text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through. | 1 |
A solid B movie.<br /><br />I like Jake Weber. His understated delivery is refreshing in a time of over the top performances. I liked the relationship between the father and son. I liked the family dynamics. The Wendigo looks silly, but it is a representation of the kid's toy and the dead deer. It's an amalgamation like, see? This is a psychological story, not a Freddy slash em up instant gratification flick. Watch it and reflect on your inner child and what the movie might have to say to you and you'll be fine.<br /><br />Nice work. | 1 |
worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. .. | 0 |
A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play to the movies correctly. | 1 |
I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!<br /><br />Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?<br /><br />For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do. | 0 |
Although I'm a girl, thankfully I have a sense of humor and realize that this really IS a funny anime! Watching it does give you an overwhelming feeling that it's definitely a guy show but that doesn't take away from the fact that its hilarious! 10/10 | 1 |
This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I would watch this movie every time it was on cable and it never got old. Who can forget some of the best lines in film history? --- JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! and LOOK BETWEEN THE GIANT MELONS! I used to wish I could run all over the city in a treasure hunt as fun as this. It's an all-time fave and I'm happy to hear that it's out on video! I'm positive that this is where MTV got its original premise for the Road Rules series. | 1 |
Before I start my review here is a quick lesson in australian slang which may help you with viewing the movie and understanding some of the other reviews from australia and overseas.<br /><br />In australian slang "thongs" are a pair of rubber sandals (not to be confused with the same american word that pertains to butt revealing underwear), "stubbies" are a brand of australian short, a "stubby" is a small can sized bottle of beer, and a "stubby holder" is a foam insulator for a small bottle of beer.<br /><br />If you love black comedies about smalltime criminals then you will love this movie, unfortunatley a lot of people on IMDB with weak stomachs and no appreciation of dark humour have reviewed this movie which unfortunately makes this movie appear to be more mediocre than what it is. A lot of reviewers have also compared it to Lock/Stock and Pulp Fiction, while it is the same genre, it is a completely different and original style.<br /><br />A lot of reviewers have also panned this movie for using Heath Ledger's characters dead brother to open and guide the narrative for this movie, without watching the movie closely enough to realise that his brother was killed by the same villain that wishes to kill heaths character, this is explained midway through the movie but not clearly enough for most to understand.<br /><br />This movie is also reminiscent of Lock/Stock and Reservoir dogs in that it is the Director/writers debut feature, and for a debut feature it rates as well as these two movies, as a matter of fact like Lock/Stock and Reservoir Dogs I rate this movie as a 10/10 for a director/writers debut, unfortunately unlike Tarantino and Ritchie Jordan fails to live up to expectations in his subsequent movies like Ned Kelly.<br /><br />This movie is one that you should definitely add to your DVD collection and is one that holds up to several viewings quite easily. | 1 |
If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible. | 0 |
this is a great movie for all Corey Feldman fans. This movie has a great cast of young actors. a group of teens decide to rob a bank to get some quick cash, but all goes wrong when a security gaurd gets shot and they take hostages | 1 |
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT! | 1 |
ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons. I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it.<br /><br />Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made). Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry. No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of 10. Enjoy. | 1 |
Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA! <br /><br />We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.<br /><br />The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything. | 0 |
Don't know how this missed award nominations. Great film. Certainly of the calibre of "Beautiful Mind" Great acting, photography, script and drama. I can't imagine anyone not being entranced by this film. | 1 |
George and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.<br /><br />The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.<br /><br />Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely. | 0 |
Don't ask me why I love this movie so much...Maybe it came at a time in my life I desperately wanted to fit in, maybe it is the amazing monster effects, maybe because I enjoyed the novel "Cabal", but It's probably because I LOVE Clive Barker. I think it's fair to warn you the movie and the novel have no true resolve and like me you'll probably have a WTF moment at the end. At least two sequels were planned but never came about due to the fact the movie flopped for a few reasons. The studio made drastic cuts to the film cutting a good 30 or so minutes out of it and they did a HORRIBLE job promoting it. The adverts made it look like just another cheap slasher showing mainly the "Button face/Mask" Decker character. This is a movie about the monsters! About fantasy! About a place called Midian! It's a story where the monsters are the good guys. There is truly nothing else out there like it! It's not a movie for everybody I suppose but it stands as one of Clive's many great works. Sit back and be prepared to be taken to Midian - where the monsters are. | 1 |
Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as "Page 3" with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.<br /><br />The film's music is average. The only passable songs are "Kitne Ajeeb" and "Huzoor-E-Ala", sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is "Filmy Very Filmy". The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous. | 1 |
One thing is for sure...you should not watch this film if you are having a bad day. The story is based around a sad event and follows a character who has to live with a sin that he cant handle. The story is drip fed to you rather than the usual dumbed down explanation so it keeps you wondering what is going on. Eventually the dots are joined up and the performances make sense. All the characters were OK and Wil Smith did another good day at the office.<br /><br />There are no doubt a lot of moral questions to be asked but if you just accept and buy into his agony then it is easier to accept what he has chosen to do. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. The journey it takes you on is interesting enough, if not overwhelming.<br /><br />A good enough film that unfortunately leaves you a little sad at the end. I would recommend this film if you like the sort where you have to think and not just watch explosions and fights. | 1 |
First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: "This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.) | 0 |
i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.<br /><br />The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.<br /><br />Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot. | 0 |
Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.<br /><br />Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that. | 0 |
ANOTHER great performance by Kiefer Sutherland. I love his movies, because he always plays his role very well. For a low budget film, this was done very good, and kept me on the edge the whole time. I love these type of movies, and I was glad I caught it on. I'll be buying the dvd or tape for sure.<br /><br />9/10. | 1 |
Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name. | 0 |
Seldom do I give up on a movie without seeing the entire show. This is particularly true when I have rented it on DVD. Syriana was one in which I did give up. Half way through I turned it off in bored disgust.<br /><br />This movie is disjointed, boring, confusing and lackluster. The acting was dry and without credible portrayals. The general plot was good but developed in such an insipid and boring fashion that it failed to grasp my attention or interest. The multiple sub plots often failed to connect to each other and seemed more like random stories than an actual connected plot. Too bad such a serious subject and such great actors could create such a flop. I cannot imagine this movie receiving any nominations much less an award. | 0 |
How truly friendly, charming and cordial is this unpretentious old serial; I rejoiced in seeing old Lugosi. It is disarmingly friendly and lively. It's the document of a longlost craft. (The best TV series today can hardly compete with these old moderately good serials.) CHANDU is deeply, deeply optimistic and hedonistic . It refreshes the mind. It's not stupid; stupid are those who do not get the terms on which such serials work. CHANDU has an irresistible sense of simple, unpretentious and friendly fun.<br /><br />Without giving away too muchChandu is an Occidental sorcerer who goes also by this Eastern name and who also loves and protects his niece against a sect of killers.<br /><br />Chandu exerts his supernatural gifts in a rather discreet and moderate way.<br /><br />As to the quite sexy niece, Nadji, she is kidnapped by the priest of Ubasti: the sordid Vindhyan. The poor sexy girl is in fact multiply kidnappedin a sarcophagus after being sent asleep with a flower; almost kidnapped from a boat; by a phony policeman; the temple of Lemuria and its strange, creepy ceremonies resemble the KING KONG imageryand are a barbaric mockery of the RCC ceremonies and rituals. <br /><br />Would you protect a girl as bravely as Chandu does?<br /><br />Lugosi looked like an old libidinous and quite heartless, mean drunk, and this only contributed to his performances. He is the prototypical mean drunk uncle, mischievous and cunning and oblique. This might sound like a rather crooked homage to Lugosiyet Burton's biopic of Wood left me this impression about Lugosi and allied to it a strong sympathy for the decrepit actor. I enjoy Lugosi' fancy performances.<br /><br />This serial is unjustly bashed. | 1 |
I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.<br /><br /> Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** <br /><br />Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie. | 0 |
This is really terrible.<br /><br />The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.<br /><br />I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.<br /><br />There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.<br /><br />I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable. | 0 |
The DVD was a joke, the audio for the first few minutes was terrible with sound out of sync and Segals voice not even his!!!! Pathetic! When the audio sync was better in about 5 minutes the poor plot, lines and actors should get another job because the movie business is not where any of them should be.<br /><br />While Segal had some good movies in the early days the latest ones are a joke and should be a an embarrassment to him and the company that made it.<br /><br />If Segal was the one that handled this he better return to having another party run the show, because he has no talent what so ever in this.<br /><br />This film is a complete embarrassment to all involved in its production and a disgrace to all who viewed it. I turned it off in about 20 minutes.<br /><br />I will be asking for my money back at Block Buster! Mark from Ontario, Canada | 0 |
honestly, i loved Michael. although there were "give me a pillow i need to take a nap" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my "ok" list of directors.<br /><br />it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all. | 1 |
Okay,I had watched this movie when I was very little and the day that we were cleaning out the closet I see this!I thought,"I have no idea of what this movie was like,"so I went ahead and put it in.OH MY GOD!!!!!This film is so darn bad!I never thought that this film could ever get as close to my least favorite film as it did,but I did laugh,because all the jokes were so corny and ridiculous,not funny!!!!So much stuff in this movie was funny,because it was SO STUPID!!!!This film is not anywhere near good.I would have to say if you want to watch this movie you definitely better not expect anything big and if you've already seen it,trust me,I feel your pain as well!!!! | 0 |
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts. | 0 |
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10) | 0 |
True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES | 1 |
Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day). | 0 |
This wasn't funny in 1972. It's not funny now.<br /><br />Unlike a lot of other people, I'm not bashing the film because it is incredibly sexist - I quote enjoyed that bit, or rather I enjoyed the reaction it generates in annoying PC people - I'm bashing it because it is poorly written and acted.<br /><br />The only really memorable character is Blakey, which British people 25 years old will recognise immediately since he was a favourite with impressionists for a long time.<br /><br />Avoid.<br /><br /> | 0 |
After watching many of the "Next Action Star" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's "Midas Touch" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.<br /><br />First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug. <br /><br />Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from "Rat Race," "Enemy of the State," "Terminator," "Midnight Run" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?<br /><br />Sean Carrigan, the "man of the hour" of "The Next Action Star" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.<br /><br />But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character "performance" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of "Freddy Got Fingered," though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.<br /><br />Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. "Next Action Star" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this. <br /><br />Joel Silver should be ashamed. | 0 |
I have only seen this once--in 1986, at an "artsy" theater in Minneapolis...but I remember it like I saw it a thousand times this morning. Hilarious ("Sawing for Teens", playing Scrabble with all "e" tiles), beautifully animated (taking off her eyes, shaking them back into position, then putting them back on), and poignant (the end of the world, the pettiness of a snit)...<br /><br />Required viewing for the human race. Calling this simply a cartoon is like calling THE GREAT GATSBY nifty typing. | 1 |
At times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.<br /><br />The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.<br /><br />I know what your thinking "What The Hell is this?" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.<br /><br />As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.<br /><br />As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.<br /><br />As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.<br /><br />overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart. | 0 |
