come across it for really cheap. | 0 |
After Matt Dillon's phenomenal performance in CRASH, most will probably rush to pick up a copy of FACTOTUM to see if Dillon is for real or simply got a lucky rebound from a great script.<br /><br />Well, Factotum certainly has its moments, but the plainness of ...everything will most likely turn viewers off. However nothing should be taken away from Dillon. His performance is wonderful and full of excellent deadpan humor, proving he's a solid actor with significant chops; it's just a shame about the directing and script.<br /><br />The story is about Henry "Hank" Chinaski (Dillon) and his refusal to conform to anything resembling normalcy. He quits or gets fired from jobs in mere minutes, only to find himself back in a dreary pub meeting even drearier women while trying to write a nonconformist novel. We never really know what the novel is about except that it involves "everything" (cancer, movies, you, me).<br /><br />Skipping from workplace to workplace and constantly returning to Jan (Lili Taylor, THE HAUNTING), a loser girlfriend who's just as dispiriting as himself, Hank tries vainly to discover what his life is supposed to hold for him. Whether he ever learns what that is is up for interpretation. Some may say that he never does, while others might argue that his life is simply a path to obscurity.<br /><br />Regardless, there's not much substance to Factotum even with Matt Dillon's fine performance. The story meanders through Hank's life without much thought given as to where to take the audience. And that's a shame. Dillon's performance would've shone even brighter if given a decent script. | 0 |
After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display <br /><br />My Grade: D | 0 |
This movie has recieved horrible ratings from just about everyone who has voted here but i am here to say if you like movies like Dude Wheres my Car and Dumb and Dumber this movie is for you. If your into movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca id have to sugest you in a different angle. Yet i still love this movie and everything about it even if it is kind of "kiddy" this is one of the few movies me and my freinds have been able to keep watching over the years and quote whenever possible. GREAT MOVIE. This movie should the AFIs number 1 because its so friggin' high class. The only problem with this movie is you may have trouble seeing it because it was a made for tv movie on a channel that no longer exists. So i dont know how to get this movie, id like to buy it for dvd but i cant find it anywhere. I still have it taped from when it was first on, you can come over if you want and watch it bute i might be sleeping. this movie rocks and thats basicly all you need to know. | 1 |
This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film. | 0 |
This is an absolutely incredible film. It shows South African racism from the perspective of the victims, and provokes a feeling of anti-racism in everyone who sees it. It is the best historic film I have ever seen. | 1 |
I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I`m talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it<br /><br />It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys chop up the monks<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson`s wonderland ranch he`d still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD<br /><br />The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that`s the main problem ( And boy it`s a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it`s like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It`s part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it`s all crap | 0 |
More of a character study then a movie, COMMITTED is yet just another relationship romp with the trimmings specifically made for a young, target audience. The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed. COMMITTED is watchable at times and there is a small feeling of originality from Lisa Krueger.<br /><br />COMMITTED is completely aimless for the first twenty minutes. We get to know Joline but the movie picks up when her husband disappears. Joline sets off to find him.<br /><br />Some parts are strange. Other times the movie drags. The second half is more humorous as we see Joline's spiritual antics take a turn for the more intense. The annoying guitar music is awful, but perhaps a necessary evil as COMMITTED offers very little anyway. An average movie hampered by some completely pointless moments, COMMITTED 's only asset is Heather Graham and Patricia Velazquez. | 0 |
Occasionally on talk shows a good topical debate sparks some interesting opinions from the audience, unfortunately there is always some desperately sad person seeking acceptance who will end any interesting debate instantly by getting up and saying the proverbial "Everyone should get along and love each other" as they know they are guaranteed to get applause and affirmation, as no one would dare disagree.<br /><br />Well they are the same people who marked this film as good, why did they do that? INSECURITY. Anyway that's all I'll say on that matter.<br /><br />The Film, it starts of reasonably interestingly so you hope it will build, and if like me you've settled in with a nice couple of glasses of wine and some cheese then you will give it even more of a chance simply because you can't be bothered to move.<br /><br />But then you daydream, you wander, your mind drifts of onto other things, why? because the Director did too! he took his foot off the gas, and then he realized 'ooops' so to compensate he accelerates hard, but then he drifts again, and again so do you, the story slows, the plot thins and almost disappears, you even wonder to yourself 'so what happened again?' as you ponder your screen will show Nick Nolte running around with some supposed purpose, but you will have long since cared as to what he is doing and he will appear as nothing more than a screen saver in the background to your day dreaming.<br /><br />Michael Moriarty who plays John Converse has an amazing ability to speak without moving his lips or indeed his face, somewhat like a ventriloquist, he must have gone to the Nicolas Cage school of expressionless facial acting, or he was attacked by the Phantom Botox injector.<br /><br />Tuesday Weld was to play Marge Converse, but instead she played Mia Farrow to perfection.<br /><br />In all there are hundreds of thousands of films to see, so leave this one to one of the last, you see I've just wasted an evening watching it when I could have watched or done something else, learn by my mistake, nights off relaxing are precious so don't waste one watching this boring tale, do anything else, dust off that old game of Cluedo, practice gurning for the evening or have an argument with a loved one, trim your nose hair, get rid of unused files on our laptop, it will be time better spent what ever you should choose. | 0 |
