text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.<br /><br />It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.<br /><br />The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed "died five days later" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.<br /><br />The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The "final tape" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.<br /><br />Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time. | 0 |
This movie is just brilliant, SRK's acting is just amazing, the end is so incredibly sad, I cry every time I see this film, it's the kind you never get sick of, and can see again and again, an absolutely amazingly brilliant movie. | 1 |
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D- | 0 |
The first thing I thought after watching "Mystery Men" was how could this movie be so unpopular? I found this movie so adorable and funny that it's status as a bomb defies logic. Well, I hope that in the future it becomes a cult hit, and you can count me amoung it's fans.<br /><br />Simply put, and without giving too much away, this movie does for comic books what "the Princess Bride" did for fairy tales and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" did for classic cartoons. That should give you a more accurate idea of the tone of the movie then the marketing commitee it was unfortunately signed to (this is one of those cases like "the Iron Giant" where the studio had no clue what it had on it's hands). Rent it the next time you're in the mood for something a little offbeat. You won't listen to the BeeGees in the same light ever again. | 1 |
Nick and Kelly are ready to be married but Travis (Kelly's dog) leads Nick to a strange blue wall that will change the honeymoon for Kelly. Richard Burgi and Susan Walters play Nick and Kelly and make a good couple. Nick loves to drink, smoke, and play pool with the fellas for fun but Nick suddenly abstains from this type of fun. Sex is the one thing that he loves because he wants a child. We find out that an alien race is dying and needs to interbreed with women from Earth to save their population. It becomes a battle of survival between humans and aliens with the dog population also being involved. A fine film. | 1 |
Arguably the finest serial ever made(no argument here thus far) about Earthman Flash Gordon, Professor Zarkov, and beautiful Dale Arden traveling in a rocket ship to another universe to save the planet. Along the way, in spellbinding, spectacular, and action-packed chapters Flash and his friends along with new found friends such as Prince Barin, Prince Thun, and the awesome King Vultan pool their resources together to fight the evils and armies of the merciless Ming of Mongo and the jealous treachery of his daughter Priness Aura(now she's a car!). This serial is not just a cut above most serials in terms of plot, acting, and budget - it is miles ahead in these areas. Produced by Universal Studios it has many former sets at its disposable like the laboratory set from The Bride of Frankenstein and the Opera House from The Phantom of the Opera just to name a few. The production values across the board are advanced, in my most humble opinion, for 1936. The costumes worn by many of these strange men and women are really creative and first-rate. We get hawk-men, shark men, lion men, high priests, creatures like dragons, octasacks, orangapoids, and tigrons(oh my!)and many, many other fantastic things. Are all of them believable and first-rate special effects? No way. But for 1936 most are very impressive. The musical score is awesome and the chapter beginnings are well-written, lengthy enough to revitalize viewer memories of the former chapter, and expertly scored. Director Frederick Stephani does a great job piecing everything together wonderfully and creating a worthy film for Alex Raymond's phenom comic strip. Lastly, the acting is pretty good in this serial. All too often serials have either no names with no talent surrounding one or two former talents - here most everyone has some ability. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Shakespeare troupe by any means, but Buster Crabbe does a workmanlike, likable job as Flash. He is ably aided by Jean Arden, Priscella Lawson, and the rest of the cast in general with two performers standing out. But before I get to those two let me add as another reviewer noted, it must have been amazing for this serial to get by the Hayes Office. I see more flesh on Flash and on Jean Rogers and Priscella Lawson than in movies decades later. The shorts Crabbe(and unfortunately for all of us Professor Zarkov((Frank Shannon)) wears are about as form-fitting a pair of shorts guys can wear. The girls are wearing mid drifts throughout and are absolutely beautiful Jean Rogers may have limited acting talent but she is a blonde bombshell. Lawson is also very sultry and sensuous and beautiful. But for me the two actors that make the serial are Charles Middleton as Ming: officious, sardonic, merciless, and fun. Middleton is a class act. Jack "Tiny" Lipson plays King Vultan: boisterous, rousing, hilarious - a symbol for pure joy in life and the every essence of hedonism. Lipson steals each and every scene he is in. The plot meanders here, there, and everywhere - but Flash Gordon is the penultimate serial, space opera, and the basis for loads of science fiction to follow. Excellent! | 1 |
Victor Mature, as a barely civilized and mostly out of control mountain man and trapper, may be on the poster, but Robert Preston as a failed Union colonel who led his men to get "cut to ribbons" by Confederate artillery at Shiloh, and is sent to a fort in Oregon for his incompetence, has the most interesting part, married to a young and hard to recognize at first Anne Bancroft. The uncivilized Mature lusts for the colonel's wife, giving the film an interesting and even dark subplot which goes so far as to reference coveting another man's wife at one point by James Whitmore who plays Mature's older and wiser mountain man father figure. Directed by Anthony Mann, this film is lost among his more famous westerns with James Stewart, but even so you really don't need the Indian menace to make this a film worth seeing, although Preston gets to prove his bad judgement as a commanding officer again in a failed expedition to finally bring the Indians under submission, in a well staged attack among the forest that quickly turns into a rout. | 1 |
Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth. | 1 |
I waited and waited for this film to come out,the trailers seemed to be on for years, it was worth it. I'm not a big fan of watching films over and over again but i cant wait for this to come out for all to buy! Not a big fan of Jim but this suited him perfectly, there was so much to see and the 'feel good factor' is off the scale, perfect for Christmas. I think Ron did a fab job turning this into a film, If you haven't seen it then do so, if you have, watch it again, i know you want to! | 1 |
they should make terrorists watch this video as torture, and not just for the disturbing final scene in which tying up and beating a woman with mental problems is apparently a source of comedy. about a half hour of this would convince even the staunchest fundamentalist to spill the beans rather than sit through even one more minute of this disaster.<br /><br />This movie is awful. I rented it because a friend said it was hilarious, only to find he was talking about the blowhard director doing the commentary rather than the movie itself. I guess if you find unrestrained arrogance funny, you'll like this. It apparently is true that he goes on and on about chicks he's "banged", the most tasteless example being when the lead actress comes on screen.<br /><br />Actually CJ Stacy was the only good part of this movie - her charisma shines like a diamond in this horrid dung pile. This apparently is the only movie she's done according to IMDb, I hope she is involved with theatre or indie stuff as I think she has the talent and natural beauty to really be an asset to any production. | 0 |
Although most Americans have little knowledge of his work other than Star Wars, Alec Guinness produced an amazing body of work--particularly in the 1940s-1950s--ranging from dramas to quirky comedies. I particularly love his comedies, as they are so well-done and seem so natural and real on the screen--far different from the usual fare from Hollywood.<br /><br />This being said, this was the film that sparked my interest in these movies. It's plot was so odd and cute that it is very unlikely the film would have been made anywhere--except for Ealing Studios--which had a particular fondness for "little" films like this one.<br /><br />Guinness is a nerdy little scientist that works for a textile company. He wants to experiment in order to create a synthetic fabric that is indestructible, though he is not working for the company as a researcher but for janitorial work! So, he tends to sneak into labs (either during the day if no one suspects or at night) and try his hand at inventing. Repeatedly, he is caught (such as after he blew up the lab) and given the boot until one day he actually succeeds! Then, despite the importance of the discovery, he sets off a completely unanticipated chain of events--and then the fun begins.<br /><br />The film is a wonderful satire that pokes fun at industry, unions, the government and people in general. | 1 |
I quote below words from my favor writer, Paulo Coelho, as the comment for this movie.<br /><br />" When you really want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it"<br /><br />It is too easy to forget who we really are and what we desire to do in life. Because there are always too many comments and advice surrounding us to tell safety. I had almost forgot what the passion feel like. Despite of the adventure will take me out of safety zone, I truely believe the fear is just the price that I need to pay for the coming brand new journey in life.<br /><br />Thanks for inspiring me with this lovely story. It is the blessing for me to realize what unconditional love is. That is the most treasurable love from the light of soul. | 1 |
I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laugh<br /><br />oh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it is<br /><br />first off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shooting<br /><br />or when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows up<br /><br />and there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.<br /><br />the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad acting<br /><br />its just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death | 0 |
Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.<br /><br />The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.<br /><br />The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.<br /><br />By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography. | 1 |
The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.<br /><br />In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.<br /><br />The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script. | 0 |
