text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Michael Haneke is known for his disturbing movies like "Funny Games". This time he adopted Elfriede Jelineks "Die Klavierspielerin", which is probably her best work so far. Jelinek always writes about abusive behaviour in families, and especially of the suppression of women in a patriarchal society.<br /><br />Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) works as a piano teacher at the Viennese Consevatory. She still lives with her mother (Annie Giradot), they even sleep in the same bed (already a hint of something strange). Erika bullies her students the same way she's bullied by her mother and secretly watches porn movies and plays sadomasochistic games with herself. A student, Walter (Benoit Magimel), falls in love with her, but she refuses to simply sleep with him. She wants to play her games with him, but he's disgusted. He reluctantly follows her rules, which means disaster for both of them.<br /><br />Haneke has a very clear picture language, everything is filmed in a almost spartanic way, so the complex characters and story are enhanced.<br /><br />People who don't know Austria very well may be don't realize how essential the setting is for the story. Jelinek (as well as other great Austrian writers like Thomas Bernhard) suffers from the coldness and casualness in Austrian families and society. Austrians (at least Viennese people) are often unable to articulate their pains, wishes, they suppress their emotions, so there often enough is no real love, affection and nearness in their families. In a society, where it's more important to show a perfect facade to society (even if this means to protect crimes within families as Erika and her mother protect Walters rape of Erika to avoid a scandal) than to deal with your emotional problems it's probably no wonder that Sigmund Freud founded the psychoanalysis in Vienna. Erika has a cold and distant relationship with her mother, they only time they share some emotions is very violent and not at all loving. Erika replaces her hidden emotions with wishes for violence, so that she can finally release some feelings. But she has nobody who really wants to speak about her emotions so in the end she has to stab herself to ease her inner pain.<br /><br />Isabelle Huppert shows her best performance of her career (as well of most other actresses). With a unsmiling face you often see only a hint of emotion in her face, a quick smile, a glance with her eyes. And in the end her pain is masterly displayed without a single tear. <br /><br />Benoit Magimel and Annie Giradot also turn in powerful performances, but the movie belongs to Huppert. | 1 |
This movie is excellent ( i watched the French version ). There are many subplots (which usually detracts from the whole ), but they nicely unfold and concur to the "discovering of one's real self" main theme. In fact, the whole movie (besides his background ) is the journey to the discovery of one's ( or someone else's ) self. Is the King really a "good peacenik monarch" trying to wage a "war to end all wars" or is he just a disturbed, blood thirsty hoodlum? Is he a true king, after all? Is the attendant to the queen mother just a lusty, career-driven, spineless sock puppet or rather a sharp thinking, bold individual? Will the dame/concubine realize who the king truly is? What's between the king and the old chancellor? What's the secret everyone knows but won't tell? What's the true reason the assassin quit his "job"? Subplots (something i'm not particularly fond of ) are handled well and keep one watching until the end. Scenes are well crafted and CGI fits nicely in, without going overboard. Suspense is properly maintained and actors are upto the task. There is a lot of brain-damaged smiling, but that is how one was supposed to behave at the king's court ( as the dame/concubine complains about ). Realistic movie without superhero moments. This Chinese movie really puts Hollywood cardboard colossals ( Gladiator etc ) to shame. | 1 |
One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really. It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares.<br /><br />The form has the first 2/3 of the movie told in flashback by three characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer; and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc. <br /><br />Actually, the rest of the movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we really care if it does? No. <br /><br />It is also a very dark comedy, but has a shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside, dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night at McCool's.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
It's some years since I've seen this movie, so forget most of the details. However, I loved it at the time and found the plot intensely gripping, the climax heart stopping. I remember being literally on the edge of my seat at the theatre back in 1979.<br /><br />Jane Fonda plays a Los Angeles reporter, Kimberley, who stumbles upon an accident at a local nuclear power facility. She wants to go public with the story, aided by her hippie cameraman (Michael Douglas) who has photographed the event, but a sinister conspiracy attempts to cover it all up. Jack Lemmon is absolutely wonderful in the role of the nuclear plant's conflicted middle manager, torn between loyalty to his company and 'doing the right thing' by reporting the perilous situation. His facial expressions speak volumes here.<br /><br />Apart from the engrossing plot and riveting tension, this film is all about Jack Lemmon, his character, and his superb acting performance. As for Jane Fonda (I was a huge fan of hers at the time), I suspect she just moved on from her anti-war protests to taking on the nuclear industry.<br /><br />This movie seems intended as a nuclear scare tactic. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island notwithstanding (they're different types of reactors), our Canadian CANDU reactor is safe and well respected around the world. I wouldn't hesitate to reside near the nuclear power plant about an hour's drive away, where my friend works as a very competent engineer. Apparently they shut down for every teeny problem, irregardless of the financial loss. I sincerely doubt that there are any conspiracies afoot there. One can hardly imagine any of the managers or highly trained operators willing to risk any sort of meltdown or whatever...it's absolute tomfoolery. Of course the moral here is to spare no expense or effort either in building the facility or ensuring its ongoing safety. <br /><br />If we want our Western lifestyle, we have to get our energy somewhere. For those who claim nuclear power can never be made completely safe (true, of course), perhaps they should volunteer as a coal miner or else return to pre electricity horse and buggy days. <br /><br />By all means, enjoy this entertaining and highly suspenseful movie, which apparently is based (loosely? embellished?) on a true story. It's a real chiller, a thriller, and maybe (?) even a killer, but please, don't get your attitudes about the operation and safety of nuclear power plants from it. | 1 |
First of all for this movie I just have one word: 'wow'. This is probably, one of the best movies that touched me, from it's story to it's performances, so wonderfully played by Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni. I was very impressed with this last one, because he really brought depth to the character, as it was a very hard role. Still, the two of them formed a pair, that surprised me, from the beginning until the end, showing in the way, a friendship filled with love, that develops during the entire day, settled in the movie. The story takes some time to roll, as the introduction of the characters is long, but finally we are compensated with a wonderful tale about love and humanity. If you have the chance, see it, because it's a movie that will stay in your mind for many time. Simply amazing - 9/10. | 1 |
This is yet another gritty and compelling film directed by Sam Fuller in the early 1950s. This minimalist and fast-working director has something unusual for his earlier films--a cast with some stars. Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Richard Kiley star in this film about a group of Communist agents who are trying to sneak secrets out of America--and they'll stop at nothing to succeed.<br /><br />The film starts with Peters on a subway car being watched by federal agents. They know she is a link in a long espionage chain. Unknown to everyone is the wild card in the equation--a small-time pickpocket (Widmark) is also on the train and he manages to steal the secrets that Peters is carrying. Widmark thinks it's just another purse he's ransacked--only later does he realize the seriousness of what he's stolen. Now it's Widmark on his own--with Commies and the FBI hot on his trail.<br /><br />Widmark and the rest are exceptional and the film is gripping from start to finish. Although she didn't get top billing, a special mention should be made of Thelma Ritter. This supporting actress had perhaps the performance of her lifetime as a stool pigeon. Seldom was she given this much of a chance to act and I was impressed by her ability to play a broken down and sad old lady.<br /><br />As far as the script and directing go, they are very good--but with one small exception. At first, I loved the way Widmark and Peters interacted. It's one of the few times on film you'll see a woman punched square in the mouth! Now THAT'S tough. Later, inexplicably, they become amazingly close--too close to be believable. Still, with so much great drama and such an effective Noir-like film, this can be overlooked. See this film. | 1 |
I thought I might be disappointed viewing this film again after so many years. On the contrary, I was more impressed now than in my callow youth with its honesty and brave humour. In 1969, the transition among African-American groups from a predominant policy of conciliation and integration to one of confrontation and self-determination was still quite new, and more than a little controversial. It took courage and finesse to portray both the Establishment and the Anti-establishment as the caricatures they often closely approximated in real life. Special mention should be made of Arnold Johnson's performance: he successfully avoided having his character lapse into either sociopathy or buffoonery. I'd rather watch this than "To Sir With Love" any old day! | 1 |
I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of. | 1 |
Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...<br /><br />You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.<br /><br />Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.<br /><br />Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it? | 0 |
When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.<br /><br />I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.<br /><br />-SPOILERS FOLLOW-<br /><br />First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.<br /><br />Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.<br /><br />Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.<br /><br />The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.<br /><br />The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money. | 0 |
That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.<br /><br />But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.<br /><br />Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.<br /><br />The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.<br /><br />2 stars - both for the house. | 0 |
This movie was bad on so many levels. The writing was horrible so even the best actors could not have made this movie watchable. It's a shame because they did have some good actors in this movie. I mean if anyone has seen any of the Police Academy movies, you would know that Steve Guttenberg was good. His Character in this movie was very serious, which was a big difference from Characters i have seen him play before, so that was a plus. And I did think that Steve Guttenberg was extremely hot in this movie. With or without the shirt you can not deny that he has a GREAT body! Sexy face too. Loved the 5 o'clock shadow look, it made him look dangerous. At one part in the movie he is lying in bed without his shirt and i have to say, I would have gladly jumped in there and tried to take his mind off of his problems! So honestly i would watch this movie again just to fantasize! | 0 |
