text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of "hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!! | 0 |
This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD. | 0 |
For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything. | 0 |
This is truly awful, the feeblest attempt at a comics adaptation ever committed to film. Every possible thing about this movie that could be bad, is. Music, acting, lighting, sets, "special" effects... about the only positives I can find are that Sue looks cute in her blue tights and that the Thing make-up is almost passable (face only). That's it. Zip. Don't bother tracking down that bootleg copy; it's really not worth your time. Even the aborted "Captain America" movie from the early 90's is far less excruciating than squirming in your seat while you try to endure this mess. | 0 |
Turkish-German director Faith Akın ("Head-On" & "The Edge of Heaven") follows German musician and "Head-On" soundtrack composer Alexander Hacke of Einstürzende Neubauten to Istanbul for this documentary which delves into the modern music scene of the city from arabesque to indie rock and was screened out of competition at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.<br /><br />Alexander Hacke makes for an amiable guide as he travels around Istanbul with a mobile recording studio and a microphone in hand where he runs into and records the likes of classic rocker Erkin Koray, rapper Ceza, Kurdish singer Aynur Doğan, Arabesque singer Orhan Gencebay and pop star Sezen Aksu as well as rock bands Baba Zula, Duman and Replikas.<br /><br />The director has pulled together a diverse collection of popular performers and ground-breaking acts from what was at the time a highly competitive short-list to give an eclectic account of modern Turkish music as seen from the streets of its cultural capital which will enchant and entertain even if at times it seems a little rushed and unfocused.<br /><br />"Music can reveal to you everything about a place." | 1 |
Last week I watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. It was 25 years old, filmed w/no props except swords, no furniture except chairs. It was RIVETING. The acting was super - all the actors trained Brits. Contrast that performance to this...yawn yawn yawn. Al Pacino, as Shylock, was tragic, heavy, and couldn't quite lose the New Yorker accent, despite the long....pauses....between.....lines.... The whole thing was soporific, even the "comic" scenes were barely even worth a smile, let a lone a belly laugh. This is supposed to be funny. They tried to make it tragic. It was neither, just boring. I give it four points for costumes, scenery, and Jeremy Irons, who is good at playing a dull, depressed, deep-voiced guy (can he be anything else???) | 0 |
If you've seen this movie, you've been to Puerto Rico. I've lived in Puerto Rico all my life, and have to shamefully admit that we (PR) are living a real chaos right now, drugs being the main reason for the shootings and killings we have almost every day. These people will shoot anyone, anytime and anywhere, and many innocent lives have been lost because of this. We don't feel safe anymore, and in addition to this, our so-called "justice" is no longer moved by truth and rightness, but by money, influence and power. "Ladrones y Mentirosos" is based on real, deplorable facts, and truly portrays Puerto Rico's three main problems: the drug-related killings, money and power manipulating our courtrooms, and innocent people and children being corrupted and even dying because of this. Ricardo and his wife Poli, with their true-to-life plot and their award winning direction(**), were brave enough to present all this as bad as it is: Puerto Rico is a beautiful and friendly country, living a nightmare that doesn't seem to end !!! ** They recently won the "Copper Wing Award" for Best Director in the World Cinema Competition at the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival. | 1 |
Andaz Apna Apna is a movie that I treasure and its one movie, I don't mind seeing at any time... well almost any time! This movie is simply marvelous and according to me, is the funniest movie I've ever seen! And yes, I do put it over Hera Pheri... reason? Hera Pheri has scenes you'll watch out but Andaz Apna Apna? Not possible! Simply because every scene is a scene you got to watch out for! Aamir & Salman share great chemistry and are perfect in their shoes but I'll put the characters in order of favoritism: <br /><br />Rank # 1. Crime Master Gogo (Shakti Kapoor's best performance till date and yes, this happened before the casting couch): Gogo is an innocent character who belongs to well reputed family of Mogambo (Mr. India fame). Crime Master Gogo is actually Mogambo's nephew but for Mogambo, he's more than a responsible, handsome, charismatic charming son. Gogo, makes the biggest mistake of life by lending 36,000 rupees to Teja (who is as Balla had once said, "A Fraud and a Cheat!"). Now, Gogo's only goal is to get back what's his and in his journey of recovering his lost money, Gogo realizes that there is more than 36,000 that he needs to achieve and thus begins... Gogo's struggle against the sinner-world.