I swear, I had never seen such a bad movie as Half Caste is. Not only because it just makes no sense, is a huge piece of egolatry and self-confidence that makes me puke.<br /><br />Sebastian Apocada (in Spanish Apocada has a similar pronunciation to "apocado" which means "out of life and happiness") makes here a one man army movie thinking he is Sam Raimi or the boys who directed the Blair Witch project. This is the Blair Kittie project, with an expensive low budget.<br /><br />The story, a couple of American Filmmakers that go to Africa to make a documentary of the Half Caste, is just no-sense. The way of filming, inserting high speed shots with slow motion shots, just revolts your stomach more than the stupid lines (what the hell is that dialog about Bestiality?) or the lame performances. By the way, I don't believe this cast (or caste?) is American, they all look European to me.<br /><br />To finish this, just say that the filmmakers made an intelligent move about selling the movie. They put a fake award achievement (as most original film) and a nice cover (in Spain the cover had the Half caste image in negative), so I feel now unhappy, because I can't demand my 14 Euros back. | 0 |
Dee Snider was inspired to do a two part song by a horror movie. This movie he wrote/directed/produced and starred in details the subjects from those songs (Horror-terria,from TwistedSister/ Stay Hungry). People have commented he must have a sick mind to put something like this out. I don't hear anybody making comments like that about Stephen King, Wes Craven,Dean Koontz,or in his own time Alfred Hitchcock. The movie profiles a modern Psychotic created by current trends in society. Personally I thought it was pretty well done from sheer imagination and inspiration,also without the benefit of a large budget and interviews with actual victims/criminals. This movie is perfect if you want something to give you nightmares and make you cringe about the possible and probable. IT COULD HAPPEN!! | 1 |
I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to have someone to discuss it with after seeing it.<br /><br />I only recommend seeing this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow. There's A LOT of subtle humor.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot if you are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler is also obsessed with immortality.<br /><br />Some scenes are frantic while others are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different kinds of people in society.<br /><br />I didn't need my consciousness altered to enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped.<br /><br />Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco. | 1 |
The most intense and powerful film I have seen in years. There have been other films before that delved into the Vietnam Vet but nothing compared to this emotionally heartwrenching film, as a typical American suburban family, circa 1972, comes apart at the seams, revealing the scars that Vietnam has left on our all of our collective souls. The cast is A++++ fantastic with all four actors(with Kathy Bates a stand-out) giving riveting performances. What is wonderful about this film is that you take no sides, but understand all four characters and empathize with them, even though all four have divergent viewpoints and needs. There are scenes in here that are so powerful as family secrets and feelings are revealed(such as the confrontation between son and mother) that will have you emotionally drained and in tears of anguish. I actually cried in this film, something I rarely do. The shocking end is a stunner! A much overlooked film that should be seen. I rate this 1996 film a 10/10 a superlative piece. Highly recommended especially in this day and age with again, our country embroiled in a hideous war, our headlines shouting of atrocities and again, our young men and women returning with deep psychological scars, with their deep pain of deeds done in the line of honor. A must see film. | 1 |
What a great movie this is. I found it full of the delightfully unexpected pain of being a single father of a teenage girl. And it is set in a tropical island 'paradise'as well. <br /><br />Gerard Depardeiux brings his special European flair to this story about a divorced father of a teenage girl. They are on holiday together and she begins to add to the excitement on the island in many unexpected ways. But you will need to see the film for yourself to see all the hilarious situations they find for themselves.<br /><br />There are a few cult classics which all teens should see. This movie should be added to the list. In addition to Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Rocky Horror Picture Show and Animal House, My Father the Hero should be required film study. Watch it as if you had a teenage daughter and you'll be rolling with laughter. Watch it with your teenage daughter and prepare to be laughed at for months. | 1 |
A dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff, but fluff). Badly scripted, with inane and wooden dialogue. You do not care if the characters (indeed, even if the actors themselves) live or die. Little grace or charm, little action, little point to the whole thing. Perhaps some of the set and setting will interest--those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. The framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting, and the Hoppalong Cassidy character himself is both boring and inept. | 0 |
There are often badly-matched couples (in the general sense of the term) -in Huston's movies :"African Queen" "Heaven knows Mister Allison" "roots of Heaven" "Misfits" ..."The Barbarian and the geisha" (check the title) is another good example,so to speak.It seems that Japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as "Sayonara" " the world of Suzie Wong" and "the teahouse of the August moon" bear witness. Huston's effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of "Susie " maybe).John Wayne perfectly fits in Ford's world ,in Huston's he's like a bull in a china shop.His Japanese partner is totally bland.Even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom.<br /><br />Only those utterly enamoured of Huston's every work need to choose this ,among all his other great movies around. | 0 |
While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved.<br /><br />"Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide") | 1 |
Bela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money. <br /><br />This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. Tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. I got the DVD in a discount store 2 for £1, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind. | 0 |
Went out with my friends and saw this movie last weekend here in London. We didn't know what to expect, the poster gave some of it away, and I won't say any more so as not to spoil the plot, but we found it to be an excellent film with great acting, convincing plot and scary as hell! Having done some research on the making of the film I have to hand it to those guys, the filmmakers, actors, writers, etc., for having put together such a film with such limited resources. Post-production very well done, too. For all of that I give them a 10 out of 10, and I hope they will continue their fine work. Keep it up, guys. You rock! | 1 |
A group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.<br /><br />The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this "horror" movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.<br /><br />The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.<br /><br />In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. Rating 4/10. | 0 |
Wayne Wang's direction may be the ingredient which made this film much more impressive to me than "Slums of Beverly Hills", which covers remarkably similar ground. The interplay between Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman is riveting. Real chemistry there. This film succeeded in bringing me inside the dysfunctional life of these two women without dragging me down into depressed frustration. Susan Sarandon's character hammers at all the nerves which a narcissistic parent is capable of touching in an insecure adolescent. She amazingly manages to do this without coming across as floridly insane or intentionally sadistic. And, Natalie Portman deflects each attack on her character's ego with the resigned grace of an intelligent codependent child, untainted by the smug cynicism of the Natasha Lyonne character in "Slums of Beverly Hills". Portman's character is an adolescent with dignity under stress, an unusual creature in modern films. The film reaches a very satisfying resolution without trying too hard. I highly recommend this film to the viewer who wants to be challenged and entertained. | 1 |