***SPOILERS*** Feeling alone and needing companionship as well as love Frances Austen, Sandy Dennis, keeps all these emotions inside as she goes through life as a popular young single lady who has many high class friends. But for reasons of her own deep insecurity she keeps them at arms length. As for Frances male friends non are anywhere near her age so that she won't have any reason to have any romantic involvement with them. <br /><br />One early evening as Frances was entertaining some of her friends she spots outside her apartment window a young man, Michael Burns, sitting alone in the cold pouring rain. Feeling that he's homeless and alone after her friends leave Frances goes outside to the park and offers the young man shelter at her place until the rain subsides and even to stay over for the night at a guest bedroom that she has. You can see right away that Frances is more interested in just having the young mans safely out of the cold and rain then she wants to have him as a friend lover or even play-toy all for herself and as the movie progresses you see that you were right. <br /><br />A really amazing performance by Sandy Dennis that in a way is very much like that of Kathy Bates' Academy Award performance in the movie "Misery" that was made in 1990 some twenty one years later. Frances thinking that the young man was alone and homeless and, later when she meets him, mute sees the perfect person for her to have as a true friend. He's in no way her equal or better then her like the friends that she has, doctors lawyers Indian chiefs, and thus is totally dependent on her. It later turns out that the young man is not the lonely and homeless person that Frances thought that he is. It's when she slowly finds out that he really doesn't need her as well as him manipulating her instead the other way around it sets off something in Frances' mind that turns out to be a compulsion of murderous proportions. <br /><br />A really weird film by director Robert Altman that goes deep into the depths of loneliness and depression of the human mind. Actress Sandy Dennis is perfect as the Dr. Jekyll and Miss. Hyde personality in her acting as the lonely but at the same time dangerous Frances Austen and it's a pity that not only didn't she get an Academy Award for her role in the film but wasn't even nominated for it. <br /><br />Like most Robert Altman movies there seems to be a lot of improvisation among the actors in the movie and ad lib dialog especially between the young man's sister Nina, Susanne Benton, and her boyfriend Nick, David Garfield. The only thing in the movie that I found confusing is when we see Frances go to a city clinic to have a full gynecological exam and tells the doctor that she expects to get married very soon. Was her husband to be the young man staying at her apartment? But besides that the movie sticks to the story pretty well and the ending is a real shock to the audience as well as the young man. When he finally, in the end, realizes that Frances is not only a bit off-the-wall but murderously insane as well. | 1 |
What a script, what a story, what a mess! | 0 |
I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. "one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)", shocking", and " a must have ".<br /><br />Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.<br /><br />But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance/random/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves. | 0 |
It has said that The Movies and Baseball both thrived during The Great Depression. It appears that the grim realities of a Nation caught up in the aftermath of this Economic Disaster created a need for occasional relief for the populace. A temporary escape could be found in the on going soap opera that is Baseball.<br /><br />Likewise, an occasional excursion of 2 or 3 hours into the darkened auditoriums of the Cinema. The presence of a Radio in just about everyone's house hold kept Depression Era America at once attuned to World's Events and provided many a Drama and (especially) Comedy Shows for a pleasant interlude from harsh reality.<br /><br />The literature of the time also flourished at all levels. The juvenile reading habits helped to create the Comic Book as we know it, what with all the fantastic characters and super exciting adventures. But the Comic Book just did not magically appear, all fully developed with all the colorful 4 color pages, all by itself. There were mediums that were ancestral to them. Obviously,the Newspaper Comic Strip was one parent, providing the visual/narrative method of story telling.<br /><br />The other direct ancestor was the Pulp Magazine. The inexpensive, prose story publications that carried a great deal of stories of the same adventure characters in on going, though not necessarily serialized, tales. The pulp medium had been around for some decades and introduced us to Edgar Rice Borrough's TARZAN and Johnston McCulley's ZORRO. The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.<br /><br />One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero. Possessing extraordinary strength, super keen senses and a protean genius class intellect, Doc was the prototype Super Hero.<br /><br />He also assembled 5 of his former Army Buddies into a small, free lancing team of adventurers. Each of them was an expert in a given field. So we had a top rated: Chemist, Lawyer, Construction Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Geologist-Archaeologist-Paleontologist, etc.<br /><br />The Doc Savage stories were very popular in the 1930's and '40's, and were published into the middle '50's. Then they went into a hiatus for a good 12-15 years. Then the brainstorm came about to repackage the old novels in new "container", the paperback book. A fresh look to the cover art was introduced, featuring a highly stylized series of paintings of a very muscular Doc, with a perpetually ripped shirt.<br /><br />The re-introduction proved to be highly successful, with the publication of a title a month (and for a while more). Soon, there was a rumor of a Doc Savage movie! But when, by what Producer? Well, the venerable "Man of Bronze" was back on the news stands for over 10 years before any real project got put together. It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.<br /><br />When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers. With former Tarzan of TV,Ron Ely's nearly perfect casting in the lead, up and coming Beauty of a Starlette, Pamela Hensley in the female lead and veteran character Paul Wexler (as the villainous, Captain Seas); no other name would have been recognized. And, just maybe that was a plus in this case.<br /><br />The story does a fine job of both getting most of the audience acquainted with the incredible group and at the same time get a plot going. Use of narration, by Paul Frees, and short film clips are the method pursued to move the introduction along to the main body of the story.<br /><br />From the very start, there are hints that this story will go with the same sort of manufactured "Camp" humor as the Batman TV series. Some really great looking early scenes involving Doc and the whole crew doing their individual specialties are thrown toward humor by the Paul Frees narration and the unexpected, unlikely outcomes. (For Example, an experiment of Doc's with a miniature rocket/missile turns out to be part of a method of catching fish, a small one at that.) The whole story unfolds like that, hitting the viewer with a little 'Camp' every so often, as to keep reminding us not to take it too seriously. We are also puzzled about Mr. George Pal's being the Producer(his last). He who had been so well known for Special Effects, surely a factor that could be put to good use in a sci-fi action setting of the Pulp Character's world.<br /><br />I can remember seeing it quite vividly. Mrs. Ryan (Deanna) was in the Hospital, just having given birth to our 2nd child, Michelle(08/14/75). Our older girl, Jennifer, was visiting her Grandmother, so after visiting hours were over in the Maternity Ward, it was straight over to the old Marquette Theatre, 63rd & Kedzie, here in Chicago.<br /><br />Having seen it and being a guy with a good familiarity with Doc, I was sort of let down by the final product. I could accept a little of this 'Camp' business, but would not have objected if Mr.Pal would have seen fit to let it all hang out and have some real neat Dinosaurs and Volcanoes to give it all a little more Pulp/Comic/Serial type excitement.<br /><br />And yet, the cast, headed-up by Mr. Ely and the others, made the whole film likable, if not lovable. The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.<br /><br />And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE. | 1 |
How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and "B movie" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture. | 0 |
A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.<br /><br />I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? <br /><br />b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.<br /><br />c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).<br /><br />d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".<br /><br />iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).<br /><br />This is all just ridiculous.<br /><br />I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).<br /><br />This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well. | 0 |
This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it whilst eating fish and chips.<br /><br />Riding on the back of the Tron hype this series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan. He'd go around solving crimes and the lot.<br /><br />All I really remember was his fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him out generally.<br /><br />When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little too. Was it real or maybe a dream? | 1 |
A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here. | 1 |
I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is "original." It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.<br /><br />The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British "Carry On ..." series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a "Harry Potter" atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.<br /><br />Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride ("Boston Public," Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.<br /><br />I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain. | 1 |
I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.<br /><br />On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.<br /><br />Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it. | 0 |
I actually belong to the demographic Zoey 101 specifically is trying to target, so I can see that as much as it tries to be relatable to people my age, the premise is simply too ludicrous for an average person to relate to. The show revolves around the wealthiest boarding school in existence, and the lovely, incredibly tan, attractive gang of one-sided characters who inhabit it. As is the tradition amongst kids networks, the cast is an array of skinny white kids, with the token black guy, of course.<br /><br />The story lines all revolve around Zoey and her gang of friends stumbling upon or creating some sort of minor dilemma, such as not wanting to attend gym class, resulting in Zoey devising a scheme to save the day for all her friends. There is generally a B-line revolving around either a one- sided guest character, or placing supporting characters in completely unrealistic situations, such as having a hive of wasps in a dorm room and no one noticing. These plots often play off stereotypes, such as any character who pulls good grades in math must by default completely lack social skills. The majority of episodes have the continuous and overused will-they won't-they Chase-Zoey dynamic.<br /><br />The characters, unfortunately, are all incredibly one-sided; there is Zoey, the perfect girl with a solution to literally everything,Chase, the constantly lovesick still but rather endearing Best Friend, Michael, the token black guy (kudos to Christopher Massey for managing some genuinely funny one-liners), Lola, the theater chick (meaning she dies her hair and 75% of her dialogue is about her dreams of stardom, despite the fact that she never does anything in the actual theater), Logan, the womanizing narcissist, Dustin, the spazzy little brother, and Quinn, the science geek. The few words I spent on each of these characters sum up each character entirely.<br /><br />Zoey 101 does manage to be entertaining at times, but the serious flaws in the system of values it promotes are a major turnoff. Zoey, who is set up as the obvious role model and quasi-feminist crusader and who is on the surface portrayed as flawless, still manages major character flaws. For example, when Lola was first introduced, she was believed to be a goth girl. Zoey tried to use this as an excuse to kick her out of their shared dorm room for being "freaky".<br /><br />As for the acting, it is quite clear that Jamie Lynn Spears landed this role because of her name, not because of talent. Although she has definitely improved as time goes by, it is clear she is not a born actress, which greatly affects the quality of the show, as most of the plot lines revolve around her character. The supporting cast is surprisingly good, especially considering the material they have to work with. They deliver quite a few good one-liners for comic relief, if the plot hasn't yet ventured into obscurity.<br /><br />All in all, Zoey 101 is a flawed view at high school life, and anyone past their Limited Too years shouldn't expect much from it. | 0 |