I think that a lot of friends of people who acted in this thing must've come on and rated it because I'm telling you, its just awful. The acting is worse than soapopera bad, the effects are like something you'd see out of a 1970 episode of Doctor Who, the story is, well, there is no story. And they keep using the same 2 minute song over and over and over again. And the werewolf? Its like the muppets they used in Wing Commander, the giant cats, remember how bad they looked? The werewolf is that bad. Seriously, the guy who directed this thing is terrible and should never get to direct anything else again, except maybe his son's school play, but even then, he should have to pay the audience to see it. Ghostwolf is nothing but a bad joke. | 0 |
I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.<br /><br />Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.<br /><br />This movie is certainly worth your looking at. | 1 |
I had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera. <br /><br />Smart writing? No. <br /><br />Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).<br /><br />There's no suspense at all in this "thriller". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 2/10. A 1/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting. | 0 |
Jewel Thief is *THE* crime thriller of Bollywood, and why should it not be? It is directed by the biggest exponent of the crime thriller art in Indian Cinema Vijay Anand ('Johny Mera Naam' and 'Teesri Manzil.) I could watch this movie for any of the following reasons (in order of importance):<br /><br />1 Vijay Anand's direction 2 R D Burman's music 3 Dev Anand 4 Vyjayanthimala 5 Ashok Kumar 6 Majrooh Sultanpuri's lyrics<br /><br />Even if Jewel Thief is not a Bond Movie it definitely has bond babes. Helen, Tanuja, and the mysterious Vyajanthimala (and some cameos.) But our sauvé Vinay (Dev Anand) is anything but Bond. He is out of control for most of the story and goes where the story takes him almost always as confused as we are. He even flirts with Anju (Tanuja) trying to hit her romantic nerve, just so that he can get employed in her father's shop.<br /><br />Dev Anand might be in a double role - well I don't want to spoil your movie or else I would have told you. That is what most of the mystery is about. Dev Anand works in a Jewelry shop and there is a robbery when he is supposed to be at work - though is not, or at least has a perfect alibi. We wonder who did it, is it Dev Anand as 'Vijay' the person he claims to be or is it 'Amar' someone we have not yet seen but many people claim is his look alike. Comes 'Shalu' (Vyjayanthimala) who even claims that he is her fiancé, in a tense situation Dev Anand has to prove that he is Vinay and not Amar. While everyone wonders if Dev Anand is Vinay or Amar he is asked to remove his socks. Amar we are told has 6 digits on one of his foot. While we watch with bated breath the events that are about to unfold Dev Anand even finds time to joke. <br /><br />The real life brothers Director Vijay Anand and Actor Dev Anand have many movies between them this is not the best of them but definitely the best in Crime Thriller. <br /><br />There are moments of Hitchcock's North By Northwest, but the movies are very different. Except for the confusion about who is who, a treacherous female lead and lot of traveling there isn't a lot of similarity. Dev Anand could very well be Amar in addition to being Vijay. People have seen him, they identify him where ever he goes. There are too many of those people for this to be a fraud. Finally Vinay thinks it is better to carry along with being Amar to find out what is the truth, and it is a sad mistake. He gets too deep into it, only to be saved by the twists of Cinema.<br /><br />When I watched the movie as a kid I was definitely not amused, the ending confused me completely. Even now there are parts about the ending that I do not like, but I'd recommend this movie anyway.<br /><br />Even as a kid I enjoyed the songs this movie has to offer. 'Yeh dil ...' - a definite loafers song in Kishor Kumar's voice. I could hear 'Rulake gaya ...' whole day long. Ditto for 'Aasmaan ke neeche' which is set 'under the skies' of Gangtok (at least the story line suggests that). 'Raat akeli hai' among the sexiest song to come out of Hindi cinema featuring Tanuja as the seductress. 'Meri taraf dekho' - Helen's cabaret and we 'look at her'. 'Hothon pe ...' - now, could there be any better thriller of a song than this. As the song progresses we are more tensed than we ever were and the words 'hidden in Shalu's lips' add to it. | 1 |
The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a "pod" system that is almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7/10 | 1 |
Predictable, gory, over-gimmicky, mediocre. Don't waste your time - there are many much better movies out there. <br /><br />Resurrection starts out OK but the plot quickly becomes repetitive. My interest level fell off steadily. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was finally over. The characters never fully developed. The cinematography is muddy and the quick change POV rotations - while impressive in 1999 perhaps, presently merely serve to label the movie as attempting to substitute gee whiz flash for plot and character substance. The film shooting gimmicks serve some purpose (convey tension and anxiety) but are constantly overused and ultimately become counterproductive. A shame overall - the film/story obviously had potential and the producers/directors and actors obviously have technical skill. A disappointment. | 0 |
Watching some of the sequences (err, the entire 1/3 of the film devoted to the battle on the ice) in Alexander Nevsy, a film directed by the Russian legend Sergei M. Eisenstein (co-directed by Dmitri Vasilyev in his only significant credit), made me realize how much must really go into directing, at least on a scale such as this. If I were a member of an awards group at the time of this film's release I probably would award Eisenstein with the director's award of the year, posthumously. It is such a mad stroke of cinematic genius to pull off some of things that are pulled off in the film, though for someone like this director after coming off of his best work- Battleship Potemkin and October- it could have been something he scoffed at at first. But amid a film that is sometimes a little frustrating with how little grays come in to the black and white subject matter, it's still a marvel of celluloid almost 70 years later. Lord of the Rings fans, meet the films' grandfather, so to speak.<br /><br />To say that something is a propaganda piece already puts a connotation to it, and often a bad one. It is something that has a full-blown message to it, and a point of view. It's still a matter of hot debate (see the swarms of argument over Moore's films for proof), about whether great art can come out of something that is point-blank meant to rouse the audience in a specific manner. In this particular case, the Russians against the Germans. At the time it was nearing WW2 and Russia once again faced the 'German invaders', and it's interesting to note that Eisenstein was actually commissioned to make this film, as a rallying call for the Russians to never forget a crucial piece of their history. The end result comes out as being something that is actually slightly common from seeing Battleship and October, however; if nothing else comes through those films it's that Eisenstein is most concerned about how the image and the content can come together finitely for the viewer, that style can completely envelop the viewer without fail. On those terms Alexander Nevsky is fearless. <br /><br />But even with the whole idea of 'Russia great, Germans bad', there are some small moments where things are made a little less stringent, a little less strict to these ideals. For example, when we first see the Germans in Privka, they're not some faceless blob who are totally barbaric and have a blind conquering intent (not that they aren't out to take whatever they can). They have their own national pride going too, that it would be nothing less for them to go forward with whatever their Christian-led masters tell them to. At the least, the evil of the picture has a face, however kept at a low minimum for the more prevalent side to kick in. There's also a brief scene, before the ice-scape battle, where the Russian troupe has a joke that's being told and laughed about, and it adds a little extra depth where else there might be precious little. Because more often than not in Alexander Nevsky, with its battle songs loaded with a pride in warfare, there aren't any complexities to characters, most notably Nevsky himself (played in ultra-heroic fashion, only questioning near the start, by Nikolai Cherkasov) who perhaps has to be this way in Eistenstein's intention of having him as the one infallible force to be reckoned with in the tale. After all, to be looking for naturalism in an Eisenstein film is like trying to find non-Kosher pig's feet at a deli.<br /><br />But the real reason to see the picture isn't the acting, anyhow, but for the look of the film, how it moves and takes in such an expansive environment that Eisenstein lays out. On the epic scale it's just as ambitious as his 20's films, with a number of extras not just in the main battle scenes but also in the scenes in the cities, of the hundreds of people rolling on through. In fact, I'd say that any director working in Hollywood or elsewhere thinking of doing some kind of huge epic, particularly war, would do very well to take a look at this film, even with just the sound off. It's even better if thought of as a silent film, with the visual strokes accentuated fantastically at times. One could spend a whole month analyzing the battle on the ice, how it starts with the German soldiers far away and then coming forward like bugs, and then how Eisenstein inter-cuts between close-ups of the actors fighting and then to wide-shots and with sped-up editing. And, of course, one can't discount the power of the music as well, Sergei Prokofiev delivering one of the great rousing scores of any epic work. All the while the director's editing keeps our eyes moving along with this frantic action at breakneck speed. If this was just a short film, it would surely rank with the greats, much like the Odessa Stairs sequence.<br /><br />If I did find it a little less than totally magnificent, it would be because of the faults that do come in from a director who is much more suited to the silent medium than for sound. While I have yet to see Ivan the Terrible, my one negative criticism would be of his direction of actors, which is really as broad as can be, with the melodrama at such a high-pitch its staggering (the sub-plot of the two soldiers vying for the Olga is the best example I can think of). But even this considered, Alexander Nevsky overall is too extraordinary to ignore, and ratchets up an engagement in the action and the film-making to a level that puts a benchmark for films even today to try and live up to. Grade: A | 1 |