My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this movie with her on Cable TV. As someone who saw Revenge of The Nerds in a movie theater, I found this movie to be an extremely predictable remake of it. The Nerds were simply replaced by Dorks. I drove her crazy by being able to predict precisely what would happen in each scene. The cast was cute, especially Amanda Bynes.<br /><br />Screenwriter Chad Creasey should be ashamed for writing such an obvious remake of an early 1980's flick. The title should have simply been "Revenge of The Dorks." Perhaps the sequel will be Revenge of the Dorks 2. | 0 |
To start off, I love Steven Seagal, the man is a genius. But recent movies leave me to wonder, Is he trying anymore? His latest movies show almost no effort on Seagal's part. In Out of Reach, its too obvious that his lines are dubbed over. . What Seagal does in this movie is not only a slap on the face to his fans, but even more to Jean-Claude Van Damme and his fans. In the 2nd scene or so, when he prepares to zip-line into the drug dealers penthouse to steal the jewels and money, it shows him set-up the gun and hook it on a neon sign. Your might be saying to yourself, 'Yah, so what does this have to do with Van Damme?'. Well that scene was stolen from a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called the Order. Rent both, watch both, compare both and you will lose respect for Seagal. Not only was Today You Die garbage, but it was, dare I say, an insult. Seagal's Aikido moves are still good, but why isn't he doing great movies like Marked for Death or Above the law, hes still got the moves and the attitude, I'm just left wondering 'Why Seagal, Why?'. There are such idiotic scenes in his newer movies that have nothing to do with the storyline, and such idiotic story lines on top of that. I hope the up-coming Black Dawn movie will be another Exit Wounds or Beyond Justice, because these last chain of movies he made, especially Today You Die, really made me wonder if he has the stuff to make more great action movies like Double Team. Please, don't watch this movie unless you hate Seagal, if you love his movies don't watch this, it WILL make you question his future in the action film genre. | 0 |
and I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters "Breathe for me, Woodward." There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named "Angel." I'll leave it at that. | 0 |
This movie is an utter waste of time, the plot is awful, the dialogue is awful.<br /><br />The acting is OK, but the actors have absolutely no plot or script to work with. The photography and some of the special effects are OK, too, but again there is nothing interesting in this movie to watch. There is no logical progression to the story, the story line is utter nonsense. It isn't even scary. For a movie to be scary, there has to be at least a small element of believability. This movie has no believability at all.<br /><br />There are only three characters in the movie. Each character is shallow and has no personality. <br /><br />Most of the special effects and make up work are both badly done, or at most mediocre.<br /><br />I hope you read this and do not waste time on this movie unless you are curious to see an entirely awful movie. | 0 |
I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this. | 0 |
I love documentaries. The Andy Goldsworthy doc was great.I looked forward to this one - but was very disappointed. I knew of Kahn and was intrigued by the idea of his lonely death in a Penn Station men's room. There must be a story here, I mistakenly believed.The only story here is of sadly deluded women who had affairs with an ugly little famous married man. In the absence of anything like an explanation for this guy's horrible behavior, we're given endlessly repeated clips of Kahn walking around and painfully long - supposedly contemplative - shots of his soulless buildings.Actually, some of the buildings are interesting but the thrust of the film asks us to think about the guy himself. The overwrought soundtrack references an emotional tug that is entirely absent from the film. Kahn's apparent gifts do not excuse his behavior or martyr his mistresses. This film seems to want to give Kahn the great artiste's free pass and thus make the director and his mother sympathetic figures - I don't buy it. | 0 |
After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.<br /><br />Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.<br /><br />However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.<br /><br />The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.<br /><br />It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.<br /><br />Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards. | 0 |
hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot<br /><br />take care everyone... | 1 |
While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.<br /><br />Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.<br /><br />John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.<br /><br />Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.<br /><br />There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.<br /><br />Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10. | 1 |
I liked nearly all the movies in the Dirty Harry series with the exception of the one I think is titled "Enforcer". "Deadpool" was a bit weak in areas too, but I still enjoyed it. This one is one of my favorites of the series, if nothing else for the great line of "Go ahead, make my day". This one also features an interesting albeit familiar plot of someone killing those that have done her wrong. Just think "Magnum Force" with less mystery about who is behind the killings and you have your plot. Granted there is a bit more than that as this one does feature a very nice final showdown at an amusement park. It also features Dirty Harry getting a bulldog as a gift and it tripping up Sandra Locke in a rather humorous scene. The only question that remains is why Clint Eastwood had to have the rather mediocre actress Sandra Locke in so many of his movies. She brings the score down a point every time even when overall the movie is enjoyable to me. Granted she is not to bad here, but her character could have been so much better by someone else. Another problem with this movie and other Dirty Harry movies, at times they almost seem to be advertisements for guns. I like guns as much as the next person, but do we really need scenes of him explaining all the different strengths of his newest weapon and how many bullets it holds? Still, very nice entry into the Dirty Harry series of movies. | 1 |
I recently viewed a copy of this (under the title 'Eaten Alive') Talk about dreadful! Any movie Ed Wood ever put out looks like Oscar material compared to this laughable tosh. To be fair a couple of lines from the script will live long in the memory such as "These people (Cannibals) don't buy frozen meat from a supermarket like us, they get it fresh everyday from folk like you or me" Classic! The mad 'Jonesville' type leader out in the jungle was the best character in the film, he really did look like a nutter. I think he was the only actor not to be dubbed in (badly), if these Italians must have American characters in their films why dont they get Americans to dub in the dialogue instead of English people trying their best to sound like Annie Oakley. I'll give this 3 out of 10, I'll give it three because it really is funnier than most comedies out these days. | 0 |
Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball player who ever lived."<br /><br />You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.<br /><br />Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy. | 1 |