<br /><br />Rank # 2. Teja (Teja Main Hoon, Mark Idhar Hai!): Teja is an evil character who is Ram Gopal Bajaj's twin. Originally named Shyam Gopal Bajaj, Teja chooses to change his name to suit his personality. Teja, as a child had always envied his brother and then one day, things took a turn for the worse when his father gave his entire wealth to Ram Bajaj. Teja decided to kill his father but in the night's darkness, instead killed Munshi Harish Chandra (Raveena's Dad), though Teja doesn't regret his actions. Teja's sole mission, now, is to get back his property somehow and start his own Poultry & Bakery Farm. Teja also needs to return back the loan to Gogo (but has no intentions whatsoever to do so). In order to achieve his evil goals, Teja employs two people: Robert (Vijay Khote, who is very good at aiming) and Balla (Shahzad Khan, Ajit's clone and son... who is a very very smart boy!) <br /><br />Rank # 3. Amar (Aamir Khan): Wants to marry the rich heiress Raveena, so he sells his father's cheap saloon and heads off for Mumbai. Amar, has no problem taking care of the big business that Raveena's father will hand him over after their wedding and is willing to sacrifice his happiness and shift to London, if needed.<br /><br />Rank # 4. Prem (Salman Khan): After Gogo, Prem is the second most innocent character to appear in the movie and the way Amar tries to take advantage of him in the mask of a friend, is tragic.<br /><br />I won't reveal any more characters because Jesus Christ! I just wouldn't stop typing! The movie is outright stunning! Go and get the DVD now and beware of those cheap VCDs as they have omitted many good scenes out of the movie.<br /><br />The background music is stud and the action is better than the Matrix, especially the final encountered between Prem and Crime Master Gogo (watch out for it), it appears in the climax. Andaz Apna Apna is also a drama with many negative and positive characters and teach us a lot about life and values and ethics. It teaches us about bravery (why else would Amar ask Prem to stay back when they go to meet the kidnapper, even though Prem was complaining that he had to go to the toilet???). Andaz Apna Apna is also a tragedy, especially the scenes where Salman is targeted by Aamir and is given overdose of stomach-upsetting pills, the part where Teja reveals his sad feelings regarding why he couldn't go to London and the part where Gogo is arrested in the ending, without even getting back his 36,000. Andaz Apna Apna is overall a complete package.... sit back and enjoy the ride! Bet there'll be a second ride after that... and then a third!<br /><br />The movie was considered a flop back then and I bet no one liked it but buckle up guys! This movie is a big hit! Even if it didn't have enough people coming to theatres, the movie is one of the highest selling Home DVDs and one of the most frequently movie on most of the channels so the producers have laughed their way to the banks long time back! | 1 |
Blythe Danner and Judith Ivey deliver wonderful performances here as Jonathan Silverman, as Eugene, recounts his life in 1937's Brighton Beach.<br /><br />What makes the film so good is the relationships among the characters with a backdrop of extremely wonderful family values.<br /><br />Bob Dishy had a marvelous opportunity here as the father of the clan. He gives a restrained but compelling performance as the patriarch of the family.<br /><br />His sons played by Jonathan Silverman and Brian Dillinger are fabulous. There are certain scenes when Silverman is skating or hopping where I'm reminded of Jerry Lewis.<br /><br />As for Danner and Ivey, they too are wonderful. Their mannerisms, intonation and idealism of the Jewish culture are beautifully realized by them.<br /><br />The cinematography is just wonderful. Beautiful Brighton in 1937! Even as the inevitability of war loomed, the film is rich with many of the typical problems faced by families in that period. In a sense, you don't have to be Jewish to experience what the family is going through.<br /><br />A must see for nostalgic buffs, and those of us who believe so strongly in family values. | 1 |
OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.<br /><br />The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.<br /><br />Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.<br /><br />So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too. | 1 |
Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle. | 0 |