I think that New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell wrote the best one line review of In the Mood for Love when he said that it is "dizzy with a romantic spirit that's been missing from the cinema forever." How true those words are! Truly romantic films are so rare these days, while films that include plenty of sex and nudity (which are often portrayed in a smutty and gratuitous manner) abound. So, given this cinematic climate, Wong Kar-wai's latest film feels like a much needed breath of fresh air. In the Mood for Love is about the doomed romance between two neighbors ("Mr. Chow," played by Tony Leung and "Mrs. Chan," played by Maggie Cheung), whose spouses are having an illicit affair, as they try "not to be like them." But after hanging out with each other on lonely nights (while their spouses are away "on business"/"taking care of a sick mother"), they fall madly in love, and must resist the temptation of going too far.<br /><br />Several factors are responsible for making In the Mood for Love a new classic among "romantic melodramas," in the best sense of that term. First, the specific period of the film (i.e. 1960's Hong Kong) is faithfully recreated to an astonishing degree of detail. The clothes (including Maggie Cheung's lovely dresses), the music (e.g. Nat King Cole), and the overall atmosphere of this film evokes a nostalgia for that specific period. Second, Christopher Doyle's award-winning, breathtakingly beautiful cinematography creates an environment which not only envelopes its two main characters, but seems to ooze with romantic longing in every one of its sumptuous, meticulously composed frame. Make no mistake about it: In the Mood for Love was the most gorgeous film of 2001. (It should also be mentioned that Wong Kar-wai's usual hyper-kinetic visual style is (understandably) toned down for this film, although his pallet remain just as colorful.) Third, there is the haunting score by Michael Galasso, which is accompanied by slow motion sequences of, e.g. Chan walking in her elegant dresses, Chan and Chow "glancing" at each other as they pass one another on the stairs, and other beautiful scenes which etch themselves into one's memory. The main score--which makes its instruments sound as though they're literally crying--is heard eight times throughout various points in the film and it serves to highlight the sadness and the longing which the two main characters feel. Fourth, Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung both deliver wonderful performances (Leung won the prize for best actor at Cannes) and they manage to generate real chemistry on screen.<br /><br />The above elements coalesce and work so nicely together to create a film that feels timeless, "dizzyingly romantic," and, in a word, magical. In the Mood for Love, perhaps more than any other film of 2001, reminded me why it is that I love "going to the movies." And I guess that is about the highest compliment that I can pay to a film.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I resisted seeing this movie and I understand why it was not a big hit in theatres. "October Sky" feels and looks oh so familiar. And it is. All plot contrivances and emotions have been explored before in other films -- and possibly even better. But despite it's familiarity and resistance to all formulas Hollywood, this movie is winning and likeable at every turn. <br /><br />Sputnik is the inspiration for this journey of the heart, mind and soul. Just as the characters from Steven Sondheim's musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG stood agape atop their apartment roof hoping it would launch their new generation ("What do you call it? You call it a miracle."), Sputnik has a similar affect on the young rocket boys of this true tale. While jaded townsfolk of their 1950's coal town dismiss the event, Homer Hickham sees Sputnik as his ticket out of a life in the mines.<br /><br />Masterful direction and casting make the journey of rocket boy Homer and his pals seem fresh and new. Especially affecting are subplots concerning Homer's ailing young school teacher. Remarkable restraint is shown in depicting their delicate relationship. Also remarkable is the father / son supblot that anchors the film. Perfectly played all around. Even Homer's mom gets her moment without cliche or intrusion. Her ultimatum to her husband is both dignified and heatbreaking. "Myrtle Beach" says it all. <br /><br />A major video chain I despise has a sign next to this film stating that you'll love this film or they'll refund your money. For once, I agree with them. You'll never look at the October sky quite the same again.<br /><br /> | 1 |
utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd) | 0 |
Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.<br /><br />The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies
for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.<br /><br />Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P | 0 |
Carla works for a property developer's where she excels in being unattractive, unappreciated and desperate. She is also deaf.<br /><br />Her boss offers to hire in somebody to alleviate her heavy workload so she uses the opportunity to secure herself some male company. Help arrives in the form of Paul, a tattooed hoodlum fresh out of prison and clearly unsuited to the mannered routine of an office environment.<br /><br />An implicit sexual tension develops between the two of them and Carla is determined to keep him on despite his reluctance to embrace the working week. When Carla is edged out of an important contract she was negotiating by a slimy colleague she exploits Paul's criminality by having him steal the contract back. The colleague quickly realises that she's behind the robbery, but when he confronts her, Paul's readiness to punch people in the face comes in handy too - but this thuggery comes at a price. <br /><br />Paul is given a 'going over' by some mob acquaintances as a reminder about an unpaid debt. He formulates a plan which utilises Carla's unique lip reading abilities to rip-off a gang of violent bank robbers. It's now Carla's turn to enter a frightening new world.<br /><br />The fourth feature from director Jacques Audiard, 'READ MY LIPS' begins as a thoroughly engaging romantic drama between two marginalised losers only to shift gears halfway through into an edgy thriller where their symbiotic shortcomings turn them into winners. The leads are excellent; effortlessly convincing us that this odd couple could really connect. Carla's first meeting with Paul is an enjoyable farce in which she attempts to circumnavigate his surly reticence and jailbird manners only to discover that he was, until very recently, a jailbird. Emmanuelle Devos, who plays Carla, has that almost exclusive ability to go from dowdy to gorgeous and back again within a frame. Vincent Cassel plays Paul as a cornered dog who only really seems at home when he's receiving a beating or concocting the rip-off that is likely to get him killed.<br /><br />Like many French films, 'READ MY LIPS' appears, at first, to be about nothing in particular until you scratch beneath the surface and find that it's probably about everything. The only bum note is a subplot concerning the missing wife of Paul's parole officer; a device that seems contrived only to help steer the main thrust of the story into a neat little feelgood cul-de-sac.<br /><br />It was the French 'New Wave' of the 60's that first introduced the concept of 'genre' to film making and I've always felt that any medium is somewhat compromised when you have to use a system of labels to help define it; so it's always a pleasure to discover a film that seems to transcend genre, or better still, defy it. | 1 |
I remember that i was a child when i first saw this movie, it was my first horror movie (maybe that's the reason why i can still remember some parts of it). I don't remember much about acting, nude scenes or other things but i do remember a male has head blown up with a grenade, a male dismembered over a tree and a male run down by truck and shot in head :) (Todd Schaefer, Kenny Johnson and Kevin McParland). I also remember the last scene when Jennifer McAllister riped of the killer stomach to get the keys of the truck. It's a movie that gives you the creep and it's worth a look. But where do i find it? How can i download it? | 1 |
Every once in a while a film comes along with characters we all know and love. A film where you see people you know portrayed on screen. It's cinema very at its best.<br /><br />Lackawanna Blues is that film. Set in 1960s upstate New York, the story surrounds a rock- solid woman, who is the foundation for her community. This, based on a true story film, is told from a child she accepted as her own. This child, Ruben Santiago-Hudson wrote the screenplay.<br /><br />*Emmy winner, S. Epatha Merkerson stars as Nanny, a woman who has wit, drive and determination for helping others in her boarding home. She does this as she wrestles with infidelity from her young lover, Bill Crosby, played by the **Oscar nominated Terrence Howard. <br /><br />But make no mistake; see this film for the amazing performance of Merkerson, who is brilliant in this role. She encompasses a person we have all known, and perhaps love.<br /><br />Lackawanna Blues is already on DVD; be sure to pick it up at your local video story today.<br /><br />*Merkerson has already won an Emmy, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild for this role.<br /><br />**Howard has an Oscar nomination for his role in Hustle & Flow. | 1 |
I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.<br /><br />The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.<br /><br />Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.<br /><br />First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.<br /><br />First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.<br /><br />Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.<br /><br />Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know... | 1 |
I can't believe I watched this expecting more. It starts out OK. This movie pushes the limits of reality way to far!! At least the first one was somewhat realistic. It rips off the first movie and even mentions the Joshua Project. Anyone who knows anything about computers will hate this movie. It does have one good message in it though, WATCH OUT FOR BIG BROTHER!!! The movie just makes it seem like Big Brother is way bigger than he actually is in reality. That was very aggravating. Even the make-up on the actors was completely bad. Some of the acting is pretty good. Some of the acting is really bad though. The script was OK at some points and completely messed up at other parts. This movie plays on convenience about every five minutes. Like I said, I can't believe I watched it expecting more. I think I am gonna pop in the original to get back to earth...Q | 0 |
When King Kong stripped her of her top in the 1976 remake, I was breathless. I don't know how many times I went back to see that movies hoping to see more. Jessica Lange was not a great actress then (She became one), but she was so hot! I went to see "Sweet Dreams" when it came out because, by that time, Ms. Lange had become a great actress. It looked like a wonderful story. And she's always exciting to see.<br /><br />I never walked out of a movie faster. My wife concurred.<br /><br />When we got into the car, I turned to her, and said, "If you had told me I would get bored watching Jessica Lange take her clothes off, I would have said your crazy. I just got bored watching Jessice Lange take her clothes off!" How bad is that? | 0 |
Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.<br /><br />Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.<br /><br />"Gung Ho" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.<br /><br />You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way. | 1 |