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move. | 0 |
I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.<br /><br />I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get? | 1 |
Gilmore Girls is one of the funniest, most clever, sharp-witted, sarcastic and heart-warming television shows I've ever watched, (second only to my most favorite television show of all time, F*R*I*E*N*D*S). The quick pace and many pop-culture references can leave some viewers confused, but once you catch on to the ways of the Gilmores, you'll be hooked for life. Just some random comments, I recently (finally) began watching Season 6 and wow! It's one of my favorite seasons so far. I love the Luke-Lorelai thing and all the drama in the various episodes is (as always) exhilarating. The only thing I'm not so fond of is the surprising bad attitude and reckless actions Rory has suddenly 'adopted'. Unfortunately I don't find this very realistic and hope it's not just a way to stir up some more drama to keep the season going strong. All in all great season though and I can't wait for the next!!!<br /><br />~ Ashly a.k.a. "Tookie Clothespin" | 1 |
Old Jane's mannered tale seems very popular these days. I have lost count of the number of versions going around. Probably the reason is that her "ruts" are our "ruts" even at this late date. This TV mini-series gives it a mannered telling suitable to the novel. Headstrong, opinionated Emma is a pretty "modern" girl when you think about it, even though the ambience of Jane Austen's world may seem a tad artificial to us today. If you haven't seem EMMA, I'll only say that self-sufficient Emma does get her comeuppance. It's worth watching to find out how. The acting honours here go to the ladies: Kate, Prunella, Lucy and Samantha. They could almost have had a psychic connection to old Jane! | 1 |
I've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. "Doppelganger" is the worst I've seen from this director.<br /><br />Tartan Films is advertising this as "The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely "Kairo". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can give "Dopppelganger" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...<br /><br />Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch "Kairo" or "Ko-Rei" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.<br /><br />3/10 for the good acting. | 0 |
The thing with Ali G is that he takes the mick out of himself and his character. <br /><br />The humour is very much a 'like it or love it' brand of totally politically incorrect, irreverent and self effacing type.<br /><br />Personally I totally love this film, and so has everyone i have met who has seen it. You can watch it several times and pick new gags up each time. The humour is both aural and visual, and the timing is impeccable. The humour is probably very English, and specifically London, so its possible that non-English viewers may not get some of the humour. Think of yourself as a teenager and you will love it - especially if the likes of Kevin & Perry Go Large tickled you! | 1 |
With the exception of the sound none of the above are really criticisms for this type of no budget, (truly) independent horror film. Make up effects and gore are very good and the lead actor was effective, the lead actress although attractive needs some coaching as she was particularly poor.<br /><br />The major problem with Frightworld is it's length, at 108 minutes its half an hour too long to be effective as a slasher movie, plot wise only about ten minute of the first fifty are relevant.<br /><br />In places it is visually engaging and sometimes the lack of lighting works in the films favour. However when this is combined with the poor sound as is the case with most of the film large sections are difficult to watch.<br /><br />This could certainly be an entertaining if unoriginal "serial killer back from the dead" movie with some judicious and ruthless editing, in its current form it plays like an unfinished rough cut. | 0 |
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.<br /><br />And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?<br /><br />As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.<br /><br />I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.<br /><br />Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Normally, movies stay out of the realm of "domestic drama," and for good reason: who wants to intentionally seek entertainment from a story about what they or those close to them have to deal with in real life? Divorce hurts an incredible percentage of American families of all classes and custody battles are ugly and necessary parts of it. That's not escapism -- the number one reason the average person turns to movies -- that's sad reality. <br /><br />Normally, divorce or custody is simply part of a greater story and affects the way we understand it or relate to its characters. "Kramer vs. Kramer" focuses on it and asks us to understand why we do it and why that makes it so troubling. That's a challenge for both this film and its audience: turn something so real into something that can capture our attention and then make us not feel spiteful as the mirror is held up to our face. Writer/director Robert Benton definitely achieves both and in impressive fashion in adapting this novel by Avery Corman.<br /><br />The story, as one would expect, is quite simple: Big business advertising man Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) comes home to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) is leaving him and their 7-year-old son Billy (Justin Henry). Ted then must quickly learn to be an active father in the boys' life and as soon as he does, Joanna brings a custody suit upon him.<br /><br />To make an Oscar-winning drama about something so generic and particularly dialogue- heavy first takes tremendous acting talent. You don't get much better than Hoffman and Streep. Hoffman is in his prime in this role: his first Oscar win after three other notable nominations. He creates a thorough character, one whose self-centered and quick-tempered ways clearly change as he learns to be a better father and the sole care-giver. Streep wins her first Oscar in only the second major role of her career as a woman who doesn't get much screen time but must communicate both inner torment at her decision to leave as well as renewed sense of identity when she returns to take custody. Streep does so effortlessly. The young boy, Justin Henry, who at his age was the youngest competitive category nominee in Academy Awards history, plays the embodiment of all 7-year-old children exceptionally well.<br /><br />Benton's writing and direction takes these performances to the level where we see deeper into this family's troubles than we do our own and thus reconsider our thoughts about love and raising a family. Benton's previous notable credits ("Bonnie & Clyde" and "Superman") wouldn't indicate a strong command of family drama, but the man can flat out write. Numerous scenes give us strong visuals that show us much more than the typical family scenarios they depict. The first morning that Joanna is gone and Ted make's Billy french toast is a classic that perfectly demonstrates all the talent going into this movie in a scene that happens in Americans' kitchens every morning.<br /><br />You'll rarely see a story as straightforward as "Kramer vs. Kramer" done better. There aren't any surprises at the end or twists and turns that will keep us desperately glued to the screen. The film then has to rely on its talents and they are all sure-fire, delivering a new understanding of a subject that's so familiar. | 1 |