I saw this Australian film about 10 years ago and have never forgotten it. The movie shows the horror of war in a way that Hollywood usually glosses over. The relationship between the soldiers of the two warring countries is highlighted by the differences in culture and the ultimate knowledge that in the end we are all really not different on the inside. If you can find any type of copy of this--buy or rent it. You won't be disappointed, just awed. | 1 |
The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by. | 1 |
The Play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare between the years of 1604 and 1606. Ever since then, many other versions of the play have been produced, including remakes completed in 1948, 1971, and 2006. Akira Kurosawa even directed a Japanese version of Macbeth in 1957 entitled, "Kumonosu jô." The play starts out with King Duncan hearing about the success of two of his generals, Macbeth and Banquo, in a recent battle with the Irish and the Norwegians. After a quick promotion from Duncan, Macbeth instantly gets an uncanny feeling for lust, greed, and power and does everything in his power to gain access to the crown: even if it includes murder.<br /><br />Geoffrey Wright tried creating his own version of the famous play in 2006 by setting it in the modern Melbourne underworld. Just imagine a lowly Macbeth slaying hundreds of soldiers with an AK-47 and rapping his own rendition of, "Low" at the same time. Just kidding about the latter, but one thing he does do is utter the traditional Shakespeare. And he keeps it going throughout the whole movie. That's right! Shakespeare meets ghetto. It's all you could ever hope for! Not
The newest Macbeth is rough and violent enough to match up with any other modern day action film, but it lacks decent acting, the right lingo, and a good technique of camera work.<br /><br />The modernized movie starts out with Macbeth (Sam Worthington) who works as a hit man/drug dealer for Duncan (Gary Sweet), a drug lord from Melbourne, Australia. After being promoted to the Thane of Glamis by Duncan (as the three witches had predicted), aspiration starts to take over Macbeth as he sets his eyes on the throne. After promoting Macbeth, Duncan invites himself over to Macbeth's house for a night of drugs and alcohol. Before the festivities begin, Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hall) talks Macbeth into killing Duncan to take power over the throne. After the bodyguards are drunk and everyone's asleep, Macbeth sneaks into Duncan's room and stabs him to death. After his murder, Macbeth takes all of Duncan's belongings including hid title and crown. Just as soon as he thinks he's got what he wanted, he finds out that it will take more than bribery and running away to solve his problems. <br /><br />One major flaw of the movie was the acting. A once seemingly flamboyant and empowered Macbeth suddenly turns into a sissy. And he looks like a sad puppy dog throughout the entire film. I don't really know if this was Worthington's or Wright's fault, but either way, one of the two should have realized Macbeth was a king, not a knot on a log that took everything his wife had to say literally. Like I said earlier, Macbeth should have been rude, arrogant, and spiteful. But when his character changes over to a drug lord, he changes personalities as well I suppose. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth really knew how to nip it in the bud when it came to recognizing and personifying her character. She didn't seem quite as spiteful as she was in the play or the 1971 version, but she reminds Macbeth that compared to murder, anything else he could possibly do, wouldn't quite match up. <br /><br />Another thing I found distasteful was all the nudity. This fluke HAD to be Wright's fault. The witches didn't do a bit of acting, unless you call parading around in your birthday suit acting. At one point in the film, I started to wonder if I was watching Macbeth or Unique Positions Vol. 2. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong when I say I find the Shakespearean dialogue out of place. It's spoken flawlessly, but when it's spoken by an Australian gangster, it's just really weird. When Macbeth starts to kill people off, he first lets them know by talking to them in Ye Olde English. Macbeth contains plenty of action, blood, gore, and nudity to last anyone a lifetime. You forget all the positive facts though when you start to think to yourself, "Okay, what in the heck did he just say in that last sentence?" At some points in the movie, I don't even think the actors themselves knew what they were saying. The new age-ness of the movie could have easily been pulled off it weren't for the, "Thou's" and the, "Thee's". <br /><br />The camera work was just simply fair for me. One thing I could not stand was the constant pacing back and forth between characters. The camera technique used gave off that Blair Witch sort of vibe and made me throw up a little in my mouth. Matt Reeves tried to attempt the same