One of the latest (disaster) movies from York Entertainment, "El Chupacabra" excels in making its viewer want to die after having wasted two hours watching it. This movie appears to have been filmed with a spare camcorder normally used for birthday parties. The only reason I could tell that it wasn't was because of certain scenes where the cameraman's shadow is in the frame.<br /><br />Just about every aspect of cinema is plagued by this movie, and I'm sure that it has set the film industry back another ten years. The actors are borderline retarded, often pausing while they wait for the off-screen cue-card to change. The actor that plays Navarro not only slurs and skips word in his dialogue, but stumbles through the swiss-cheese plot line with a squinting and confounded look on his face. Other actors break the forth wall and overall show the acting skill of a twelve-year old kid doing a science project in his backyard.<br /><br />My friends and I purposefully search out the worst possible movies, and this one gave us more than we bargained for. The humorous parts are unfunny and the rest is riddled with horrible clichés and plot holes. As one friend so humbly put it, this movie is the aborted fetus of the industry. I would highly suggest this film for people like me that purposely search for these movies, but for all others, beware! | 0 |
This is a superb game for the N64 with superb graphics and a great one-player story-line and even better multi-player game best played with 4 people.<br /><br />The many levels and options for weapons mean that this is one of the best games around for years. | 1 |
Stealing is a crime, and these guys, Kenny Yakkel and Corbin Bernsen look like their going to get away with it. I haven't even seen this film, but not only do i know it sucks, but the fact that it steals the story of another film, or 2 films for that matter, is such bull crap (and if IMDb would allow profanity much more than just bull crap) that I become filled with rage and feel as though I should just throw myself out the window and just end it all. O.k that's a little much but stealing is worse.<br /><br />Ever seen Pontypool? It was this awesome little zombie film made in 2008, this radio host goes into work, and then this zombie attack happens. We only see what's going on inside the radio station, and the only guess we have on what's happening on the outside are the occasional calls from their eye in the sky Ken Loney (easily the funniest moment in the film in my mind) and the BBC calling in for an update on the situation. From all the reviews I've read, and from the conversation I had with my friend (who has seen this film and Pontypool) this film was exactly like it in the story, with minor tweaks here and there. So throw originality and creativity out the window. As for the Zombies, or the infected, whatever you want to call them. They are the exact same thing, just because they got infected does not change the fact that they walk around mindlessly, and have a never ending quench for flesh. They are Zombies. ZOMBIES!!<br /><br />ZOMBIES!!! Okay one to many, but back to this crappy movie. The Zombies from what I've heard are a lot like the ones in 28 Days Later, another better movie, with their insane rage and even more insane quench of flesh. This is where Zombie movies define themselves, story does not matter in a zombie movie (as long as your not taking the idea of another film). Sure a zombie movie can be enhanced by the story, as is the case with Pontypool, but the zombies have to be, in a way, original. 28 Days Later started the insane raging Zombie. Pontypool I can't even begin to explain those guys without ruining the film. The Evil Dead, I think all i have to do is just type the name again because, come on it's The Evil Dead. Romero is the master, and he went through all different types of zombies, from the painted face zombies in Dawn of the Dead to raging zombies in Diary of the Dead, and he did each one with his own unique style.<br /><br />So, after talking about other great zombie movies, I think it's about time I explain why I hate this movie without even seeing it. This movie down right steals the original story outline to Pontypool which i think is called plagiarism and is illegal in this country and many people get kicked out of school for doing this very thing, yet in Hollywood it's allowed, and apparently approved of. This is not the only film that takes the outline of another movie, and just tries to tell it differently. The 90's is like the worst period for movies ever, sure it had some gems but what decade doesn't, and it's because all the movies were the exact same. My favorite, the crime movie with a twist so big that you'll never guess it till the very end. They force feed you one suspect, make it seem impossible that it's not anybody else but him, then, bam, all this time it was this guy, you just had to look at the scenes where he wasn't there and then when he would mysteriously show up out of the blue, say "hey guys, what did i miss?" OH! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING DID YA! Well, I'll leave a cliché as my closing statement. This is one film you'll surely want to miss. | 0 |
It is not as great a film as many people believe (including my late aunt, who said it was her favorite movie). But due to the better sections of this film noir, particularly that justifiably famous "fun house" finale, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI has gained a position of importance beyond it's actual worth as a key to the saga of Orson Welles' failure to conquer Hollywood.<br /><br />By 1946 Welles' position as a Hollywood figure was mixed. CITIZEN KANE was not recognized as the great movie it has since been seen as due to the way it was attacked by the Hearst press and by Hollywood insiders themselves. Welles' attempt at total control (direction and production and acting) of his movies seemed to threaten the whole system. His best job in this period was as Edward Rochester in JANE EYRE, supposedly shot by Robert Stevenson, but actually shot in large measure (with Stevenson's blessing) by Welles. But the credit went to Stevenson. Only THE STRANGER, a film benefiting from a postwar interest in fleeing Nazi war criminals, made a profit. For five years in Hollywood it was barely a great record.<br /><br />Welles returned to Broadway in 1946, hoping to recapture his critical abilities by his production of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. But despite the assistance Mike Todd, and Cole Porter composing the score, the musical was a failure. His failure occurred just at the same time that his wife, Rita Hayworth, was on the rise with her portrayal of GILDA. So the marriage was going on the rocks as well.<br /><br />Welles had to make money - his Broadway production had led to his personal bankruptcy. He sold his interest in the possible movie rights to AROUND THE WORLD to Todd (which he would eventually rue), and he also sold the idea of a film about the career of Henri Desire Landru to Charlie Chaplin, who was supposed to be directed in it (and who turned it into MONSIEUR VERDOUX).<br /><br />The story goes that Welles, with a $10,000.00 tax bill to worry about, called Cohn and offered to do a film with Rita for a down payment. Cohn was willing to do so, but naturally asked what the film was. It was a wise question. Welles was on a pay phone in New York in a pharmacy that had a book department. He grabbed a book with the title THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and raved that it was a great thriller. Somehow Welles convinced the normally astute Cohn that Welles knew what he was talking about. Cohn said he'd look into getting the rights, and sent Welles his down-payment of $10,000.00. After Cohn hung up Welles bought the book and read it - and found it was really pretty bad. He spent time rewriting a treatment and screenplay that would build up Rita's character of Elsa Bannister.<br /><br />Certainly it has a curious plot development. Michael O'Hara is a seaman/longshoreman. He rescues Elsa Bannister, when she is apparently attacked by gangsters in a park in San Francisco. Elsa is married to Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) a crippled criminal lawyer with a great reputation. She convinces him to hire Michael as the skipper of their yacht. The cruise also contains Bannister's sinister partner George Grisby (Glenn Anders) and one Sidney Broome (Ted De Corsia) who turns out to be a detective hired by Bannister to watch Elsa. When they can Michael and Elsa try to find time together, but Broome or Grisby keeps showing up.<br /><br />Grisby makes Michael an offer - he wants (for reasons connected to his so-called fatalistic view of modern society) to drop out of it, pretending to be dead. According to Grisby (the plot becomes murky here) he can still collect his life insurance (although dead?) and use it to run off to the South Seas. He will pay Michael $10,000.00 if he will pretend to shoot Grisby. This includes actually signing a document admitting to the murder (Michael does not realize that such an admission would wipe out the need to produce a corpse if all the other evidence suggests that Grisby is probably dead).<br /><br />Of course Grisby is killed, and Michael is arrested for that, and for the murder of Broome (shot with Michael's gun). Michael is tried with Bannister defending him, and discovers that the latter is doing a second rate job because he wants Michael to be convicted. Michael is convinced that Bannister is the actual murderer, and manages to escape just before the jury verdict. He is knocked out and deposited in a deserted carnival, and this leads to the famous "fun house" sequence and the conclusion of the film.<br /><br />It's a terribly confusing movie (as I have had commented on). That does not mean it's not worth seeing - visually it is striking. Witness the fight between Michael and the police in the trial judge's quarters, where he knocks the bailiff into the judge's bookcase, shattering glass. Or the clever use of photography to capture Hayworth diving from a rock, reflected on the lecherous Grisby's binoculars.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good, in particular Sloane (possibly that fine actor's best film role). Glenn Anders was a leading Broadway performer. He rarely made movies before THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and his slimy Grisby is unforgettable. Also Ted De Corsia does very nicely with Broome - a detective who is really looking for his own interests, to his own cost.<br /><br />As for Hayworth, she turns in a performance that was unlike most of what she had done before (BLOOD AND SAND, TALES OF MANHATTAN, and THE STRAWBERRY BLOND are exceptions), and is a memorable siren. Welles' O'Hara is a very unusual character for the actor - a likable but naive man who learns the hard way not to believe what he secretly wants to believe. It's not KANE, AMBERSOMS, OTHELLO, TOUCH OF EVIL, or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but it is a good film for all that. | 1 |
First Off Acting Is So Terrible Except For The Actor Who Plays Spencer. Mirinda Cosgrove Does Not Deserve Her Own Show She Should Have Stick With Drake And Josh.The Only Person I Like Besides Spencer Is Nevel Hes Super Bad@$$ He Kicked Carlys Crews @$$ And I liked It<br /><br />The Episode I Hate A lot Is Imyourbigesstfan I Hate That Young Icaly Fan She Made Me Almost Kill Myself Fake Is A Well Word To Describe This Please Don't Watch This Nothing On TV Is Good Go With Classics Like Family Matters Good Show Ban Icarly Lets All Go Back To Doug Nick Version Only Please Don't Watch I Hate Icarly Oh Also Nathan Kress Is A Wannabee Fredie Highmore | 0 |