I thought this was one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. It was a great story line and showed that people are so intricate in all kinds of different ways. Have recommended it to all my friends!! I always enjoy a good story line and this movie had one of the best I've seen in a long time. I could see myself having a daughter and doing the same things that Natalie did to find out more about her life and loves. It showed how we not only have lives with our families ; but also have parts of our lives that we don't share with them - as it may not be in their best interest to know all the details of things we don't do that we are so proud of.<br /><br />I look forward to another such movie, and will keep my eye out. | 1 |
A precursor to "Citizen Kane" in its analysis of the life of a just deceased tycoon, here reviewed by his faithful secretary in a series of interlocking flashbacks. In Spencer Tracy's 15th film he already looks middle-aged even in the scenes where he is meant to be young!<br /><br />A little silent-screen type emoting is understandable given the vintage but this is a most enjoyable, well-written drama. | 1 |
Okay, "pretty good" doesn't scream rent me but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Campfire Tales. While by no means a classic the directors involved do have an idea what suspense is. The scares don't just jump out at you but instead the directors build steadily to the climatic moments. The film is based upon popular urban legends and ghost stories. The writers have updated the tales rather well and twisted them just enough that the familiar endings still pack a punch. The best of the shorts are "The Honeymoon" and "People Can Lick Too", I enjoyed both as they have nice suspense throughout each story. "The Locket" was a good ghost story and the wrap around "The Campfire" is pretty good too except they go for one too many twists at the end. The only disappointing segment is "The Hook" which is fine because it's pretty short anyway. Overall I give this a 7 out of 10. It has suspense, which is lacking from most horror movies today, and good acting by the cast. It may not rate up there with Halloween and The Exorcist but it's a good little movie well worth the price of a rental. | 1 |
Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.<br /><br />Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities. <br /><br />The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.<br /><br />Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy". <br /><br />This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.<br /><br />Give me Smiley any day. | 0 |
This movie is not for the faint or weak of heart. It couldn't decide if it was going to be porn or legit. It was neither one. It was just bad. There was nothing in this movie to make me want to see anything else made by these people again. | 0 |
Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in "Femalien", "The Erotic House of Wax", and that family favorite "Nude Bowling Party". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. "Head of the Family" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is "plowing oats", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P | 0 |
I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.<br /><br />Considering how many "Bad News Bears" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.<br /><br />A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year! <br /><br />Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.<br /><br />Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. "Coach Of The Year" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10 | 0 |
I won't spoil it for you. Although you probably could care less if it was spoiled (you'll know what I mean after you watch it) Poor story. B-rated movie quality. Typical horror -stupid situations- rare timing. I should of known, when they try to push a lot of hype in their advertising or even add "quotes". Just tells me that the movie bombed big time. And they are trying to pull in everyone just so they can break even with to cost of making this bomb. I wish I could take back the time I spent watching this. I was stupid and thought that there just had to be something great around the corner. But I kept getting let down. I don't usually waste my time adding comments to any movie. In fact, this is my second post. I just felt maybe I could spare a few of you from wasting money on something that had a bunch of hype on it. | 0 |
From the excellent acting of an extremely impressive cast, to the intelligently written (and very quotable) script, from the lavish cinematography to the beautiful music score by Carter Burwell, Rob Roy offers a rarity in movie going experiences: one that is nigh impossible to find fault with in any area.<br /><br />There have been several comparisons made with Braveheart, which came out the same year. With all due credit to Mel Gibson, Braveheart struck me as too much of a self-conscious and preachy epic to rival Rob Roy as the kind of movie I would care to see more than once. While Braveheart works hard to be a serious epic, Rob Roy just grabs you and absorbs you into its tightly edited storytelling. Not a single scene is wasted.<br /><br />Rob Roy contains the perfect balance of dramatic tension, action and even occasional humor. The characters are well fleshed-out, perfectly conveying vernacular and mannerisms that anchor them in their authentic period setting.<br /><br />Further, they are not caricatures of good and evil as we all too often observe in even modern film.<br /><br />For example, while we hope the heroic Rob Roy prevails, we realize his predicaments are products of his own pride and sense of honor. Tim Roth plays one of the most hateful bad guys in the history of cinema, yet there are moments when we can understand how the events of his life have shaped him into becoming what he is. Rob Roy employs a level of character development that makes its story even more believable and gripping.<br /><br />Rob Roy is a delightful treasure, featuring one of the greatest sword fights ever choreographed and a climatic ending worthy of all the tense anticipation. | 1 |
If the makers of Atlantis had something to say in this film, its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on "special effects" over characterization. Almost as if in an attempt to "keep up" with the rest of the summer action blockbusters, Disney has ditched the character-driven, movie-with-a-message approach in favor of a Star Wars "shoot-'em-up" with stereotype heroes and villains.<br /><br />The art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (CGI) of flying fish-craft and submarines to fill the gap. They are wrong, and the days of beautiful, handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly-line CGI.<br /><br />This movie is all spectacle with no heart. At times the film comes close to being a good, worthwhile movie, but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz.<br /><br />Another problem with the movie is the pacing. It starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. The viewer is rushed out of the door along with Milo Thatch (voiced well by Michael J. Fox) and is left thinking "Gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that's going to happen once we get to Atlantis". Unfortunately, not much happens. The secret of Atlantis remains a secret with the story-tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island/continent. They are afraid to commit to saying where Atlantis is, even in a fictional story. Is it in the Atlantic? Is it in the Mediterranean Sea? Who knows? Nothing is hypothesized, even from a purely fantasy-based point of view. The viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves "Now what was that all about? What was the point of the movie? Why couldn't the surviving Atlantean's remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the "present" day? And WHY did Atlantis sink?" and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. There is nothing left to think about or mill over... except the loss of money in their wallets.