concept of camera work in, Clover field but it just doesn't work. It makes me want to get out of my chair and look around for the little barf bags they have conveniently planted on every seat in the airplanes. <br /><br />Looking back on it all, the gangsta' Macbeth holds one positive: plenty of action. Other than that, the movie contains nothing more than uninspired acting, correct English usage, and stomach-turning camera work. The soundtrack holds one or two of the same songs, but each song is edited or remixed differently for every scene. There is never a variation of interesting or captivating media used. From now on out, directors should leave the dangerous drug underworld to Al Pacino and Robert Deniro. Future renditions of Macbeth should be created just as Shakespeare intended the play to be 400 years ago. I would recommend using medieval clothing, Ye Olde English, swords and shields and a soundtrack prepared by Enya. But either way, the modern Macbeth makes you yearn for some good 'ole folk music, a camp fire, and a bustier. | 0 |
This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment. | 0 |
I have to say, as a BSG fan I wasn't exactly sure what I'd think of this show. I saw it on the big screen at the Arclight cinema tonight (as part of the Paley Center screenings), and the cast and film makers spoke after-wards. Ron Moore said they 'wanted to make a clean break from Battlestar, and do something different, and that yes they would lose some fans but hopefully they'd gain others". <br /><br />Even without their talk, I am now a fan of the new show. But here's what I thought of the film.<br /><br />I loved it. It was really very good. I guess I'm a true sci-fi (or 'syfy' - do I really have to type that?) geek, because I'd totally watch this as a series. It has a strong and rich story, and kept my interest. <br /><br />It starts with a small group of teenagers plotting something, which to me was the weakest part and a bit confusing. The actor playing "Ben" should have given us more of a glimpse into his intense beliefs. The actress playing "Zoe" seemed a little posy, but she was playing a teenager (and I'm sure I won't be the only one who thought "Zoe" was a cylon at first, perils of being a BSG geek). If they're hoping these will be the new Bamber/Helfer/Park, they may want to rethink it. Surprisingly, it was the adults that captured the audiences attention.<br /><br />Eric Stoltz gives a stellar performance as Daniel Greystone, a man so haunted by his family tragedy that he jumps at the first chance of getting out of his grief and doesn't let go. He does a chilling and enthralling job of conveying his character's sly knowledge of the inner world of computers and people, especially in a scene in which he spins a web for the young teenage friend of his daughters, traps her, then dismisses and releases her. No sign at all of the 'serial killer' he played on Gray's Anatomy, really impressive acting.<br /><br />Equally as strong though not in it nearly as much is Paula Malcomson as his wife Amanda Greystone. She is just as smart and well written and beautifully played as Stoltz's part, and I completely believed that they are a couple, and a couple that have been together forever and have a strong relationship, something rarely seen these days. I look forward to seeing what happens with this family, and hope they give her as much to do as Roslin in BSG- she is strong and smart and when she lashes out at her kid, you cringe, it's really great. Not to mention her eyes, which could hold magical powers, that's how intense they are. The scene where she takes on the government agent- very short scene, but beautifully played- really gives you an idea of her power.<br /><br />The other part of the show that did not work 100% for me were the scenes with Esai Morales, and the mafia type clan of his. He does a good job overall, but I did not believe in this mobs power, nor intimidated by their threats. I found myself wishing that this whole story line was a bit more mysterious and hard to figure out; the way it is presented is almost an homage to the Godfather, they kind of hit you over the head with it a bit. But given time, I can see how this will develop into an interesting 'Upstairs/downstairs' kind of thing, with the poor minorities (Morales et al) versus the rich folk who rule the planet (Stolz et al). And to be honest, I did enjoy it when he spoke to his son about the origin of their name- that was a very well played scene.<br /><br />Note to BSG fans, the boy playing 'Willy Adama' doesn't really look much like Olmos, but he's just a kid. Whether or not he'll be featured any more than he was in this film, who knows? I sure couldn't tell. But it didn't bother me, because he wasn't as interesting as everything else going on around him.