I saw it in a posh movie theater where the audience is usually white, educated, and urban. The showing I attended had a sprinkling of African-Americans, and it made the difference in audience-reaction between the two groups a wonderful social commentary on the state of race relations in this country. Basically, the white folks were AFRAID to laugh or laughed nervously at the funny bits --and there are many! -- because they'd be "laughting at Blacks", while the Blacks also stayed pretty silent because many couldn't laugh at themselves in front of the whites. <br /><br />I, on the other hand, being Asian (and thus belonging to neither group), had a great time viewing this satire of rap culture and its egos/trappings/values/pseudo-philosophies. The cast is talented and does at great job becoming the characters portrayed. The songs are too funny to be believed.<br /><br />This film is one of the best pseudo-documentaries to come along, including "A Mighty Wind" | 1 |
Eric Rohmer's "The Lady and the Duke". could have used a better translation for the title. "The English Woman and the Duke", perhaps, would have been more accurate. While it's obvious this film is not for everyone, judging by the comments to this forum, it is worth watching because in spite of the intricate pattern of the story, Mr. Rohmer has created a movie that could be seen as an art exhibit in a museum. The mixed technology used in the movie, ultimately, works well.<br /><br />The strange story of Grace Elliott, a noble lady who had been the mistress of the king of England and of the French Duc d'Orleans, holds our attention. The setting is Paris during the days that followed the French Revolution. The country was in turmoil and the power was in the hands of the people, who couldn't care less for the aristocrats. The images show the agitators running around with heads of famous people right after their trip to the guillotine.<br /><br />Grace relation with the Duc had ended, but she remains a true friend to the great man that is in danger, himself, of losing his own head. Grace moves through all the horrors around her without being able of an escape. She even has an enemy in her own house, in the form of the cook, Pulcherie, who would not hesitate to denounce her at the least provocation.<br /><br />Watching the movie, at times, gives the viewer the impression one is going on a trip through the Louvre watching those huge canvases that depict this crucial era of the French history. Rather than finding the digitalization process distracting, we found it to enhance the film in many ways.<br /><br />Lucy Russell, as Grace Elliott, does a fine job to portray this woman who saw a lot during her lifetime. Her French seems to be excellent, as it appears she is fluent in it. As the Duc d'Orleans, Jean Claude Dreyfus made a fantastic contribution making us believe he is the nobleman himself without any effort. The supporting cast also was great. As an ensemble piece Mr. Rohmer gets good performances all around.<br /><br />For lovers of history, "The Lady and the Duke" will be an interesting movie to watch thanks to the vision of Eric Rohmer. | 1 |
I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning. | 0 |
More eeriness and dark secrets released in the final parts of Lars Von Trier's fantastic horror satire The Kingdom... Much more is revealed and the ending just leaves you begging for more. Plus a great performance from Udo Kier in a more substantial role... | 1 |
The subsequent two seasons of this original series was less than lacklustre. The latter seasons disastrous reshuffle contributed to its three season short life span. Maybe if the plug was pulled after the first season it would've gained a cult following.<br /><br />Aside from that, the first season was truly hilarious! Witty, clever with superb writing it was promising. The first season's excellent brew had the right ingredients - characters/actors, storyline and so forth. Plus a comedy about a paparazzi reporter was original to boot. Nora and her fellow "photographers" on the prowl, night after night, day after day for the exclusives.<br /><br />A lot of things don't make sense to me. Like how this show, and another fav of mine - Gross Pointe never "made it". If only the first seasons of the Naked Truth, and Grosse Pointe were released on DVD, please anyone out there?! | 1 |
The previous reviewer has said it exactly. I saw it once, was enchanted, saw it a second time when it was re-broadcast within a week or two of the first airing. I still remember some of the scenes. The setting is the opening of the 20th century, the war referred to in the title is World War I. One of the scenes was set in a women-only section of a public place, which was an interesting historical note. The moment when one of the women first touches the other is one of my all-time great movie moments. I don't think of this as a "gay movie," it's an interesting and tender period love story, where the two principals happen to be women. I would love to see this movie again; I would buy this one if it ever came out on DVD. | 1 |
Maureen O'Hara is always beautiful and appealing. Here she plays an actress terminally ill. We don't know with what.It is a bit of a precursor to "Love Story" in that respect.<br /><br />William Bendix is good, as is most of the supporting cast. John Payne is meant to be grieving but he seems to sleepwalking. The girl who plays the child he and O'Hara adopts does her best with a contrived plot device: Of course! Adopt an orphan. She will live on after the passing of your wife. It's a sweet movie but it doesn't feel sincere.I was hoping to be moved. I was, by O'Hara's gentle performance. But I don't like to feel manipulated. | 0 |
I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.<br /><br />Well, you may be asking yourself, "If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3/10?" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic "value". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with. | 0 |
I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.<br /><br />I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.<br /><br />Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.<br /><br />Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.<br /><br />Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's "Audition" and "Suicide Club" fame?<br /><br />Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.<br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf "theme" that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS. | 0 |
Flipping through the TV and saw that The Secret Life of was on; gave George Duran a shot at being the host. I know that Jim O'Connor was very energetic and that nobody could be as much as him, but George was well dull. He really didn't seem to want to be hosting; his voice-overs were monotonous, didn't get involved with the guests. It seemed like he was interviewing guests for Unwrapped, and he just happened to be in the shot. I don't know if George is going to get "better" hosting this show, I doubt it because he has hosted his own show now. The show did seem to pack more info in, but only because we saw less of the host. The formula of this show was very delicate, and I fear it has now been disrupted for good. | 0 |
Panic is a sneaky little gem of a film - you think you have it figured out by the first half hour only to realize, with great pleasure, that Henry Bromell is a much better writer/director than that. <br /><br />The film builds slowly, with one quietly devastating scene after another, all enacted perfectly by William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland, Neve Campbell, Tracey Ullman, John Ritter, and the most remarkable child actor I've seen in a long time, David Dorfman, as Macy's son, who delivers his lines as if they're completely unscripted thoughts being created in his mind. Rich and rewarding, this film will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. | 1 |
I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty. | 0 |
A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.<br /><br />""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**<br /><br />Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. <br /><br />This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.<br /><br />When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief. | 0 |
So well done. The photography, sound, music and the performances were the best. It's also an amusing story line that brings a smile to your face with each scene--I loved it and I'm a 60 year old heterosexual guy. Each character seemed to fit their part to a tee. It's the best performance that I've seen from Ms. Capshaw--she's been in more movies than I thought, but this was a wonderful achievement. I suppose it's a plus to have Spielberg money behind you allowing for a fat budget and all the best that money can buy technically. Two of the cast have successful T.V. shows of their own now--it's easy to see why. Tom Selleck does his usual good job. | 1 |
I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!! | 0 |
I first saw this on the big screen with my girlfriend. It was a fun romp with some cool music. Kristine was on the Playboy cover, and the centerfold, as I recall. She's really cute and perky and has lots of charm. The movie made me want to see more of her and so I kept a look out for her in other stuff. She's in Steven Spielberg's "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and Barbara Streisand's "The Main Event" and Bill Murray's "Meatballs", plus lots of TV shows like Night Court and TV movies. Me and my friends really enjoy her. But her starring role in Alice in Wonderland puts the focus right where it ought to be, right on Kristine as the center of attention, probably the prettiest, hottest girl I've ever seen in movies. | 1 |
Blademaster is definitely a memorable entry in the Swords and Sorcery category of movies. I found Blademaster along with Quest for the Mighty Sword at a thrift shop attended by mentally handicapped people and was very happy to pay 2.00 each for them. Believable sets and costumes, good sword fighting and a beautiful female warrior, Mila make this an enjoyable watch. A few problems though, there were a lot of details in the plot that didn't quite fit, like the cave men for one. I didn't understand their purpose. Also, this movie could have really benefited from some more monsters. The snake was cool, but I guess it does borrow a little from Conan. However, any primitive sort of movie where someone winds up with a hanglider is OK by me (see Yor and Battle for Endor). I think Ator is cool! Oh, and was anyone else reminded of Gallager by the villain or is it just me? I give blademaster a 7/10 | 1 |
When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. <br /><br />The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.<br /><br />"But its a comedy " some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? <br /><br />"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. <br /><br />If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man. | 0 |