<br /><br />The characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. From the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914, to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters Kida and VOLUNTARILY deserts its people!?! The crew are a collection of quirky, 2-dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) P.C. race and gender. The demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a Warner Brothers' Bugs Bunny short. Most of the jokes are gross one-liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons: They are delivered at lightning-speed pacing and usually mumbled. The way these supporting players do a moral turn-around near the end of the movie is hard to believe.<br /><br />While we applaud Disney for trying to create animated movies for adults - and this is the first Disney not to have cute, talking animals or objects - it fails to make the transition. Younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak Atlantean). In the first five minutes of the expedition, approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. Obviously Disney thinks that if you didn't know who those people were, then why should you care? Again, the movie has no feelings on any level.<br /><br />Mulan and Tarzan were the last animated movies produced by Disney that were done extremely well. Sadly, Atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the Black Cauldron and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Disney needs to get back to their roots. A sequel to Peter Pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. And now that Disney has discovered Science Fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. We also hope that the upcoming "Treasure Planet", a sci-fi adaptation of Robert L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", will have more heart to it than the unfathomable "Atlantis: The Lost Empire". | 0 |
I have nothing but praise for this movie and cast, especially Ann Margaret. But more importantly I have praise for my in-laws who were (are) the adoptive parents of Warren and Frank in real life. I met most of the "children" at Warren's wedding in 1989. This is an amazing story and is even more incredible to me knowing the family and what everyone went through. It is also enjoyable for me to see how my in-laws were portrayed in the movie. It was pretty accurate. My wife even enjoys seeing some little details such as a toaster that she remembered from her childhood. Yes, it is a hard movie to watch, but so amazing and heartfelt.<br /><br />The beauty of this story for me is how many of the children passed through my in-laws lives and, as a result of marrying their daughter,and having Warren as a brother-in-law, how many I have met in mine. For the past 20 years this story has been a part of my life because of what my mother-in-law has shared with me. That and knowing Warren. For what it is worth, Warren lives in California with his family. He married his high school sweetheart, who he reconnected with at his 20 year high school reunion.<br /><br />There was a show in the 1980's called "That's Incredible." They had a reunion of the family who also got to meet the cast of the show.<br /><br />For anyone's interest, the DVD is available in Great Britain and Australia. It is a tough video to come by here in the United States and I have not been able to find a DVD here, yet. | 1 |
This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. <br /><br />It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved. <br /><br />The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.<br /><br />Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one. | 0 |
KRAMER VS KRAMER won five Oscars, including Best Picture of 1979. This intense and deeply moving family drama follows an advertising executive whose life is turned upside down when his wife of eight years, walks out on him, leaving him to care for his son and build a relationship with him he never had. Robert Benton's incisive screenplay presents us flawed, but real human beings with hearts, souls, and brains. For instance, in the scene where Joanna announces to Ted she's leaving him, she doesn't just storm out the door...she gives him the keys, her credit cards, the dry cleaning ticket, tells him which bills have been paid, and informs him she has withdrawn from their bank account the same amount of money she had when they were married, no more. This decision to leave was not a whim...it was thought about and Joanna felt, with no other option than to leave, if she was leaving she was going to do it properly...and with no specific plan in mind, she did not think it right to take Billy. Dustin Hoffman won an Oscar for his Ted Kramer, a man so obsessed with bringing home the bacon, he had no clue that his life at home was crumbling into pieces. Meryl Streep also won an Oscar playing Joanna, the unhappy wife who we feel sympathy for in the beginning of the film but that all changes when she returns for her son. Hoffman is at the top of his form here. I always tear up during the scene where he tries to explain to Billy (Justin Henry, Oscar nominee) why his mom left and he does it all in a stage whisper or when he meets Joanna upon her return and slams her drink into a wall (a Hoffman moment not in the script that Streep was not told about in order to get a natural reaction). Justin Henry hits all the right notes as Billy, the confused little boy who doesn't know why his mom is gone and doesn't know how to communicate with his father. Jane Alexander also got an Oscar nod as Ted and Joanna's neighbor, Margaret, who has switched allegiances by the film's conclusion. This is an intense family drama but there are laughs to be had here too...Billy and the chocolate chip ice cream...Billy pouting because Ted is late picking him for a party...Billy catching his dad's one night stand (JoBeth Williams) on her way to the bathroom stark naked, but it's the moments of human drama you remember...Ted running through Manhattan with Billy in his arms to get to the emergency room after BIlly falls off the jungle gym...Ted getting fired right before beginning his custody battle and instead of making a scene, he tells the guy in a whisper..."Shame on you." And of course, the finale where Joanna tells Ted she's not taking Billy, which I found a little hard to swallow. Why would she go to all that trouble of suing for custody and then just change her mind? But this is a small quibble regarding a wonderful movie, masterfully directed by Robert Benton and flawlessly performed by a top-notch cast. A must-see. | 1 |
Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it! | 0 |
Stephen Feinberg, who Played the Proctologist and was one of the writers of the movie, passed away in early 2006. I met Steve in Portland in 1993, it was a year latter when he told me that he had been a writer in Hollywood years earlier, working mostly on TV promos. He asked me not to see 'Tunnel Vision', but it was too late, I had seen it already! Actually I had seen it years before, when it was released. At that time I didn't think it was that bad a movie. However seeing it as an adult my opinion was somewhat different. Yes is is a bit puerile as well as dated. Steve admitted it was not a very good movie. That said he was just a little proud of 'The Proctologist' sketch. | 0 |