<br /><br />Polly Walker plays 'Sister Clarice', and she's chilling and odd in every scene she's in. I'm not sure where she'll go or who she'll end up with, but I was very impressed with her acting. In this film she was sort of on the side, but obviously being set up to play a very important part later on. She was nothing like her character in "Rome", something I always find impressive in actors.<br /><br />One nice surprise- the music is actually better and less obvious than BSG, even though it's the same guy doing it, Bear McCreary. It has a haunting and unusual approach that took me by surprise, I'd buy this score if I had the chance.<br /><br />As to the 'panel discussion' after the show, it was hosted by Seth Green. Ron Moore was very smart and articulate, David Eick was cracking wise (much like his video diaries), Esai Morales told a long story about how he was cast, and Eric Stoltz was very funny and didn't really answer the questions ( but I've always had a thing for him). Paula Malcomson was tough (she took Seth Green to task for mistakenly saying she was on '24'), and the girls who played Zooey and Lacey were both darling. Grace Park and Tricia Helfer were there as well, answering questions about how they did the scenes acting with themselves on BSG. Overall a very interesting and wonderful evening.<br /><br />I'm giving the show a 9 out of 10, and very much looking forward to watching it all unfold.<br /><br />NOTE: I just watched this a second time and really hope they explore what the HOLOBAND was originally made for. I have no idea what that may be, but it holds a great deal of fascination to me. | 1 |
When just days away before the film's premiere, its screenwriter backs out of the project, and demands his name to be removed from the credits, you know that this does not bode well. <br /><br />The books, on which "Wiedzmin" is based on, have great potential for a vivacious fantasy film "Geralt de Rivia is a witcher; his sole purpose is to destroy the monsters that plague the world. But not everything monstrous-looking is evil, and not everything fair is good
" But all that didn't matter, when a polish film crew, with a low budget, and no, or little appreciation for Sapkowski's work, decided to make a 13-part mini-series out of it. The two-hour film is a by-product of their actions, to maximize the profits. <br /><br />It's not hard to point out in this case, what makes people label this film as bad. Plot (incoherent, thanks to cramming it with too many stories), acting (below average, with exception of Zebrowski), dialogues (bland), editing (choppy), special effects (unbearable) and choreography (poor), add up to the film's overall bad experience. Only the soundtrack, done by Grzegorz Ciechowski, brings out the beauty of the world of "Wiedzmin", which was never brought to the screen. Even Poland's grandiose flora and fauna (where part of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was shot), a crucial element in almost ANY fantasy film, were not used up to their full potential. The more I think about this dead loss, the more I'm running out of words. At least, it's a comfort to know, that Marek Brodzki, the director of "Wiedzmin", has directed only one film ever since (in addition, in Germany). <br /><br />For now, we're left with top-notch fantasy stories and a fantastic computer RPG (released in 2007) referring to the Wiedzmin books. But I'm sure that one day, justice will be done for the Wiedzmin saga, and we'll be treated with an equally good film adaptation soon enough. | 0 |
The most amazing, spiritually uplifting movie about the restoration of the gospel. Far better than any other film, or movie made about the restoration thus far. If you haven't seen it, hop on a plane to Salt Lake and see it now. You won't regret it! You truly get a sense of what the first saints had to struggle through, putting complete and total faith in there prophet Joseph Smith. You finally get some sort of comprehension of the things the prophet had to fight through and the persecutions he and his people faced. If you have any questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints and our humble beginnings just watch this movie, it will make complete and total sense afterward. | 1 |
Ughh this movie is awful. The script is stupid and of course chase doesn't tell zoey he doesn't love her!!! Like every episode...ill never understand zoey 101 (the show) Also , why the heck does Logan's dad act SO retarted. And its only about zoey and chase what about the other characters. Its always the same in every episode Quinn makes and invention something goes terribly wrong with the invention and zoeys brother always gets involved in it. If you haven't seen it don't waste an hour watching this cuz you'll be wasting your time!!SMaybe this may be interesting to an eight year old well 8- 10 but i cnat imagine any1 older watching this retarted film. But what can you expect from nick??? | 0 |
Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.) | 0 |