This was a flick doomed from its conception. The very idea of it was lame - take a minor character from a mediocre PG-13 film, and make a complete non-sequel while changing its tone to a PG-rated family movie. I wasn't the least bit interested. Then came the trailer. Not only did it only confirm that the film would be unfunny and generic, but it also managed to give away the ENTIRE movie; and I'm not exaggerating - every moment, every plot point, every joke is told in the trailer. It's like a 3-minute Cliff's Notes version of the flick. So obviously I wasn't gonna pay to see it, but once it hit DVD, I thought sure, I'll watch it for free. Maybe Steve Carell can save it.<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />I'm still baffled as to why he signed on for this. He must have owed someone a favor. The jokes were all so flat and obvious, and the director obviously asked him to go for very broad comedy style like the original Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. But it's just not funny. The studio obviously tried to cash in on the success of 40-Year-Old Virgin, complete with several of Carell's past co-stars, a reference to the flick on a theater marquee, and another musical closing credits sequence. But even the talented Carrell can't save this. His co-stars don't fare much better, with people like Morgan Freeman, Jonah Hill, and Ed Helms just wasted. Wanda Sykes isn't wasted, she's just a waste in anything she does, and her horrible one-liners and reactions just make you wish people would stop giving her work.<br /><br />The story itself is just predictable and lazy. It pounds you over the head with obvious foreshadowing, like Evan's disregard for the environment (drives a gas-guzzling Humvee, opts to use wood from endangered trees for his house, hates animals,...), and by the end it's just over-the-top preachy on both faith and the environment.<br /><br />Why the movie was made at all is puzzling enough, but I really don't understand how it reportedly became the most expensive comedy ever. The only real effects work is the presence of all the animals, and the integration of those into the scenes is some of the worst and most obvious blue/green-screen work I've ever seen. Maybe the rental of the live animals on set cost a fortune. Who knows. But whatever it was that cost them so much, it didn't translate to quality, that's for sure. But hey, it wasn't the worst film of the year by far. There's still plenty of worse duds like Norbit and Death Proof. | 0 |
Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30 minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny. They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like to laugh rent this one. | 1 |
(Caution: several spoilers)<br /><br />Someday, somewhere, there's going to be a post-apocalyptic movie made that doesn't stink. Unfortunately, THE POSTMAN is not that movie, though I have to give it credit for trying.<br /><br />Kevin Costner plays somebody credited only as "the Postman." He's not actually a postman, just a wanderer with a mule in the wasteland of a western America devastated by some unspecified catastrophe. He trades with isolated villages by performing Shakespeare. Suddenly a pack of bandits called the Holnists, the self-declared warlords of the West, descend upon a village that Costner's visiting, and their evil leader Gen. Bethlehem (Will Patton) drafts Costner. After much misery and numerous efforts to break Costner's spirit, he escapes, thus ending a lengthy section of the movie that could have been told better in a three-minute flashback.<br /><br />We now finally get to the major premise: the escaped Costner finds an abandoned mail truck and delivers the letters to the nearest town, hoping to get some food under pretense of being a postman. A number of the village people led by young Ford (Larenz Tate) want to get in on this postman act, which does not sit well with Bethlehem and his bandits, and Costner finds himself the unwitting and unwilling leader of a band of postmen at war with the Holnists.<br /><br />The idea of The Postmen versus The Bad Guys is not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Holnists depend for their livelihood on the fact that the villages they prey on are isolated from one another; the Holnists can destroy any one village, but could not stand against all their victims united. To unite, the villages must communicate with one another, and a working mail system would thus be a big step toward putting the Holnists out of business. So it really makes a lot of sense that Bethlehem would get medieval on our heroic mail carriers. Unfortunately, Bethlehem's eventual defeat is not the result of the villages uniting against him, but instead your old standby cliche, the one-on-one brawl between him and Costner. Nor is there even any real attempt by the communities to use the mail to work together to solve their problems; all the mail seems to be the standard "Hi, Aunt Debbie" stuff played for maximum sentimental value.<br /><br />THE POSTMAN is one of the most predictable movies, shot for shot, that I have ever seen. Now, I don't purposely try to ruin movies for myself by straining to figure out what's going to happen next. But here we're talking about the kind of predictability that requires no effort; I just knew what was going to happen next whether or not I wanted to know. After a lion is prominently showcased eating people, a Holnist bandit seeking the escaped Costner ventures into the bushes after a noise, and we are then "shocked" when the lion eats him. A bunch of unoffending villagers are rounded up and shot by a firing squad, and one of the villagers sings out some Famous Last Words right before being shot, to my immense lack of surprise. A covered statue is unveiled to show exactly what everyone knew was going to be there: Costner bending to pick up a letter from a cutesy kid we saw earlier in the movie. A man tells Bethlehem that no sir, you can't just take my wife; Bethlehem runs the unsuspecting sod through, though he is the only person in the theater who is unsuspecting.<br /><br />But it is rank, cloying sentimentality that really undoes THE POSTMAN. Olivia Williams, playing Costner's lover Abby, is worst served. She pours her heart into the material and gives her very best effort to make it sound natural and sincere. She tries so hard, it's heart-breaking. But nobody could ever have made the lines "I have a gift for you, Postman . . . You give out hope like it's candy in your pocket" sound like anything but the syrupy pap that they are. Another example is the scene where a mounted Costner thunders past a little boy, ignoring his proffered letter, only to turn around, stare at him for what seems like five minutes, and then thunder back to pick up the letter. Why didn't Costner just pick it up the first time? No real reason; it's just an artifice that tries and fails to give us a feeling of elation by dashing the kid's hopes and then restoring them.<br /><br />Schmaltz and predictability unite at the end as the statue of the Postman is revealed. I sat thinking, "Please don't tell me they're going to show the statue and then cut back to the scene with the cutesy kid. Surely that is too saccharine, too obvious for even this movie." Then, alas, the music swelled and we did indeed cut back to the dreaded little boy smiling as his letter to his maiden aunt is whisked away, and I held my head in my hands and thought, "Somebody shoot me." It felt like having thirty pounds of apple pie rammed down my throat.<br /><br />Gen. Bethlehem is a more humanized villain than normal. Your standard-issue post-apocalyptic villain is the meanest, toughest S.O.B. in the valley. Bethlehem is shown to be a little nothing of a man inside, who tries to make himself feel important by beating up on others. Although some menace is thereby sacrificed, Bethlehem is credible in a way most villains aren't. Unfortunately, Will Patton overacts. And although we are told early on that Bethlehem utterly destroyed his last challenger in five seconds of hand-to-hand combat, Bethlehem's actual fighting skills shown at the end of the movie are absolutely ludicrous.<br /><br />The acting is otherwise pretty good. Costner has done better, but his Razzie was an overreaction. As mentioned, Olivia Williams is very impressive. Larenz Tate as Ford does a sincere and credible job. James Newton Howard's score is competent, though short of the epic standards the movie was going for. But it's not enough to save this film.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 out of ****. | 0 |
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable. | 0 |
Saw the move while in Paris in May 2006 ... I was debating between that and mission impossible...I am very glad I choose OSS 117 not only because it was funny but might as well watch a FRench movie while in France. I had a great time... would recommend it. It is important to have some understanding the French society of Today to really enjoy the humor of this movie ... cannot wait for the DVD to come out... I don't know how some of the 'jeu De mots' 'puns' would be translated in English I 'll certainly buy it when it is out! P.S. I saw on 'BRice de Nice' which is a movie starring Dujardin that all kids were talking about in France. this movie is a comedy but sillier than one can imagine...in comparing both movies I have to say that Dujardin did a good job in OSS 117. | 1 |
Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.<br /><br />Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!<br /><br />I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more. | 1 |
Saw this on SBS TV here in Australia the other week, where it was titled "Laputa: Castle in the sky". I had enabled subtitles and I think SBS provided their own for that, which, as usual, was of very good quality.<br /><br />Just looked up "Laputa" on Wikipedia and it confirms what I suspected...the floating island of this tale is taken from the classic Jonathan Swift novel "Gulliver's travels", which was published in the early to mid 1700s.<br /><br />Anyway, this is an engaging Japanese fairytale, which features an English speaking voice-cast. It's suitable for young children, I think, but it does run at just over two hours in length, so it may be too long for some, though not for an adult like me.<br /><br />The story concerns two children who seek to find a legendary floating island which has a castle on it. The children are not the only ones looking for this island. They have pirates, the army and spies looking for the island too, and looking to capture the children (Sheeta, the girl, voiced by Anna Paquin, and Pazu, the boy, voiced by James Van Der Beek) in order to help them find it.<br /><br />The graphics are magnificent...sort of photo-realistic at times, especially the scenes of stonework lit by torch-light, or the pretty scenes of bright, sunny days, with white clouds, or mist.<br /><br />Recommended. | 1 |
I watched this film in a Singapore theatre yesterday (4 February, 2006)and came away with a better understanding of what schizophrenia patients and their loved ones go through.<br /><br />Ms Aparna Sen must be congratulated for not only taking on a difficult subject, but also treating the mentally challenged with a deep understanding of their predicament that is necessary to help them cope with the trauma of disorientation, hallucinations and the storm of turmoil raging in their minds.<br /><br />We have had Hollywood movies on this subject such as "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" where Jack Nicholson carried away the honours. Since then research has helped provide more insights into the problem and clearing some misconceptions about treatment. In "... cuckoo's nest," for example shock therapy has been portrayed as barbaric, but in "15 ..." the point has been made that it is not as bad as it has been made out to be.<br /><br />The other misconception is that abuse in childhood is a cause for schizophrenia. But scholars such as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey have emphasised that studies have shown that childhood schizophrenia is a brain disease and is thought to have some genetic roots.<br /><br />It is now established that schizophrenia can be treated like any clinical ailment and its advance can be checked if detected early. Even in fairly advanced stages regular medication and counselling can be effective.<br /><br />The same understanding shown by Ms Sen is evident in the way the actors play out their parts. In keeping with the gravity of the theme, the acting is controlled throughout with Ms Konkana Sen-Sharma's evocative silences and eyes mirroring the helpless confusion of a disturbed mind speaking louder than some of the rantings we are used to in most of the movies that have included mentally challenged characters.<br /><br />Like me most of the audience in the theatre appeared confused at the abrupt ending. It leaves lot of questions hanging in terms of the plot.<br /><br />Has Meethi's search ended? Why is she not found in No. 15? Were children actually playing when Meethi strode past the gates with her eyes sparkling with recognition? Can anyone sort out this jigsaw puzzle? | 1 |