Lars Von Trier is never backward in trying out new techniques. Some of them are very original while others are best forgotten.<br /><br />He depicts postwar Germany as a nightmarish train journey. With so many cities lying in ruins, Leo Kessler a young American of German descent feels obliged to help in their restoration. It is not a simple task as he quickly finds out.<br /><br />His uncle finds him a job as a night conductor on the Zentropa Railway Line. His job is to attend to the needs of the passengers. When the shoes are polished a chalk mark is made on the soles. A terrible argument ensues when a passenger's shoes are not chalked despite the fact they have been polished. There are many allusions to the German fanaticism of adherence to such stupid details.<br /><br />The railway journey is like an allegory representing man's procession through life with all its trials and tribulations. In one sequence Leo dashes through the back carriages to discover them filled with half-starved bodies appearing to have just escaped from Auschwitz . These images, horrible as they are, are fleeting as in a dream, each with its own terrible impact yet unconnected.<br /><br />At a station called Urmitz Leo jumps from the train with a parceled bomb. In view of many by-standers he connects the bomb to the underside of a carriage. He returns to his cabin and makes a connection to a time clock. Later he jumps from the train (at high speed) and lies in the cool grass on a river bank. Looking at the stars above he decides that his job is to build and not destroy. Subsequently as he sees the train approaching a giant bridge he runs at breakneck speed to board the train and stop the clock. If you care to analyse the situation it is a completely impossible task. Quite ridiculous in fact. It could only happen in a dream.<br /><br />It's strange how one remembers little details such as a row of cups hanging on hooks and rattling away with the swaying of the train.<br /><br />Despite the fact that this film is widely acclaimed, I prefer Lars Von Trier's later films (Breaking the Waves and The Idiots). The bomb scene described above really put me off. Perhaps I'm a realist. | 1 |
Offside is the story of teenage-girls who tried to sneak in the stadium to watch final world cup qualifying soccer match in Tehran that may lead Iran to the 2006 world cup in Germany. Females are forbidden to go to stadium by law in Iran, although many of them dress like boys and sneak in. Stadium guards search every one at the entrance to make sure no one carries fireworks and of course; no girl gets in.<br /><br />Like most of Panahi's work, his armature cast's performance was superb. You actually think that you are watching a documentary. The dialogs between the girls and the privates were executed delicately and astonishingly believable. The film depicts the interactions between captives and the drafted guards who themselves are serving mandartory away from their family and friends in a funny sort of way. At the end, the audience realizes that there is not such a difference between the girls and the guards who were just following orders. | 1 |
For us, an Abbott and Costello movie is something you have to be in the mood for. I'm very happy I recorded this -- my wife remembered it from when she was young, but I had never seen it. The family wanted to watch something not too serious before bed and this was selected.<br /><br />Our daughter has watched many of the old movies with us -- always complaining in the beginning, but most often coming around. She mostly ignored this in the beginning, preferring to check her email, but she started enjoying herself -- many times laughing out loud to the zaniness.<br /><br />It's wonderful to think you can have a fun evening with a 55yr old. The mono-colour introduction that blends into the full-colour fairy tale. It's a fun twist of a story that everyone is familiar with, that includes a little song and a little dance, along with everything you expect Lou and Bud to delivery.<br /><br />Watch it with your children and have a very fun evening! | 1 |
There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.<br /><br /> | 0 |
First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers? <br /><br />Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.<br /><br />Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).<br /><br />Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers. | 1 |
An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do. <br /><br />Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending. | 0 |
The story is about a working girl (Ann Sothern) who has a pretty thoughtless boyfriend (Paul Kelly). This boyfriend is so busy trying to start his own business that again and again he forgets dates or shows up late. The final straw is when Sothern has a birthday and Kelly says he's too busy to take her out to celebrate. So, not wanting to just stay home, she goes on a blind date with what turns out to be a very rich young man (Neil Hamilton). Sparks fly but it also becomes apparent after Sothern breaks off her relationship with Kelly that new boyfriend Hamilton is a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort of guy. How all this is finally resolved is not too difficult to predict--just suffice to say that in the end everything works out just perfectly.<br /><br />This is a very modest little film from Columbia Pictures--with a relatively small budget as well as second-tier stars. It's clearly a "B-movie" despite there being small roles played by a Mickey Rooney and Jane Darwell--as both had yet to become famous. Now this is NOT to say that these are bad actors or the production isn't any good. In fact, given the production values, this is a pretty amazing film as everything seems to work so well despite having a pretty ordinary and somewhat predictable plot outline. That's because the actors and director did a really good job putting the story across. Plus the writers did a good job of humanizing the characters and making you care about them. The ending, in particular, is really sweet and practically had my tear ducts flowing! Because of these factors, the film earns a 7 of 10. | 1 |
Terry Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called "The Mole" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen | 0 |
I really liked this movie! Even though it wasn't anything like any of the books it still the that classic Nancy Drew style. I had been seeing a lot of advertisements for this movie and since I was really into the Nancy Drew books I had really high expectations for this movie and they most definitely met those expectations. Pretty much all of the characters were exactly how I pictured them from reading the books. I am really happy that I saw this movie. All of the actors and actresses really acted like they acted like in the book series. Ever since I saw this movie I have wanted to read every single Nancy Drew book there is out there. All of the actors and actresses really got into their characters and it definitely showed when the aired this movie on the big screen. It definitely seemed like all of the actors and actresses were really in the positions that the characters were in I most definitely give this movie a 10 out of 10. | 1 |
On the scale of 1 to 10, I gave this a 4. I thought the film was not very good, with too much violence and not one character to like.<br /><br />On an erotic scale, I give this a 6. Many of the sex scenes were tinged with an underlying ugliness. I always enjoy nudity, and Nancy Travis and Faye Grant come through, but the sex scenes were more humiliating than erotic. | 0 |
I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.<br /><br />I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.<br /><br />http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm<br /><br />It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.<br /><br />My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.<br /><br />WuMaster <br /><br />- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com | 1 |
I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it. <br /><br />If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent "The Bible" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called "Noah's Ark" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/<br /><br />I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.<br /><br />Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good. <br /><br />Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.<br /><br />Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.<br /><br />In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.<br /><br />People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie "The Ten Commandments" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.<br /><br />God works in mysterious ways. | 0 |
A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.