I've recently seen An zhan. Not because it was a Hong Kong film, but because I was looking for a change from the films being produced here in the US. In my humble opinion, I believe the film could easily compete against the action thrillers being produced here, except for the traditional idiocyncracies of Hong Kong film. The one that still bothers me was the chief inspector character. I still don't understand why there has to be a complete-idiot-comic-relief-type character even in the serious films that come out of Hong Kong, but I can live with it when the movie is this good. The characters are believable even if the situations they are in are not. The story is fast paced and really sucks you in to it. The real cincher scenes for me were the two bus rides that the thief character takes. Overall, a really solid film. | 1 |
A guy desperate for action attempts to hit on a gorgeous girl in a bus. She refuses him, but when he runs after someone who tries to steal her purse they get together anyway. And there it starts - a relation that is slightly tainted by the fact that she is a jealous and neurotic superhero. It can't be a secret that things between them are going to be problematic.<br /><br />In short, a story that could promise to grow out into a cool film. And IMO, it succeeds at being a nice film. It's no masterpiece, but it had me in tears from laughing on more than one occasion - the two lead characters twirl around each other in a crazy love fest that is, even with the superhero thing going, believable.<br /><br />So. Thin story, but worked out really funny and thus worthy of cinema time.<br /><br />7 out of 10 broken hearts | 1 |
This is a simple episode ad so far after watching all of the Season 11 episodes (with the exception of the Imaginationland trilogy) this is the one that made laugh the most, definitely is my favourite so far of Season 11. So basically Cartman sees at a toy store a kid who has the Tourette's syndrome and a new idea comes to Cartman. You can imagine, now Cartman has Tourette's syndrome and is great since Kyle once he knows about this is like "he's faking". Cartman is certainly on fire, saying whatever he wants to the teachers, to the principal, to anybody. On the other hand we have Kyle who now is the intolerant one, basically for saying that Cartman was faking he was taken to meet children with Tourette's syndrome just to let him see that Tourette's syndrome is for real and is great since Kyle is like "well maybe someone is faking to have Tourette's for fun", in short Kyle could not explain that Cartman was faking. Probably my favourite scene of this episode is when Cartman is with Kyle's family but right after this scene another kid fins that Cartman is simply faking, the kid with Tourette's who was at the toy store, Cartman basically said to that kid this: "isn't having Tourette's awesome". But to be saying whatever he wants and be for everybody a brave boy is sort of just the beginning for Cartman, his master plan: going on National TV to say anything he wants ("people will call it brilliant TV, they'll probably give me an Emmy"- fantastic, in this episode the word "s***" is used 26 times and certainly that's not all. South Park won an Emmy like a month or so before this episode aired). But here there's a twist, Cartman basically removed all the bricks of the wall, he says now everything without thinking so we hear from Cartman that he wet his bed last night, now is not fun for Cartman and he is like "I can't control what I say" and certainly the person who was with him is like "well of course you can't control what you say, you have Tourette's" so Cartman is like "my Tourette's has gotten worse, before I just blurted out cool stuff about Jews being lame and stuff but now it's gotten really bad". There is also stuff about Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator, actually what happened with a pervert here happens with a lot more perverts, Kyle and Thomas were behind that to stop Cartman, Kyle ends being Cartman's saviour! Fantastic!<br /><br />TSA VOICES CONCERN Over "South Park" October 3rd Episode <br /><br />On Wednesday, October 3, the cable network Comedy Central will air an episode of the animated series "South Park" in which one of the young characters, Cartman, "gets" Tourette Syndrome. Given the nature of this program, we fully expect it to be offensive and insensitive to people with TS and garner numerous calls and emails from our members and the TS community.<br /><br />We have already taken some pre-emptive strikes, such as requesting that Comedy Central air our Public Service Announcement (featuring comedian Richard Lewis) during or after the show. In addition, once the episode airs and we are able to see exactly how TS is portrayed, we will be able to respond with specific issues and problems we have with the show to the writers.