People call this a comedy, but when I just watched it, I laughed<br /><br />only once. I guess the problem is that I first saw it when I was 14,<br /><br />and I wasn't old enough to understand that it wasn't meant to be<br /><br />taken seriously. There were quite a few scenes that were meant<br /><br />to be funny, but I cared too much about the characters to laugh at<br /><br />them.<br /><br />I suggest that you watch this film next time you're falling in love,<br /><br />and try to take it seriously. I think you'll find that, despite a few silly<br /><br />flaws, it's one of the most moving love stories you've ever seen. | 1 |
This movie was simply amazing.The writing was incredible as well as the directing and acting.The story instantly gets you interested.This movie is one of those movies that has your heart pounding the whole time.As always Damian Chapa is brilliant,his on screen acting is as powerful as any Hollywood actor.The cast in this film is perfect.Each character made the story more complete.The cinematography was captivating and it uplifted the movie.I was totally stuck to the screen and couldn't stop watching it,there was no getting up for popcorn or anything.This movie is one of the best all year,maybe even the best.Definitely rent this movie,I recommend it this movie if u want to see great filmaking or just for pure entertainment. | 1 |
(Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, "Love in the Time of Money" is a "good start". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth "Angels in America" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B) | 1 |
Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.<br /><br />Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).<br /><br />The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.<br /><br />This programme is available on network DVD | 1 |
I found this movie to be extremely delightful.I am biased I suppose.I happen to adore Kathy Bates.I found her singing an added pleasure.She has a very nice voice.<br /><br />Ms Bates plays Grace Beasley.The film takes you from her doledrums married life in Chicago to England,the home of her recently murdered singing idol Victor Fox.There she meets his three surviving uppity sisters.She also discovers that Victor leaves behind a male lover,Dirk Simpson.<br /><br />The story leads you on to some surprisingly comedic and heartwarming situations as Grace and Dirk develop a true fondness for each other,after an initial rather rude rejection,on his part.They return to Chicago where they team up with Grace's pint-sized,hilarious daughter-in-law,Maudie,to find the serial killer who murdered Victor.<br /><br />Everyone in the picture did a fine job.Particularly enjoyed Julie Andrews,Lynn Redgrave and Barry Manilow.This movie was fun.It makes you cry.The music is absolutely charming.<br /><br />Other posters here who found problems with any parts of this movie,just don't have a clue.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Those wishing to see film noir remakes, should not see this as as a remake, you will always be disappointed. Instead, enjoy a gripping performance from Dennis Quaid and visual imagery to commend. The colour drains from the film (literally, not metaphorically!)) as the plot gathers pace, and the dialogue is crisp and gritty. The opening dialogue is clever, and the viewer is carried along by a sharp screenplay and a real, original film noir feel, | 1 |
From a bare description of THE TOLL GATE's major plot elements, one might think it's a revisionist Western of the 60s or 70s. <br /><br />* Our hero is a robber, killer, and arsonist; <br /><br />* the love interest is a single mother whose shiftless husband abandoned her and their child; <br /><br />* twice our criminal hero is "unofficially" released by authorities in return for some good deed, and this is presented as a praiseworthy act;<br /><br />* the only acts which are presented as truly evil are the betrayal of one's family and the betrayal of a criminal associate;<br /><br />* the hero tries to go straight, but turns back to a life of crime after he can't get a job;<br /><br />* the hero is on the run from both a sheriff's posse and a criminal gang;<br /><br />* the hero's final redemption is accomplished by strangling a man with his bare hands and tossing his body over a cliff;<br /><br />* and the "good bad man" ends the film by sending the young mother and her child back to civilization and riding off alone into the Mexican desert, never (presumably) to pay for his life of crime.<br /><br />Just goes to show you that there is nothing new under the sun.<br /><br />Of course, THE TOLL GATE doesn't display quite the cynicism or moral nihilism of its successors: the hero's redemption is set up when he surrenders to the posse after reading a passage from the Bible. Can't quite imagine Clint Eastwood doing that.<br /><br />THE TOLL GATE an excellent movie by any standard, and Hart was a very fine actor, not given to the broad histrionics often used to convey emotion in the days before sound.<br /><br />9/10. | 1 |
This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script. | 0 |
I found this movie at the flea market for cheap. I was so psyched because I thought it was a skateboarding movie. I got home put it on, the previews rules and the opening scene with the old guy rolling down the street on the skateboard was awesome. At that moment I realized it was a post-apocalyptic movie but I still had high hopes for it. This movie was awful. A friend of mine was stoned out of his mind when we watched it and even he thought it was horrible and a waste of being high. I kept falling asleep during the movie because it was so boring and the music was utterly awful. I don't know if during the apocalypse all the good music, and all the music that is only kind of crappy is destroyed and everyones memory of how to play it is wiped clean but I think I would rather die than have to endure that crap. Also what the hell was up with the TV studio? I can only assume that this movie was adapted from an old Greek play, with the names and title, but some plays are not meant to be adapted into a futuristic sci-fi setting. Or at least not by the people who were involved with this movie. If you are forced to watch this movie, I can only suggest bringing a hand gun and finishing yourself off before the end. It would be a good movie to kill yourself too, everyone will understand why. | 0 |
"Dominique" is one of those films that the expression "slow-as-molasses" must have been invented for. Too many endless and repetitive sequences (how many times do we see Robertson walking down the stairs slowly because he can hear someone playing the piano?). It is ALMOST redeemed at the end by a surprising twist, which, unfortunately, is followed by a second twist that succeeds only in leaving a bad taste in our mouths. Not a very enjoyable film. | 0 |
Wagon Master is a very unique film amongst John Ford's work. Mainly because it's the only one that is based on a story written by John Ford himself, the story that was elaborated by Frank Nugent and director's son Patrick Ford and turned into a screenplay, and because of director's personal opinion regarding it, Wagon Master is the film John Ford called the one which `came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve', to say so is not to say a little, but as Ford confessed once to Lindsay Anderson, his favourite was nonetheless My Darling Clementine and not any other.<br /><br /> Wagon Master has all ingredients one might expect to find in a John Ford's film. Wonderful cast delivering his best, thou not featuring any major stars, except the most `fordian' of all actors Ben Johnson. Very peculiar small characters, who provide an obligatory comic relief, and Wagon Master has quite a few of them such as horn blowing Sister Ledyard (Jane Darwell) in her shot but very inspired gigs. And last but not least legendary Monument Valley with John Ford's fifth passage through it after Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.<br /><br /> The film starts with two friends cowboys Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and Sandy Owens (Harry Carey Jr) being hired to be Wagon Masters or guides for a caravan of Mormon settlers who are headed to Silver Valley, a place that's for them like a promised land. On their way they are joined by a very peculiar Dr. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) with two beautiful women, who are supposedly his wife and daughter and who call themselves actors. They are headed in the same direction simply because they were recently driven out of the nearest town and have no other place to go. Nothing particularly unpleasant happens till they bump into Cleggs, a dangerous family gang consisting of father and his three sons who are on the run from the Marshal of the town where they recently committed murder and bank robbery.<br /><br /> Overall Wagon Master is no more nor less than one more precious pearl in a necklace of John Ford's wonderful Westerns. A must see. 9/10<br /><br /> | 1 |
After mob boss Vic Moretti (late great Anthony Franciosa) kills his lady whom has been cheating on him with Derek, their new chauffeur/ Vietnam vet, and blames it on the poor guy, Derek finds himself in jail where he has to contend with a corrupt warden, Vic's prisoner brother who runs the jail, and, oh yeah illegal experiments conducted by a shady CIA agent (great genre-mainstay and first time director John Saxon) to turn various prisoners into super-human invincible zombies. Of course things get out of hand and it's up to Derek, and the rest of the unchanged prisoners, to save the day after the infected ones take the jail over.<br /><br />John Saxon is a great talented actor & as a director Saxon is a... great talented actor. To say this movie (John's sole directorial outing to date) lacks a certain visual flair would be a bit of an understatement. However, the film isn't totally without merit. The dialog, while idiotic, is just bad enough to be humorous sometimes. Sadly, this isn't really enough for the movie to coast by on that alone and it takes forever for the film to even start coming into it's own (which is fairly late in the movie). As such, the most I can recommend this film is to say that if you're a fan of Saxon (which I indeed am), it's worth one watch, just go in with low expectations and you should be fine.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Dana Lis Mason and Tane McClure get topless<br /><br />My Grade: D+ | 0 |
what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it. | 0 |
The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable. <br /><br />But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money. | 0 |
this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3 | 0 |