This era was not just the dawn of sound in cartoons, but of a cartoon character which would go down in history as the world's most famous mouse. Yes, Mickey makes his debut here, in this cheery tale of life on board a steamboat. The animation is good for it's time, and the plot - though a little simple - is quite jolly. A true classic, and if you ever manage to get it on video, you won't regret it. | 1 |
Couldn't believe it! Clipped sentences? Good grief! Know what? All true! Real people ever talk like this? Don't think so. Good girl! Stout fellow! Stiffen upper lip! Only reason given movie 2 instead of 0 Gary Cooper such a dish. Movie as a whole ridiculous unless you like watching endless biplane dogfights. Seemed endless, anyway. Think all Franchot Tone's dialogue dubbed. When Crawford and Young make a special effort to sound British they come over as Irish. Handy tip - we Brits clip words, not sentences. And somehow we manage to draaaaaaaawl at the same time. But that's only if we've been to a really good public (that's private to you) school. | 0 |
George C. Scott gives his finest and funniest with wonderful drama as well in this Paddy Chayefsky screenplay. Diana Rigg is attractive and quite the complicated young woman. This film veers between tragedy and chaos in a New York hospital of the late 60's with staggering consequences. Barnard Hughes is delightful as always (great stage actor as well).<br /><br />An 8 out of 10. Best performance = George C. Scott. Chayesfsky was a big blow-hard when he put down Vanessa Redgrave at the 1978 Oscar ceremony, but he's a good writer. A truly ensemble cast that works wonders, down to the smallest role. This won best script at Oscars and Scott was nominated. He should have won for this instead of PATTON the year before (which he was also brilliant in). Seek this out! | 1 |
I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired) where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being "deadly boring" an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare! <br /><br />Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember) where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972]) the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).<br /><br />While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme adopting orange/red/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).<br /><br />With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.<br /><br />I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location) namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plot
except that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called "Footsteps On The Moon" (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself) amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future) and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface
! <br /><br />The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of "Carmen" titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968) also with Nero and Kinski as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matinée broadcast of it)
but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly! | 1 |
Watched this piece ONDEMAND because the description was kind of outlandish. This film stinks of cocaine, the opening scene alone must have cost at least five figures in blow to film. This is a racist, homophobic piece of garbage that plods along for a good 1hr and 22mins with absolutely no direction. I am a little confused on how this has good reviews here. I won't bother telling you the plot line because as far as I can tell there is no plot. I'm pretty sure everyone showed up to the set everyday did giant lines, dressed Loretta Switt in plunging necklines to show as much flapjack breastage as possible and yelled action; letting the cast improvise in a cocaine frenzy. Much like real beer this movie nearly caused my liver to fail half way through. Save your money, and watch 'Strange Brew' instead. | 0 |
Atlantis: The Lost Empire has some of the best, smoothest animation and cleverly written dialogue of any Disney movie I've seen. And I was convinced of that in the first 15 minutes. I especially love Don Novello's voice work on Vincenzo Santorini and Phil Morris as Joshua Strongbear Sweet. Too bad the whole film seems to move at about double the pace that would be appropriate - at least in the first act. One important aspect of any Disney movie is a satisfying antagonist - which Atlantis doesn't provide. He's average at best. Halfway through the movie there's a mediocre twist. That's all. It's a great movie nevertheless. Everyone should check it out. | 1 |
This film would be considered controversial today, but is still very funny. The racial stereotyping is done from the view of humor & not hate. This film strips off & shows how corrupt politicians already were in the early 1930's. This film proves it started before the 1970's & beyond when it has accelerated in the United States. Lloyd is still in his typical genre here, even though his character was raised in China. <br /><br />The meaning of a Cat's Paw in this instance is a person who is running for political office but is being used by the established political machine to advance their agenda. In other words, they think this guy (Lloyd)is harmless when he runs for office. Then when he gets elected, he surprises them.<br /><br />This same theme is used later in James Stewarts film Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Stewarts is more famous & has a stronger message. This film is more clever & subtle which are Harold Lloyds trademarks. <br /><br />There is still the heart of romantic comedy hidden with the facade of the movie but today's mainstream audiences would still appreciate the political humor & the ending is absolutely priceless. I wish someone could beat today's political system in this way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film & find myself wishing Harold had done more like it during the 1930's. <br /><br />At least we have this one. I think the person who is quoted most in the movie is fictional Ling Po. I always thought Confusicus was the wise one but this one makes me believe the wisdom of China was not limited to him & is a vast field of comedy Lloyd mined in this movie. | 1 |
Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.<br /><br />I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that??? <br /><br />Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.<br /><br />Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself. | 0 |
Saw it at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Fest.<br /><br />What can I say? Against my better judgment, I liked it, but it seemed to me that that acting was a little...weak (mostly I noticed this from the family of the teen boy). I mean, the script wasn't stellar to begin with, but the actors didn't make me believe the relationships.<br /><br />The plot is also predictable.<br /><br />Nonethelss, I liked it. The characters are likable, and the plot is not challenging or upsetting. It's sweet, the characters care about each other, and I don't count it as fifty minutes ill-spent. <br /><br />But I don't recommend it. | 0 |
I love Aaron carter but even i expected pop star to be predictable, but i was so wrong! Aaron carter was really funny in it and a great actor! Also the actress who played Jane was a brilliant actress! Every one who i no who watched it loved it!<br /><br />The music in it was also really good!<br /><br />The my favourite lines from the film is "you cant send me to a public school mom! Im a CELEBRIDEE!!" and "Take your time, it'l come to you!"<br /><br />Although the endings kind of cheesy,all the good chick flicks do! This film is great, and a proper good Chick flick, that i can watch over and over again! | 1 |
Good story and excellent animation. The influence of Frazetta and Bakshi are obvious, and that's a good thing. Anyone that enjoys Conan the Barbarian or the game Dungeons and Dragons should enjoy it. The battle between good and evil is clear cut even though it may appear that at times our hero is neutral. Most often in fantasy movies Elves are usually portrayed as having white skin and blond hair and goblins and orcs have dark skin and hair. Anyone familiar with Frazetta's, Bakshi's, or even Tolkien's work know they are not racist. Anyone that enjoys Fantasy movies should like this movie. It is not for young children due to violence and sexual innuendo. The casting was well done and the scenes and music are first rate. I hope someone puts this gem on DVD soon. I consider myself lucky to have a VHS copy in good condition. | 1 |
In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. "R Xmas" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Gangues do Gueto" ("Gangs of the Ghetto") | 0 |
I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie. | 0 |
Poor Casper Van Dien, his career has slid a long way from Tarzan and Starship Troopers.<br /><br />In Meltdown he's a policeman who just happens to be dating TV reporter Stefanie Von Pfeten and her brother is a scientist who's trying to deal with a speeding comment headed for Earth. But in the runaway comet business, even a near miss causes some real problems as the Earth's orbit goes out of kilter.<br /><br />From the survival of the Earth we go to the survival of Van Dien and his immediate family. His daughter's gangbanger boyfriend, Ryan McDonell actually proves to be of some use especially when he suspects a guy he knows as a crooked cop might mean the Van Dien group a lot of harm.<br /><br />My only question here is, why didn't they have Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of that crew to deal with the nasty comet?<br /><br />Pass this one up folks. | 0 |
Turned out to be a classy production with what must have been a low budget. The variety of characters is amazing, from axe-wielding dwarfs to 7ft ghouls! I enjoyed the relationship between the leads, not overly sentimental but romantic enough to keep the interest going. I also enjoyed the mix of humour (which can be very easy to get wrong, too much/not enough) which meant it didn't get too dark, nor too spoofy. It was a great step up from Eaves' other efforts, Hellbreeder and Sanitarium, in terms of storyline and production. They have a great website which is worth checking out. Can't wait for Bane, if the level of improvement continues, it should be fantastic. | 1 |
Robert Altman's "Quintet" is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.<br /><br />I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera. | 0 |
A truly muddled incomprehensible mess. Most things in the film look more or less like 1987, but then there are futuristic things just thrown in, like the policeman's ray gun. And that car! The director seemed to be in love with colored lights. The only really notable performance was the girl who played Valerie, but since there was no cast listing, I don't know which actress that was. This one is worth missing. Grade: F | 0 |
It is a wonderful film about people. Strange people. The characters in the movie all have a very tragic past, so they all have their problems. Their problems evolve in a way that makes the plot of the movie very absurd; but that does not make the movie worse, only better, for it is shot in a kind of fantasy-like way, so nothing is real. This review might sound a little weird, but then again, the movie is not quite normal... It is also a hilarious movie at many times. If you have not seen it, see it. Enjoy! | 1 |
The case is the best part of the movie but it alone is not worth the purchase price. I expected a "Based on the true story" movie only to find a shot on home video hodge-podge of poorly shot clips tied together with pathetic acting and non-related slaughter house scenes. The video scenes had numerous rewind situations which were used probably to extend the length of the feature rather than for effects. I started this review before I was even halfway through the movie and waited till it was over just in case it had a better ending but, low and behold it only got worse. If I could mark it any lower it would have been a negative ten. Learn from my mistake and save your money and time with this one. | 0 |