'Stanley and Iris' show the triumph of the human spirit. For Stanley, it's the struggle to become literate and realize his potential. For Iris, it's to find the courage to love again after becoming a widow. The beauty of the movie is the dance that Robert DeNiro and Jane Fonda do together, starting and stopping, before each has the skills and courage to completely trust each other and move on. In that sense it very nicely gives us a good view of how life often is, thus being credible. Unlike some other reviewers I found the characters each rendered to be consistent for the whole picture. The supporting cast is also carefully chosen and they add a depth of character that the main characters get added meaning from the supporting performances. All in all an excellent movie. The best thing I take from it is Hope. | 1 |
Feisty Dianna Jackson (a winningly spunky performance by gorgeous former "Playboy" Playmate Jeanne Bell) goes to Hong Kong to take out the evil heroin ring that murdered her brother. Dianna's assisted by friendly karate master Joe (amiable Chiquito), faces opposition from undercover narcotics agent Elaine (lovely, buxom blonde babe Pat Anderson), and romances cocky, ruthlessly ambitious Charlie (essayed with supremely arrogant aplomb by Stan Shaw) while plotting her revenge against nefarious drug kingpin Sid (an effectively slimy Ken Metcalfe). Director Cirio H. Santiago, working from a blithely trashy script co-written by none other than Dick Miller (!), crams the lively and eventful 72 minute running time with a plethora of gratuitous distaff nudity and loads of badly staged martial arts fight scenes (Bell is clearly doubled by a squat guy wearing a giant Afro wig!). The definite sleazy highlight occurs when a topless Bell singlehandedly beats up a bunch of thugs in her hotel room. Felipe Sacdalan's raw, grainy, scratched-up cinematography, the clumsy use of strenuous slow motion, the funky-groovin' score, the laughably inept fight choreography, and the surprisingly gruesome conclusion add immensely to the overall scuzzy fun of this deliciously cheesy grindhouse exploitation hoot. | 1 |
Samuel Fuller is hardly one of America's great directors. I'm not sure he qualifies as one of Hollywood's great craftsmen. But he certainly ranks up there with the best of Hollywood's true professionals who were willing to march to their own music. During the time he worked for Hollywood studios, he knew how to take an assignment, shape the middling material handed to him and then turn it quickly and efficiently into something usually better than its parts...on time and on budget. Pickup on South Street is a case in point. On the surface it's one more of Hollywood's early Fifties' anti-Commie movies, complete with appeals to patriotism, a hard-boiled hero and a slimy (and copiously perspiring) bad guy. Fuller turns this bag of Hollywood clichés into a taut, exciting drama with any number of off-kilter twists. The hero, Skip McCoy, is a three-time loser, a petty crook with soft fingers who doesn't change his stripes until the very end. The girl in the caper, Candy, has a level of virtue that would be easy to step over if you're so inclined. One of the most appealing characters, Moe Williams, is a stoolie. And in an unusual approach to Hollywood's battle against Commies, the appeals to patriotism fall on deaf ears; the hero isn't motivated by anything so ennobling. He just wants payback for a personal reason, and winds up becoming...at least for now...a good guy. <br /><br />Plus, all the actors were mostly assigned to Fuller by the studio. He had to make do. Richard Widmark by now had established his presence as an actor and star, but Jean Peters is a surprise. She gives a fine portrait of a woman sexy and dumb, and no better than her boy friends...or her clients...want her to be. And Richard Kiley, who later would become a two- time Tony award winning star on Broadway, is convincingly slippery and cowardly. It's hard to remember that he was the actor who inflicted on us, I mean introduced to us, "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha, <br /><br />More than anything else, this tale of a pickpocket who picks a purse in a subway car and finds himself with microfilmed secrets instead of cash, pursued by the Feds and the Commies, moves straight ahead with great economy. The whole enterprise, with a classic noir look, only takes 80 minutes to tell. The dialogue, with Fuller as screenwriter, has that party corny, partly pungent hard-boiled pulp fiction style. "That muffin you grifted...she's okay," one character says to Skip about Candy. Fuller moves us just fast enough from scene to scene to keep us hanging on what will come next. Then Fuller throws in the character of Moe Williams. All of a sudden the story ratchets up to a whole new level of interest, part comedy relief and part sad inevitability. <br /><br />The thing I like best about the movie is how the opening exemplifies Fuller's talents and strengths. In 2 minutes and 15 seconds, starting right after the credits, Fuller is able to instantly power up the movie, to establish for us what the story is about, and to show us what kind of characters -- Skip and Candy -- we're going to be involved with. And he does this with so much enticing curiosity in that hot, packed subway car that we can just about feel Fuller setting the hook to catch us. <br /><br />Says Glenn Erickson, in my opinion one of the best of movie critics, "In what should be an inconsequential story, Sam Fuller defines his peculiar view of Americanism from the bottom up: stiff-necked, aggressive self-interest that when fully expressed recognizes what's wrong and what's right and isn't afraid to fight for it. As always in his work, the individuals who fight the hardest for their country are the ones least likely to benefit from the effort." He's right, and it makes for a movie still vivid after 55 years. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.