After playing a nymphomaniac in WRITTEN ON THE WIND, Dorothy Malone finally said good-bye to her sweet sister/wife roles and demonstrated an ability to play mantraps with the best of them. She and Gloria Grahame played the same sort of tramps--and for her efforts here in a very manipulative role, Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.<br /><br />The film she's in is not quite up to Oscar standards, but it is a strong enough melodrama under Douglas Sirk's capable hands. There's an almost noirish look to the explosive opening scene and it sets the tone for the rest of the sudsy fireworks in a story that has ROCK HUDSON, LAUREN BACALL, ROBERT STACK and DOROTHY MALONE as its headliners.<br /><br />Domestic squabbles among the inhabitants of a wealthy family with an oil background are the primary focus of the drama, with the accent on the strong supporting players, Stack and Malone. Both of them seize the opportunity with both hands and Stack, too, should have been awarded for his sterling job as the weak, alcoholic brother driven to desperation by his own wild motives.<br /><br />The nominal stars have less impressive work to do, but do it with their usual skill and conviction--Hudson and Bacall. They play their more sympathetic roles with quiet authority and understanding.<br /><br />The use of color is particularly striking (as it usually is in a Sirk film) and yet it doesn't preclude me from thinking of the film as a Technicolor film noir in the vein of LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN.<br /><br />Well worth watching with some interesting performances from the entire cast. | 1 |
Nothing will ever top KOMODO with the lovely Jill Hennessey as a shrink (!), but KvC ain't quite as bad as I expected for a SYFY channel quickie. Just make sure to watch it while drunk or stoned, or while trying to go to sleep. The unimaginative title basically says it all: A group of mostly unknown actors converge on an island where a government experiment to grow giant vegetables has gone wrong. Giant creatures that came into contact with the vegetables have taken over the island and eaten everyone. So now the government is preparing to blow up the island, regardless of the people being there. The acting is wonderfully atrocious, especially a mustachioed general right out of THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series, but this is typical of this kind of made-for-cable schlock. The CGI creatures are TV-level quality, which means you know you're watching cartoon monsters. However, two of the gals in the group are very cute, and worth watching as they run here and there in their tight little outfits. You just want to eat them up! | 0 |
I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest. | 0 |
This mini-series is iconic of the Australian spirit. While there may be what are perhaps considered glaring inconsistencies, the film portrays a spirit that is unique to Australia, and one that should be cherished. If anything, this mini-series demonstrates the Aussie sense of humour. The ability to laugh at the supremely ridiculous. Our willingness to have a laugh in even the most dire of situations. While a large part of this series focuses on mateship and how humour can be used as a means of survival, it also has elements of drama that are evoke real emotions. The main actors who appear are absolutely sensational and very convincing in their different roles. Capturing the essence of their characters perfectly. This mini-series should be mandatory viewing for all Australians. | 1 |
I just finished watching this horribly depressing drama and realized that, in light of recent dramas such as these, the only ones who could be considered abnormal are those who are least aware that life is nothing more than tragic. I would suggest how nauseatingly defeatist and counter-productive this conclusion is, even if relationships and outlooks like those presented in this movie are grounded in fact to some degree. But, instead, I realized that these films have made the very determination of the great "tragedy" trivial when the same boring situations, the same suffocating dysfunctional families and friendships continue to play out just have they been over and over again in some sort of attempt to knock out previous distortions of family life (much of it existing in the 1950s and earlier with personality and character aberrations being made ever so subtle), supplanting it instead with the "reality" of how things actually are. That in fact, what we are watching is no longer the dysfunctional, but in fact, a normal existence and set of circumstances that has actually existed all along, but of which we may have been previously been unaware and thus, have ignored or at least denied.<br /><br />Only problem is, that too many films have been trying to make this point. And by doing so in nearly identical form. When I had read the synopsis for the film, I immediately thought of 'Ice Storm.' While watching the depressing lifelessness of the Travis family, which seemed to endure repeated emotional berating, I immediately recalled 'American Beauty.' And, in some regards, the interactions between the parents and the middle child, Tim, I drew similarities from 'Igby Goes Down.' 'Imaginary Heroes' may be a novel experience, maybe a refreshing one deemed so for an honest portrayal of character that, as said before, is often not permitted to exist in the films of family (which is idiotic to think anyways, considering we were already seeing these kinds of relationships displayed in films like 'Ordinary People' as early as 1980 and which go back even further than that). But, to the well-versed viewer, these films may offer nothing new. They have in fact, become a rather tired testimony of too many filmmakers who may try to out-do the other with the amount of trauma and apathy they can pack into one family (and here, it extends to neighbors and friends). In fact, 'Imaginary Heroes,' the latest in this genre (I do think there have been enough films to accurately declare it a 'genre'), crams so many disasters and surprises into one family, that they would make prize finds for a daytime talk show host. It is the story of a family who is tested by the suicide of the eldest son, a talented and decorated swimmer who hated the sport with a passion. The youngest son knew this, the father was in a daze and blinded by the push for competitiveness in his all-star son. And it's not clear that the mother and sister had much of a relationship with the young man.<br /><br />Granted, it is no less entertaining (to some extent, for those who find this material exhaustively depressing after a while), and the performances are quite good, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels. But, I sure hope that filmmakers in the future wishing to add to the commentary of struggling familial relationships (which coincidentally or not always seem to be upper-middle class white suburban families) intend to offer something new by way of material and insight. I should see no distinction (and consequently, no purpose) otherwise. | 0 |
Story about four teenage girls growing up in California. Jeanie (Jodie Foster) is the most level-headed of the bunch--but wants to move out of her house where she lives with her divorced mother (Sally Kellerman). Annie (Cherie Currie) is addicted to drugs, alcohol and bad boys and is beaten up by her father. Madge (Marilyn Kagan) has overprotective parents. Deirde (Kandice Stroh) thinks she's more mature than the rest of them.<br /><br />This is nothing new from what we've seen plenty of times before--but this one has one big difference--it's accurate. I graduated from high school in 1980 (when I first saw the film) and I was surprised at how realistic it was. They got the dialogue, clothes and attitudes down completely right. Even the main song of the movie ("On the Radio" by Donna Summer) was a big hit before this came out. This film hit me harder than any other teen film of the time because I could understand and relate to the characters. I knew girls in high school who were just like this! The film is (of course) dated but it captures a time we will never see again.<br /><br />The acting is good on all counts with Foster giving the best performance. The relationship between her and Kellerman (who was excellent) was realistic and well-done. Even Scott Baio (who has a small role as a friend of the girls) more or less realistically played a teen boy.<br /><br />A very good movie--essential viewing if you came of age in 1980. The film has a deserved R rating (plenty of drug use and swearing) but should be seen by all teens. I give it a 8. | 1 |
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.<br /><br />and<br /><br />3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.<br /><br />Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair? | 0 |
"The 40 Year Old Virgin" exists in a world I don't understand. A world where an electronics store employee can tell his boss to "f*** off" and broadcast videos of his naked ass throughout the store and not get reprimanded. A world where it's really funny to go drunk driving and smash into other peoples' cars. A world where it seems okay for a boss to sexually harass her underlings. A world full of raging and offensive stereotypes of ethnic minorities. And a world without any funny jokes! I am absolutely shocked at the seeming chorus of viewers who liked this movie. I thought every scene was like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch - not very funny to begin with, and stretched out beyond all rational thought. The chest-waxing scene went on FOREVER.<br /><br />The characters, aside from Carell, were totally one-note. And the romantic elements were completely contrived, particularly the scene where Keener finds porn in Carell's apartment. That was just lame.<br /><br />And I also found the "Aquarius" sequence totally annoying and excessive. I hated hated hated this movie! | 0 |
Simple-minded but good-natured drive-in movie about a simple-minded but good-natured high school graduate who has dreams of owning the coolest custom van in the world to use as his "ballroom". <br /><br />Bobby, our hero, spends his entire savings to acquire the vehicle of his dreams. Joint sharing and love making quickly commence with girls Bobby has picked up at the local pizza parlor, but he finds out much responsibility, danger and heartache come with being the owner of such a mechanical marvel.<br /><br />The Van is a guilty pleasure of mine. It captures the laid back mid 70's mood and has enough unintentional humor to put it into the "so bad it's good" category. | 1 |
Unfortunately, this movie never made it to DVD. I saw it when it was first released to the theaters in 1983, and then again when the VHS was released in 1992. When I recently saw a VHS copy at a flea market, I immediately bought it. I was not disappointed. First, the obvious: Claudia Ohana is beautiful and a joy to behold. But then, the film takes you into an unreal world where you have to reflect on your values and decide what is really important to you. The movie is about a lot of things. It is about how the World Bank and large corporations exploit and enslave developing countries with their capitalist schemes to force them into a debt that they can never repay. It is about how our economic system exploits us by forcing us into debt with credit cards, mortgage, and car payment. It is about trying to save an innocence that maybe we have never really had and maybe we cannot really save. It is about good and evil and about how hard it is sometimes to tell one from the other. It raises a lot of questions but does not give answers. I think sometimes this is good. For this reason, this is a film really worth saving and seeing. | 1 |