This is a beautifully filmed movie that questions the future of all indigenous peoples, especially nomadic tribesmen. Focusing on the Saltmen of Tibet, the film moves at pace that may make some western viewers uncomfortable. For some peoples, life still proceeds at the same pace which it has for thousands of years. This film follows a group of tribesmen on their annual two month quest to get salt. Their tribe lives its life in a traditional manner (slowly by modern standards) and always accounting to their many gods. This is a remarkable film, one which will preserve a piece of what may, unfortunately, become history. Well worth the time. Don't be in a rush when you see it. | 1 |
I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.<br /><br />The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.<br /><br />Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at. <br /><br />In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it. | 0 |
Ugghhh!!! This is exactly the sort of Pre-Code film that could incorrectly convince the viewer that films from this time period are lousy--and they are NOT--it's just that this particular film is horrid. Horrid because while the film tries very hard to be "hip" and "adult", it also is so hopelessly old fashioned, dull and hokey that I was torn between laughing at the film or just falling asleep!! This is a unique combination, to say the least.<br /><br />So why, exactly, did I hate it so much? Well, the film is incredibly sleazy but has no style and the film is meant to shock but lacks subtlety and takes too many ridiculous turns to be believable. The film begins with a cliché--a hooker with a heart of gold. Dorothy Mackaill is a prostitute and she appears to accidentally kill a man! Shortly after making her escape, she meets up with an old boyfriend who insists on marrying her (he doesn't realize her profession). Seeing this man's innate goodness, she determines to change her life and stop living the wild life. This is tough when she hides out on a fictional Caribbean island. Here, alone and waiting for her man to return, there is nothing to do and the place is infested with super-horny and totally unappealing men. In fact this portion of the movie is so dull, that the audience might have a hard time staying focused. The men on the island are so inflamed by the presence of Mackaill that they perpetually seem on the verge of raping her--only to be rebuffed because she isn't that sort of girl any more. Frankly, I got very tired of all these salacious scenes--there is simply too much eye rolling and tongue-wagging to make it seem anything other than a very bad film. And looking at all these ugly horn-dogs was just annoying and stupid.<br /><br />But wait,...it gets a lot worse. The man she THOUGHT she killed shows up on this tiny island (what are the odds?!) and he tries to rape her as well. However, he's not to be dissuaded and she ends up shooting to save her new-found virtue. While the jury on the island is about to acquit her, she rushes back into court and lies--telling them she meant to kill the man and it was premeditated (?) because even if she's acquitted, she knows the evil jailer will have his way with her when she is sent to jail for a gun possession charge. Given that the jailer himself gave her the gun to set her up, her rushing into the court and saying she was guilty seemed really, really silly. Why didn't she just tell them the jailer's twisted plan?! Supposedly she did this in order to preserve her virtue but to admit to killing someone so people will think you are a virgin?! So, in order to avoid a short jail sentence (and, once again, the threat of rape), she doesn't consider telling the court that he is trying to force her into a sexually compromising situation (the jailer has promised to rape her when she is locked up). And, just before she is taken to the gallows (in order to avoid the rape), the boyfriend shows up in time for her to send him off and the credits roll.<br /><br />Impossible situation and coincidences abound--coming so often that the film is just dumb. Combining this with all the sexual innuendo, this makes for a bad AND sleazy mess of a film which will only appeal to the most die-hard fans of Pre-Code films. All others, beware, this is very sticky and silly from start to finish! | 0 |
MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an "author" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.<br /><br />It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression. | 0 |
The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual, you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming. | 0 |
The mountainous woods, young happy campers, a warning by a park ranger and a lurking figure. The ingredients are there for a horror delight, and director/co-writer Jeff Lieberman does an adequate job at achieving it. It's formulaic woodland horror, but for most part the execution is at the top the game and the story (which is quite basic in a trimmed sense) is effectively told in certain realism. Maybe a little more exposition wouldn't have gone astray, but Lieberman's craftsmanship makes up for the material's flaws and typical details with rising tension, moody visuals and a smothering atmosphere created by Brad Fiedel's very ominously lingering score. Whenever that very creepy whistling was cued in, it painted a truly unnerving sense that settled in with the beautiful backdrop. Cinematographers Dean M. and Joel King do a striking job too. There's plenty of style abound, even with its minimal scope and the build-up is slow grinding. At times the pacing can become a stop-and-go affair. It's not particularly violent, but there's still a mean-streak evident even if some of it happens of screen. The latter chase scenes and escalating fear is well done, as it has the darkness coming alive with itS burly killer/s and you get actor George Kennedy riding his white horse in a slight, but wonderful turn. There's a likable bunch of performances; Deborah Benson makes for a strong, dashing heroine. Gregg Henry, Chris Lemmon Ralph Seymour, Jamie Rose, Mike Kellin and Katie Powell round off a modest cast of believable deliveries. The final climax is rather twisted, but the ending is one of those types that leave you thinking
"Is that it?" <br /><br />A well-etched backwoods slasher item, which probably plays it a little too safe to truly set it apart from the norm. | 1 |
It is by far the most definitive film on the police force which I have seen. Although not directed by Ram Gopal Varma, it has all the elements of an RGV film. Dead straight dialogues, blunt treatment of the subject, brilliant direction, and superb performances (even by those with little job to do in the movie). The chemistry between Nana and the Don, even if they are professional rivals, is amazing. And so are the small events like an insider not giving information to Imtiaz even while he is being bashed up in the locker, but only to Nana when he is out. The change in working conditions with the change of the senior is dealt wonderfully. The first half keeps one absolutely engrossed, moving like a documentary with Nana acting like a mentor to Jatin explaining to him the intricacies and philosophy of the work.<br /><br />Overall one of the most brilliant films on cops in Indian cinema. Definitely not to be missed. | 1 |
I was thirteen years old, when I saw this movie. I expected a lot of action. Since Escape From New York was 16-rated in Germany I entered the movie as fallback. It was so boring. Afterwards I realized that this was just crap where a husband exhibits his wife. I mean today you do this via internet and you pay for instant access. It is more then 20 years ago, but I am still angry that I waste my time with this film. This is a soft-porno for schoolboys. Undressing Bo Derek and painting her with color - nice. But then they should named the film Undressing Bo and painting her. | 0 |
Three giant sabretooth tigers(..created in a laboratory from mitochondrial DNA, a "genetic breakthrough" derived from fossil material)are on the rampage accidentally set free through a series of events(such as a computer geek's introduced virus in order to unlock security measures keeping the resort novelty shops closed during construction & a security guard's leaving a gate open while searching for the missing page from a porn mag that flew away in the breeze)that threaten the lives of those it comes in contact with. The tigers are always hungry, but are unable to digest what they eat. So pretty much the tigers just rip their prey to shreds. Victims include a group of college kids(..the stereotypes include a goth girl, jock and tech nerd), security personnel, and those somewhat developed rich scoundrels who we can easily despise and wish horrible death.<br /><br />Rounding out a series of bad sci-fi channel flicks, Attack of the Sabretooth has some of the most wretched computer simulated animals I've seen yet. And, the final death sequence is so putridly presented, you'll demand within the deepest recesses of your soul the time spent on this truly awful exercise in the creature feature canon. There's some good dark humor deriving from heads being torn from necks, but even here the prosthetic work is unconvincing. Prosthetic body parts and blood aplenty as victims are pounced upon, crying for help and receiving none. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, repeating myself in every user comment I write for these sci-fi channel flicks. I think maybe it's time to move on to other kinds of cinema. Robert Carradine has a role as a ruthless businessman who is being wooed by his truly repellent ex-brother-in-law, Nicholas Bell, the one opening "Primal Park", a resort / zoo featuring genetically created sabretooth tigers as it's major attraction. Stacy Haiduk, still quite yummy, is a security officer who attempts to convince Bell to get the investors he hopes to goad into putting money in his multi-million dollar project to leave the island. Brian Wimmer is Haiduck's lover and his role is a mechanic keeping operations running smoothly.<br /><br />Bell's fate at the end, resulting from a dislodged tooth from a sabretooth tiger statue is the pits. Carradine spends a great deal of the film taunting Bell, his arch nemesis. The tiger's point-of-view shows humans in a bright color as it moves towards them. The film ultimately consists of characters walking through darkened corridors(..the tech nerd's virus cut off the power)worried for their safety. The college kids commit breaking and entering to score certain items needed(..it's a scavenger hunt type of activity)to enter a fraternity / sorority. The cast playing these kids do not rise above their clichés. | 0 |
This particular film was one that I wanted to see in theaters, but never got around to it. When I finally rented it in the summer of 2001 I enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought the DVD soon after. Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake did a wonderful job with the screenplay and are wonderful to listen to on the audio commentary that is included on the DVD. They did a great job in creating characters that you really care about. I really felt a whirlwind of emotions watching this film including sadness, anxiety and joy. The film also does a great job in showing the importance of family (a rarity in film today), which is a reflection of the director, Bonnie Hunt, based on the comments she made on the DVD. David Duchovny showed me here that there is life beyond Fox Mulder giving a wonderful performance with some pretty poignant scenes. I highly recommend that you give this movie a viewing. I am really thankful to the creators of this film. They have given me a wonderful piece of cinematic viewing that I will recommend to all my friends. I have seen a lot of movies over the years and it is very rare that I come away with such a feeling of satisfaction after watching a film. I will watch this time and time again for years to come. Return to Me reminds me that there are still moviemakers out there that know how to sincerely please their movie audiences. Thanks!! | 1 |
How does a Scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather? Very,very carefully.Now I have the distinct advantage over many other of the reviewers in that I was born in Scotland.Far too many Americans take this simplistic nonsense seriously.It's a joke,people,"four legs good - two legs bad",as Orwell had it. Jessica Lange has an accent that the Wells - next - the - sea Amateur Dramatic Society's production of "Brigadoon" would turn down. Liam Neeson - apparently popular with the ladies - wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose Great Grandmama once stepped off the train at Edinburgh Waverley. And the Auld Enemy?Where would the Scots be without them to hate and blame for everything?Messrs Roth,Cox and Hurt should be ashamed for indulging in such racist stereotyping. "Robin Hood - Prince of thieves" seems a masterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison.And at least Alan Rickman was funny. | 0 |
This movie is based on the true story of Christopher Boyce and his friend Daunton Lee. This fascinating story takes place around the time of the Whitlam Dismissal, in which during his time as a clerk for TRW, Christopher was privy to classified correspondence which admitted the CIA's involvement in Australian political and union circles. The movie shows several scenes involving Gough Whitlam (transmitted over US TV), where events take place which confirm the classified documents that Christopher had read previously. The removal of Gough Whitlam was an organized CIA coup. Elsewhere in the film, it was mentioned that most people have no idea about the level of deception that goes on, ultimately to ensure that the US is used as a vehicle to promote certain policies at the behest of everyone else. In the current age, nothing has changed.<br /><br />Christopher's life was profoundly affected, read shocked, by his knowledge of what and how the CIA shapes foreign democracies, including the democracies of allied nations to the United States. Christopher reacted, probably not in the best way at the time, by selling top secret information to the Soviet Union with Daunton Lee acting as his exchange. Eventually Christopher and Daunton were captured and convicted of treason.<br /><br />On 23rd May 1982, whilst serving time in US prison, Christopher Boyce agreed to a one and only interview with Ray Martin of 60 Minutes Australia because it was the Australian connection that profoundly affected him. It caused a furore in the Australian media for about a week, then it went hushed.<br /><br />I liked the movie's symbolism of the falcon, and in it Chris was called the Falcon, and Daunton the Snowman (drug connection), but in reality the title "Falcon" was not something that was used by Chris.<br /><br />Christopher Boyce: Criminal or Man of Conscience? You decide.<br /><br />Resources: http://www.playitforwardoz.com/boyce.html | 1 |
In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films | 1 |
Criminally Insane 2 is included on the new DVD of Satan's Black Wedding/Criminally Insane, and it's a good thing too, because when I've seen a movie and know there's a sequel (especially something that's as obscure as this) I'm always curious. I've now had my curiosity satisfied and will never watch this again. Most of CI2 is nothing but "flashbacks" to CI, and footage of Ethel asleep, recalling fond memories, I guess. Thanks to Proposition 13 she's released from Napa State (wonder if she got to see The Cramps play while she was there?) and sent to a halfway house run by a nice old lady that Ethel promptly takes to calling "granny". This is all filmed with a video camera so the picture and sound are rather pathetic, and it's even complete with a couple of "rolls". Of course Ethel does her thing, which is to dispatch anyone between her and food, especially the guy that witnesses one of her acts of mayhem and extorts her dessert. Also, you have to wonder about any halfway house for murderers having a big drawer full of sharp knives in the kitchen and rat poison under the kitchen sink. Guess that's all a matter of misguided "trust". If you liked or disliked Criminally Insane, either way there's no good reason to watch this except out of curiosity. One wonders why the makers of this even bothered. 2 out of 10. | 0 |
Okay, now, I know there are millions of Americans who believe in The Rapture: that moment when all people born again in Christ will be raptured up to meet God and all the rest of humanity will be left on earth to perish in plagues and fire and the heartbreak of psoriasis as the Antichrist battles it out with Jesus (in an uncharacteristically warlike mode). And I know the books were best sellers. . .among believers, anyway. And I mean no disrespect to all that.<br /><br />But I have to say, they stuffed this movie into a sack and beat it with the Suck Stick.<br /><br />I'm sure the books are much better. Really.<br /><br />The plot needs no reprising. If you've watched this movie, chances are you read the book. I may be one of the only people on earth who actually watched this just for the sheer bad-moving-making experience, and I wasn't disappointed. Especially not by Kirk Cameron, the creepy little "Growing Pains" gremlin, who came of age on that show, found Christ, and decided that the SHOW should reflect his Christian values. Well, Kirk, your career has gone to the dogs, but now you can be happy that you're spreading the word of God in movies so bad, they never even make it to theatrical release. Well, that's not strictly true: I guess this was the only movie ever made that went to DVD FIRST, with a voucher for a free viewing of the movie when it was briefly released in theaters! I still have the voucher! How many people do you suppose showed up? I don't know about you, but it never came to my town. Of course, I live in NYC, where we Godless liberals sit around tearing pages out of the bible and use them to roll joints. So there you go. In fact, I'll bet out of three million people on Manhattan Island, not one would be raptured.<br /><br />Check out the supplementary materials on the DVD, where you'll learn the creepy behind the scenes details of these movies. . .the CAST and CREW all must be of the same religious mindset. They don't come right out and say this, but listen closely to what the filmmakers say. It's like a bunch of Pod People got together to make a Pod movie. How creepazoid is that? Honestly, this stuff just preaches to the converted, doesn't it? Can you imagine anyone who DOESN'T subscribe to the whole apocalypse thing watching this, slapping his forehead and saying, "HOLY HOOVER DAM! I better get saved PRONTO!" Anyhow, I'm hooked. I gotta see the rest of these Christian fiasco movies, especially the one with Gary Busey, which I think is TRIBULATIONS. At least Busey has an excuse for taking the part.. . .he cracked his head on some pavement when he crashed his motorcycle.<br /><br />Oy.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. What's with all the shots of poor,innocent dogs whimpering, their leashes dragging uselessly along the ground, because their owners have been called to heaven? What's up with that? Are we supposed to feel badly for the dogs, and if we do, what are we to make of God? Doesn't it IRK people that there's no room in heaven for man's best friend? Foo.<br /><br />This is one more reason I'm agnostic. Good night and good luck. | 0 |
Big fat liar is a pretty funny movie. But as I was watching it, I thought about something. Some of the events that occur in this film are unbelievable. So really, the film is kind of a big fat lie. There is no way that he could've gotten away with all of this. Here are all of the unbelievable stuff.<br /><br />1. When he fakes his father had choked on a meatball, and acts like he is the father. Jason(Frankie Munez) couldn't have gotten away with that. Well, luckily for us, he didn't. So it didn't stick with it, the outrageous.<br /><br />2.Even if the Grandmother was blind, she still could've figured out that that wasn't her granddaughter. <br /><br />3.They couldn't have gotten on the plane, flown to L.A., acted like they were coat salesmen, sneak into the studio, and then, and then... Well, some of the film is a little unbelievable. But it doesn't hurt to tell a little white lie. Trust me, I do it all the time.<br /><br />Big fat liar, though unbelievable at times, is fun. It's also very funny. But let me just say one thing before I continue this review. If Paul Giamatti wasn't in this movie, it would really suck. It would be horrible. Big fat liar is also pretty funny, though corny at times. I give it a thumbs up.<br /><br />Big fat liar:***/**** | 1 |
Munchies starts in deepest darkest Peru (looks more like a dirt road to me) where archaeologist Simon Watterman (Harvey Korman) & his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are on an expedition. Simon thinks that ancient Aztec buildings were in fact spacecraft control centres & he is on a mission to gain proof that alien lifeforms have visited Earth, while in once such structure he discovers a strange small creature which he sticks in his backpack & takes back home with him to the small American town of Sweetwater in California. Simon feels that the creature is the proof he has been looking for & for some inexplicable reason decides to leave the thing at home while he goes to share his discovery. Simon ask's Paul & his wife Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde) to take care of it. Meanwhile Simon's brother & fast-food businessman Cecil Watterman (Harvey Korman again) steals the creature so his brother won't make any money out of it, but his idiotic stepson Dude (Jon Stafford) has a fight with it & chops it up with a knife but the individual parts grow back into separate little creatures that proceed to cause much havoc amongst the townspeople...<br /><br />Directed by Bettina Hirsch this has to be one of the worst horror comedy's ever, if not the worst. The script by Lance Smith is so unfunny it's painful. Every joke in Munchies misses the target by the proverbial mile, I doubt the humour in this piece of crap would even appeal to pre-teens. There just isn't anything even remotely funny or even amusing in Munchies as far as I'm concerned. The basic story is crap too, they just happen to find this creature running around with no explanation of what it is, why no-ones ever seen it before, how it manages to learn English so quickly & how it learns to drive etc. The whole thing is a big Gremlins (1984) rip-off with none of the elements that made that film so good. The character's are moronic, the stupid Deputy (Charlie Phillips) & his dad (Hardy Rawls), Cecil wearing an embarrassing wig & fake moustache & his air head wife Melvis (Alix Elias) & more besides. They just plain embarrass & are ridiculous, I defy anyone to find any of this rancid rubbish funny. Basically Munchies fails spectacularly at being either a comedy or horror & ends up being, yes you've guessed it, crap.<br /><br />Director Hirsch was obviously working with a low budget here & it shows, the entire thing takes place in two houses, the desert, some caves & a miniature golf course. This is really cheap & incompetent film-making. The special effects on the Munchies themselves are really awful, their just dolls that have no movement unless someone off camera pulls a string attached to it's arm. I cannot stress how bad the effects are, these things wouldn't convince my 4 year old nephew (as proved by me & him yesterday!). Total incompetence all the way, this film sucks.<br /><br />Technically the film is terrible, bad special effects, lame production design, rubbish sets & well, just everything's crap. The acting is rotten through & through, from the cops to Korman who has two roles both of which prove he can't act & isn't funny.<br /><br />Munchies is a really bad film that fails in everything that it tries to achieve, sure watch it if you want I won't stop you but just don't say you weren't warned! My advice would be to watch Gremlins again instead, but the decision is yours! | 0 |
Another horror flick in which a goof-ball teenager battles a madman and his supernatural sidekick who want to take over?! Yes, but the fact that this one was from Canada gives it a slightly different feel. "The Brain" has troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski getting put into a treatment whose leader turns out to be a cult leader aided by a big ugly "brain". Can Jim stop him? I guess that since our northern neighbor has accomplished all that they have accomplished, they're entitled to make at least one ridiculous horror movie. But still, they'll probably want to be known for having national health care and all.<br /><br />The bad guy had a brain. Why didn't the people who made this movie? | 0 |
seriously what the hell was this movie about,,simply stupid,,i'd give it 0 but,,,1"awful" is the lowest you can go,,seriously this movie is not worth watching,,waste of time, i don't know what the hell is wrong with you guys voting this movie 7 out of 10,,i seriously can make a better movie than this , hire some other unemployed people,,'n i promise i'll make a movie better than this,,this movie was so bad,,that i'll never watch a movie starring Steve Carrel again,bottom line don't waste your time to download it off the net or rent it,,i'd nominate this movie for the worst movie of the century i mean the worst is Something Gotta give but after that this is the second | 0 |
Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing. | 1 |
I enjoyed very much the movie wooden camera. I think it's a little bit influenced by the Brazilian movie "City of God", but maybe this parallelism between the two tracks possible to follow (crime and art) in social neighborhood are a reality. <br /><br />I think the films made by Madiba are really beautiful. I don't think it's unreal that he shoot such good films, because there's a lot of artists that don't have any type of education and can be really genius. <br /><br />I enjoyed very much the soundtrack. It's adjusted to the pictures.<br /><br />See the movie...it's good to show how can be a life in a social neighborhood. | 1 |
I was lucky enough to see the "Horror Classics" DVD version of this film before it was mysteriously removed from the 4 film DVD and replaced with something else. The picture and sound quality of the film on that edition was a nightmare in itself. Yet, that version is STILL superior to the one with the deluxe DVD treatment. The reason was stated in Brad Fiedel's interview segments on the Special Edition DVD. He had noted what I first found so striking about this film. This being the use of music at moments of inactivity in the film, but leaving the moments of activity in silence, thus giving the horror scenes a stronger feel. The problem with this reissue is it carries the extra film score used to fill in these intentional gaps in score. Fiedel complained of this and made it clear that the filler music was not his. The music actually sounded a lot like Howard Shore's work for Videodrome. Sad for me that I am also a major fan of that film and have to associate the two.<br /><br />The film itself managed to add some interesting realistic elements to the genre horror film. A group of friends go up on a mountain one of them inherited. On the mountain they are confronted with a family with a nightmarish secret. The movie moves along at a great pace. In fact every time I have seen it, I still find myself shocked to see 45 minutes had passed before things started really going wrong for the campers.<br /><br />While the Horror Classics version is filled with many gaps, the fact that there is no score accompanying the horror scenes is what makes this film intelligent and even superior to most slasher films I have ever seen. The Director Jeff Lieberman had made some unique horror films previous to this one making this one the most mainstream and yet, very different to the mainstream at the same time. It is a good fun film with surprising acting performances to boot. The new spiffed up DVD version is worth a rent, the now collectors item Horror Classics version, now OOP is worth the hunt. | 1 |
I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences. | 1 |
All things old are new again.Erika E. is on celebrity fitness (VH1);Florida State Rep. Mark Foley is the national buzz for allegedly sending sexually explicit Emails to a 16 yr. old male page.As I edit this Mr.Foley is resigning from his representative seat. Mr.Foley you see does his turn at acting as the father of the recovered girl seen during the opening sequence. My place in movie history will forever be solidified with my appearance in the graveyard scene.I should have looked at this as a omen.I hate to say it but be warned If you place this in your DVD be prepare to put your toe on the trigger of the shotgun you'll soon have between your teeth. Your level of depression has reached its zenith.I have seen better writing put to screen on an Etch a Sketch.Shot in 1999-00 under the working title "The Librarians" in and around Palm Beach Co.Why the Librarian's you ask,well you would need to be wrapped as tight as binding to be able to read anything into this frat party of over the hill stunt men plying their trade onto celluloid for one last time.Oh well enough with the accolades...Burt Reynolds as a Irish mobster, in Miami no less...possibly the worst forced accent impression since Linda Lovelace in "Deep Throat". .William Forsythe as a hip, slick and cool tough guy...doubtful,possibly 10 years ago.I'd say it's curtain time for Mike Kirton.You now have the Forsythe to pass up this sub par movie,more like a film school project, for anything on tape,disc or paper your local retailer has to offer. | 0 |
Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's "The Terminator" with werewolves.<br /><br />No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of "You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never." The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.<br /><br />The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.<br /><br />For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.<br /><br />It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please. | 0 |
I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.<br /><br />This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.<br /><br />1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.<br /><br />Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.<br /><br />2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.<br /><br />Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.<br /><br />3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.<br /><br />4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.<br /><br />5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.<br /><br />I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.<br /><br />6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.<br /><br />Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.<br /><br />Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.<br /><br />My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.<br /><br />It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby. | 0 |
"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".<br /><br />Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.<br /><br />In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10 | 1 |
I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse. <br /><br />Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.<br /><br />The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.<br /><br />The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.<br /><br />First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.<br /><br />Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.<br /><br />The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension. | 0 |
Wonderfully funny, awe-inspiring feature on the pioneers of turntablism. DJ Shadow and Q-Bert are amazing in this terrific documentary. Check out just about every major DJ crediting their getting in to scratch thanks to Herbie Hancock's post-bop classic 'Rockit', and archival footage of some of the most complex and mind-blowing turntable routines of all time. | 1 |
Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.<br /><br />The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem "normal", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction. | 0 |
This oddity from Roman Polanski clearly shows where his preoccupations lay at the time he made it. Polanski himself plays a timid man who rents a Parisian apartment where the previous tenant committed suicide. He becomes obsessed with discovering what led her to it, to the point that he's dressing in drag and reenacting events the way they might have unfolded. The movie's unsettling to a point, and it has that atmosphere of creepy dread that Polanski excels at, but it comes off too much as a rehash of "Rosemary's Baby" and "Repulsion," two other better Polanski films that deal with the eerie goings on in moody apartments.<br /><br />But as for the preoccupation....unless I'm reading too much into the film, I have to believe that this was Polanksi's reaction to the feelings of persecution he felt at being labeled a sexual pervert and exiled from America. Not making a judgement about him one way or the other myself, but it's hard to deny the evidence of that in the movie itself.<br /><br />Grade: B+ | 1 |
I saw this film when I was 10 or 11 years old, alone in my parent's basement on a Saturday night. It was being shown on "Chiller Theatre," a regular fright feature that I watched religiously as a young 'un. Now, I have seen many old horror films thanks to Chiller Theatre, but none ever stuck with me like "Danse Macabre," a.k.a. "Castle of Blood." I am 51 now, and only last year was I fortunate enough to locate a relatively recent, quality DVD edition of this wonderfully shudder-inducing supernatural classic, having thought I'd never manage to see it again. I have already watched it four more times, and cannot seem to get tired of it.<br /><br />They just don't make spook films like this one anymore. Haunted catacombs and mist-enshrouded graveyards just don't work as well in color as they did in black and white back in the day. Anyway, this one has Edgar Allen Poe and Barbara Steele, deliciously shadowy, cobweb-wrap'ed haunted castle sets, restless spirits re-enacting their deaths... and a wickedly ironic ending.<br /><br />IMO, this one's right up there with Robert Wise's "The Haunting," "The Innocents" (with Deborah Kerr), and the more recent "The Others." | 1 |
This is why I still have nightmares.<br /><br />This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.<br /><br />A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).<br /><br />The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.<br /><br />Not suitable for children. | 1 |
I just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris. Let me start by saying "London" still holds up after all these years and the transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny, and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to "Paris" its enjoyable, a few scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel "What If" well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title "An American Werewolf Comes Home" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned on...nice!!!! | 1 |
TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is possibly the best movie of all of Mary Pickford's films. At two hours, it was quite long for a 1922 silent film yet continues to hold your interest some 80 years after it was filmed. Mary gives one of her finest performances at times the role seems like a "greatest hits" performance with bits of Mary the innocent, Mary the little devil, Mary the little mother, Mary the spitfire, Mary the romantic heroine, etc. characteristics that often were used throughout a single film in the past. The movie is surprisingly frank about one supporting character's illegitimate child for 1922 and at one point our Little Mary is thought the unwed mother in question! If the Academy Awards had been around in 1922, no doubt the Best Actress Oscar for the year would have been Mary's. | 1 |
Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here. | 1 |
Based on the true story of the FBIs hunt for those who were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center Building. A very good film that delves into the FBIs use of informants and how, possibly, the tragedy could have been avoided 7 of 10 | 1 |
This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story I do not understand what they are there for they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.<br /><br />Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt shudder is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.<br /><br />As for the rest of the plot the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back yawn - or Karl who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.<br /><br />By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat! | 0 |
I loved this film!!! It was so easy to become a part of the characters lives and really feel the emotion they were going through.<br /><br />A film filled with laughs, sarcasm, shocks and upset just a fantastic romantic drama really!<br /><br />The only part i didn't enjoy was in the special features. The behind the scenes commentary was a little off putting. Because i'd seen the film before the extras i prefer thinking of the actors like the characters (silly i know) but the actors personality's are very different from the characters they play. But nevertheless its a totally fantastic, spectacular, brilliant film i recommend that anyone who looked at this film and thought hmmmmmmm should i buy it? answer must be a definite yes! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.