Methinks the best screen version of Quo Vadis? ever made. Well, yeah, the plot is not so strong and evident as in the book, sometimes meandering and loosing its suspense among aesthetic subtleties. But the film is really and beautifully "strange", has an enigma and style, that other versions - with R.Taylor and the new one from Poland - definitely lack. It has the air of Roman decadence, the beauty of declining paganism and infant Christianity. At least I believe it has). Brandauer, Forrest and Syudov did excellent job in portraying their characters. Forrest's Petronius seems to be the biggest success of the cast (let alone Brandauer who is the one of the greatest actors ever) and accumulates the very essence of this dying world (IMHO). That's it. That is the way it happened, guys... ))) IMHO | 1 |
I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience. | 0 |
This is a very bland and inert production of one of Shakespeare's most vibrant plays. I can only guess that the intent was to make the play as accessible and understandable as possible to an audience that has not been exposed to Shakespeare before. By doing this, though - by making every line clear and every intent obvious - they have drained the play of life and turned it into a flat caricature. Somehow, it is actually boring - a very hard feat given such wonderful material.<br /><br />The acting is forgettable at best - Sam Waterston as Benedick and Douglas Watson as Don Pedro. Others, however, do not fare so well. April Shawnham's Hero is a pouty, breathless airhead that frequently provokes winces. Jerry Mayer's Don John is a nonsensical cartoon character on the level of Snidely Whiplash (though Snidley was much more enjoyable).<br /><br />F. Murray Abraham (you know, the guy who killed Mozart?) is not in this version, unless he was in disguise and had his name removed from the credits.<br /><br />Given that the producer, Joseph Papp, is basically a theater god, this production is not only disappointing but head-scratching as well.<br /><br />Don't bother with this. Watch Branagh's Much Ado instead - his version is overflowing with vitality and humor, to say nothing of wonderful performances. | 0 |
Between the ages of 30 and 51, when he died of a brain tumour, Zachary Scott made 70 films. He was introduced in 1944 in Jean Negulesco's 'The Mask of Dimitrios', where he played Dimitrios. The next year, 1945, he made three films, of which this is one. He is best remembered by cineastes as the star of Jean Renoir's 'The Southerner', one of the 1945 films, where he had a sympathetic role. However, he often played creepy characters, and in this film he is a sociopathic killer of women for money. So what happens here? He lives in a house with three women, so watch out! Faye Emerson, who also appeared in 'Dimitrios', plays the older of two daughters in the house. She falls in love with Scott and they become secretly engaged. Then her 'cute kid' younger sister (played effectively by Mona Freeman, who resembles Bonita Granville both in looks and in behaviour) returns from boarding school and reveals casually in conversation with Scott that she has inherited a tidy sum, so Scott turns his sights on her instead, with all the torrid jealousies seething in the household which that was bound to arouse. Things get tense, and then they get tenser. Meanwhile, plans for murder are going forward in the mind of the calculating Scott. But it turns out that he is not the only one with such intentions. He is also being searched for as a result of his last kill, with which the film has opened, so that we know his back story. James Wong Howe gives effective noirish cinematography to this tale, which was directed by Frenchman Robert Florey who had moved to Hollywood some time earlier. The film is an effective psychopath-in-the-house mystery which can cause a bit of wear of the edges of some seats, for those of such an inclination. | 1 |
Yes, the cameras were in the right place at the right time. It's so interesting to see how a world leader (like Chavez) who supports the poor people in his country, can be held in such low esteem in the US. His worst "sin", in my opinion, is caring about those who are at the bottom of the barrel. What can be so bad about that? I have always been fascinated by the US government+media reaction to Fidel Castro. At first, Castro was a good guy (around 1959) when he supplanted Batista. Soon, however, Castro started turning the corporations in Cuba toward the needs of the poor instead of the fat cats. We're a decent country, but why does our media and government have such a problem with sharing with the poor? If these guys are "dictators," then we could use more "dictatorships" especially where the poorest of the poor live in the world. | 1 |
This was indeed an amazing adaption. I missed the first episode so I unfortunately missed out on the bonding between the characters and the smooth flow of the storyline. But as soon I watched the second and then the third instalment I was just blown away. I ordered the DVD less than a week later and unable to wait for it to come I went straight out and brought the book. From the moment I opened it I was hooked, I just couldn't put it down. I decided to finish the whole book before I dare watch the DVD at all. I preferred the book because it got inside the characters minds, you could understand totally where they were coming from and what there role was within the story. They missed a lot out of the adaption which was disappointing as the book is a master piece and I think they could have done it superbly if they had been able to stretch it over a longer period of time. But considering only being able to be fitted into a 3 hour slot I think it was done excellent. It followed the main twisted storyline brilliantly. And the actors which were enrolled as the main characters where amazing! The love making scene was pure beautiful. It was so tender and loving and just showed how natural homosexual love can be. I was totally blown away with both the book and the TV adaption! I loved both of Sarah Waters previous novels and also found the Tipping the Velvet adaption quite enjoyable. But when I read and watched Fingersmith I knew none of her previous novels/adaption could beat it. Sarah Waters has indeed exceeded herself this time! I recommend that you watch this adaption! If Tipping the Velvet wasn't your thing, then don't let it put you off this one. Fingersmith is a whole new ball game. It is a beautiful yet dark twisted story about love, greed and betrayal...<br /><br />A MUST SEE! | 1 |
To be completely honest, I completely intrigued by the original concept of 'Sleeper Cell.' Having watched the best part of the series on FX Channel (UK), my Sky got broke meaning I missed the crucial finale. But what I DID see of it, I assumed it to be a great story line, good acting and as I don't watch '24' I thought it was great, AND it's been confirmed for a second season...<br /><br />One of the best TV programs I have seen. Much more realistic and believable than "24." Excellent character development and plot line. Does not bash Islam, but gives a thoughtful and considered approach, showing the difference between radical terrorist Islam and true Islam. Everybody should see this show!<br /><br />Stringy xx | 1 |
As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is "white-bread" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED! | 0 |
"Tesis", "Open your eyes" and "The Others" were proof of Amenabar's talent and skill as a filmmaker, but (in my humble opinion) were also flawed films in their attempt to outsmart the audience, always offering one turn of the screw too many, favoring cheap thrills, twists and turns over depth and resonance. Lucky for everyone Amenabar chose a subject for his new film that would not allow a surprise ending, focusing on characters and the emotional ties that bind them. <br /><br />The result is a little miracle of a film, beautifully written, photographed, scored, acted and directed. Everyone involved in this film delivers a carrer-high performance,behind and in front of the cameras, from the wonderful cast (Bardem shines, but Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Clara Segura and Lola Dueñas give the film an amazing authenticity) to Aguirresarobe's exquisite lensing. <br /><br />The film taps on many relevant issues and emotions effectively , it addresses heart and mind with equal power and delivers a final punch that stays with you long after the credits roll. This is a brilliantly executed film that not only will stand as a landmark in Spanish cinema, but will surely become a pleasant surprise when it opens in the abroad (Sony Classics has paid a record 6 million dollars to distribute it) Don't be surprised it it manages to get in the Oscar race... There's no stopping Amenabar...<br /><br />Buen trabajo, Alejandro! | 1 |
This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.<br /><br />The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.<br /><br />Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.<br /><br />The atrociously shallow performances don't help Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here a machine gun? A rocket launcher?! and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense. | 0 |
This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a "guy movie", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!<br /><br />I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!! | 0 |
Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?... | 1 |
This was an interesting study in societal sexuality, as well as the "dark interests" of man.<br /><br />While I can't say the wife was a strong character - she was the wrong choice for the part, in my opinion - she was a rich kid in search of escaping her drool life. She was a rebel in fact, and never fully matured for her husband, a lawyer (Rickman). It's obvious he married her for her money and to cover his sexual desires, which is taboo. Rickman played his part to a tee, his flirtations with the young man, and very subtle undertones of gayness. The young man was gay to the hilt! When he did Marilyn impersonation that should have told the wife everything. He was perfectly cast as well. He has hustler written all over him.<br /><br />I was not crazy about the ending, as I knew what was coming. Overall though, the acting from Rickman was great, Reedus was good, Walker was okay but I had misgivings. For a gay themed movie, it was average, but not blatant at least. It's worth viewing if you don't have "Truly Madly Deeply" lying around for a spin. | 1 |
Anyone who lived through the ages of Revenge of the Nerds and Girlpower will appreciate this film. It is one of those films that delivers everything you want in a "spring break movie" PLUS it makes fun of the college film genre. It's funny, it's got a cast to die for (Amy Pohler! Rachel Dratch!, Sophie Monk!, Parker Posey! Jane Lynch! Amber Tamblyn! Missi Pyle!) and its guaranteed to make you laugh out loud. Writer/ actor Rachel Dratch is a comic genius and Sophie Monk is such a great villain. Wilson Phillips! OMG! (I'm just repeating myself now...) It will live on with girls who like Miranda July but feel like eating ice cream and pretending they're dumb. | 1 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.<br /><br />Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.<br /><br />This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.<br /><br />Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? ** | 0 |
CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) gets to see his first secret location interrogation when Anwar (Metwally) is accused of having contact with a known terrorist bomb maker. Anwar's wife (Witherspoon) is frantic regarding the whereabouts of her husband .<br /><br />Don't you just hate it when the title of a movie sends you to a dictionary? I must have an old edition as this Rendition is not a musical piece. No, it's the government's way of legally taking a resident or citizen somewhere to interrogate him and possibly use some torture to get the desired information. <br /><br />While watching this movie I was reminded of a similar story line in the Crossing Jordan TV show (now off the air), and I expect we will see even more of these story lines. It's inevitable. The events of 911 are the catalysts. <br /><br />This is a tough one to watch because we don't like to see people tortured and our government not telling the truth about things. We like the idea that no matter what happens or happened that we can go somewhere to find answers, but when that door is closed to us, we are truly lost and without hope as Anwar's wife was. <br /><br />Performances by all were first class and it's possible we may see more of Igai Naor (I have no idea how to pronounce it) because he resembles and can act like Telly Savalas. No kidding. <br /><br />Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: Yes | 1 |
Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934 English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version, besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent' American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the "Albert Hall' sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!). The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is better. | 1 |
I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.<br /><br />To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a "look, Ma, I'm acting!" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...<br /><br />Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase "mutton dressed as lamb" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of "Green Finch And Linnet Bird" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.<br /><br />Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the "juvenile" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.<br /><br />Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production. | 0 |
I had never read any of Sarah Waters' novels, or watched Tipping the Velvet. I only heard about Fingersmith when i was flipping through "The L word" websites. The storyline of Fingersmith interested me, yet i passed it away, thinking "Lesbian in Victorian period, that never ends well, i have enough of those lesbo series and movies that go no where"<br /><br />However, during Christmas my local DVD store gave Fingersmith a discount, i brought the DVD, and my life has never been more colourful<br /><br />This mini series deserves to be cherished and praised. The acting is so great that i call it rare. Sally Hawkins, Elaine Cassidy, Rupert Evans, Imelda Staunton, and many more that i can't name all, brought light and darkness to their characters. Just by a little gesture, a little look, a little touch, they made their characters real and as a viewer, i couldn't help it but take them home, keep them close. <br /><br />Fingersmith, sets in Victorian area, is a story of Sue-a thief who loves and lives with her "Family" of pick-pockets. Little did she know that her fate is linked to Maud Lily-a somewhat shy, timid girl grows up in a Mansion miles and miles away. Maud's mother left her a fortune, but Maud herself can't touch it, unless she married. Worst of all, Maud's uncle makes sure she never will by keeping her prisoned in the house. <br /><br />Enter Mr Gentlement, a charming, good-looking thief with a heart as bad as any. He wants Maud's fortune for himself, and in order to do so he sets Sue up as Maud Lily's maid, asking Sue to Persuade Maud to elope with him. as time goes by, Things would be simple, if Sue didn't fall in love with Maud. <br /><br />And things would be simple, if the story was what i have just told. I do not wish to spoil, so i would like to stop there. But i can asure you that everything is twisted and turned before you can even aware of what has happened. Once it happened, you then question what would happen next. On top of that, the story is filled with passion unlike any others. There are no self-searching, sexuality questioning, "Oh my god do i like girls" moments, because the girls in Fingersmith are buried so deep in their own darkness that they barely be able to care. the story with such twisted plot moves as smooth as water, running passionately, but strangely calm. <br /><br />Weeks have passed since i watched "Fingersmith", yet Maud's eyes still haunt me, and Sue's words still warm my heart "You pearl, you pearl, you pearl", she said. And such pearl it is. | 1 |
The first mystery is to guess what Welles' original film was like. That makes this a real adventure -- to see an incomplete skeleton and using cinematic forensics, imagine the beautiful woman it once supported.<br /><br />If you do, you will both see and experience perhaps one of the best film mysteries ever. As mysteries go, the narrative is rather ordinary: a simple diversion, one jealous husband as red herring.<br /><br />What's rather miraculous is Welles' placement of the story in an artificial eye seeing a dark, dark multifaceted world. The first real noir, but even darker. It's not an obviously twisted world, unless you think about the camera. What we can see firsthand is someone creating a vocabulary that would later become common.<br /><br />For all the celebration, Kane was a success because of the great drama and story. The camera's eye was shocking, but experimental. Welles would go from there to explore the mystery narrative and the self-reference of Shakespeare with this eye. Othello and MacBeth are both begun in this period, and I consider them part of a single vision with this. <br /><br />The noir feel here hinges on the notion that people are not in charge of their lives, even a little -- they are manipulated by random factors in the environment. So in telling this story, Welles has to make the environment into a character. Several characters as suspects in the mystery.<br /><br />Thus we have the famous lighting, blocking and angles we know (and have since seen countless times). And we have the deliberately closed sets: the park, yacht, picnic area, aquarium, dock, courtroom, Chinese theater and funhouse. I am certain that what was cut by the barbarians was lots and lots of 'external' narrative dealing not with character but with these strange environments.<br /><br />My own solution to the mystery is that the funhouse did it, among the other character-environments introduced as suspects. In other words, the manipulation of Black Irish (who we know from notes and one scene typing at the union hall was an aspiring novelist) was neither: a force of human conspiracy (the park or the civilized version, the courtroom) nor of nature (the picnic or the civilized version, the aquarium).<br /><br />Instead it was a matter of deliberate caprice by the gods for amusement. This is of course a self-reference to what Welles is doing: putting these people (including himself) through hell for our own caprice, a matter underscored by the Peking Opera set with Welles doped up. And of course leading to the funhouse where the environment directly tinkers with perception.<br /><br />More about the self-reference: surely there is conscious comment on his relationship with his soon to be exwife. But I believe there is strong subconscious comment on his own taunting the environment in which he worked, the studio environment. Surely Welles was as much screwed with, and in much the same way, as his character. And that screwing took the form of the murder of this film, leaving the rotting corpse mentioned at the beginning of this comment.<br /><br />That poor Rita comes from China ties up the whole thing, the Chinese theater, the expected rape from above, the loss of the woman. The investment in environment beyond all. | 1 |
This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.<br /><br />Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.<br /><br />In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.<br /><br />Clearly a 10. Well done! | 1 |
It was definitely worth viewing, I don't regret that. But also it was kind of ordinary. Something, that I would expect from a movie titled like that. Love story was nice to watch. Humour was involved, but nothing surprised or spooked me. Shooting, "tough guys" etc. ain't worth it any more. | 0 |
The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. <br /><br />Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F | 0 |
First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done. <br /><br />Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together. <br /><br />The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this. <br /><br />i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment | 1 |
This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is. | 0 |
I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake! <br /><br />4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name! | 0 |
If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. | 0 |
Well, okay, maybe not perfect, but it was pretty close. This movie jumped from crime drama to romantic goofball comedy and back again so quickly all the way throughout that it seemed like two different movies that played simultaneously and then joined up again at the end. But they did it smoothly, and some in the theater found the bloody parts (like the scalping scene) to be funny as well. I just about threw up, but I guess that's just me. Greg Kinear is perfect as a soap opera actor. He has the ability to perform those over-dramatic soap scenes with just the right facial expressions and voice intonations. His scenes with Betty seem like something out of "Sleepless in Seattle" or some other romantic comedy like that. You almost forget that Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are searching Betty down. Morgan Freeman's fascination with Betty was rather creepy, considering that he could practically be her grandfather, but the scenes where he is conversing with her photograph are definitely worth a few laughs! Chris Rock's performance seems rather wooden, but he has his moments. Renee Zellweger is so sweet as Betty, the lovable waitress with the crude, unfaithful husband who treats her like dirt. It's very unlikely that she would have actually gotten a job at a hospital without any real credentials, but, hey, it's a movie, just go along with it! Her roommate, Rosa, shines as well, as a woman who cares about Betty, but doesn't quite know how to deal with Betty's sickness. And, lastly, there is Crispin Glover. As a fan of his, I, naturally, thought that the movie could have been funnier had he been in it more. No one else has the same style of acting that Crispin has, and the argument between Chris Rock, Crispin, and the sheriff about the soap opera is hilarious. I guess I'm saying that I liked this movie quite a bit! If you can stomach blood, violence, and a lot of foul language, it's worth the watch and will give you plenty of laughs! | 1 |
This movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.