<br /><br />"We are actually surprised it took the creators so long to use TS as comedy fodder in this program, since no disability, illness or controversial topic is off limits to them," said Judit Ungar, President, TSA.<br /><br />"We always see portrayals of TS (good and bad) as an opportunity for awareness and education, and a show of this magnitude and popularity is certainly no exception and provides a way for TSA to spread factual information about the disorder," said Tracy Colletti- Flynn, Manager of Public Relations and Communications, TSA.<br /><br />We will be posting an official statement on this site with TSA's reaction to the program after the show airs.<br /><br />TSA RESPONDS to "South Park" Episode <br /><br />Unfortunately, as has been the case with far too many media portrayals of people with Tourette Syndrome (TS), the season opener of South Park ("Le Petit Tourette," 10-3-07) served to perpetuate even further the outright myth that most of those affected by TS have involuntary outbursts of foul language. In point of fact, fully 85-90% of people with TS never experience this tragically socially stigmatizing symptom (medically termed coprolalia). For viewers less familiar with the symptoms of this neurological disorder, the misleading take away message couldn't have been clearer unless you curse, you don't have TS. <br /><br />Despite our pre-airing trepidations, we do concede that the episode was surprisingly well- researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed. The scripted input from parents, a neurologist, peers and the therapy session with the "TS children's support group" all served as a clever device for providing these facts to the public. "No doubt this South Park episode did generate increased national awareness about TS. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that school children with TS will be mocked and even bullied by insensitive peers who may have seen the program," said Judit Ungar, TSA President. "We realize that for over a decade the writers' satirical parodies have spared no group be they celebrities, the disabled or political figures. The fact that TS was the subject of a popular TV show attests to the fact that the public is so much more aware of the disorder. Obviously, this increased awareness we've worked too hard to accomplish can at times prove to be a double-edged sword." <br /><br />TSA contacted the program's executives prior to the airing, and we will be in touch with them again. Perhaps we'll succeed in turning this into an opportunity for positive TS awareness. | 1 |
Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3/10 | 0 |
This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked. | 0 |
Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.<br /><br />I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.<br /><br />This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.<br /><br />There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids. | 1 |
Bugs life is a good film. But to me, it doesn't really compare to movies like Toy story and stuff. Don't get me wrong, I liked this movie, but it wasn't as good as Toy story. The film has the visuals, the laughs, and others that Toy story had. But the film didn't feel quite as... I don't know, but I thought it was still a pretty good film. <br /><br />A bugs life... I don't want to say this, is a film that I don't remember. I saw it years ago. Of course, I haven't seen Toy story in years, but I still remember it. I shouldn't have reviewed this film, but I am. I am giving it a thumbs up, though it's not exactly the best work Pixar has done.<br /><br />A bug's life:***/**** | 1 |
This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal. | 0 |
There were heist movies before this one, and indeed the likes of Rififi were an obvious influence on it - but The Red Circle is more than just another entry in an overpopulated genre and with this film, director Jean-Pierre Melville has managed to create something that both thrills on the surface and gives its audience something to think about. Being cool is just as important a feature of the modern crime movie as guns and gangsters, and Melville delivers that with this film in droves; the tone of the film is very relaxed too and Melville allows the bulk of the film to bubble under the cool exterior. The story has a number of angles but the central character is Corey - a thief who is released from prison. His release coincides with the escape of infamous murderer Vogel, who slips from under the nose of Police Commissioner Mattei during a train ride. The first thing Corey does upon release is steal some money from his former boss Rico, and the second thing he does is recruit Vogel and a sharpshooter to help him pull of a jewel heist. But Rico and the police are hot on the thieves' tails...<br /><br />The film is bolted together by four excellent central performances. Alain Delon is calm and calculating as the film's anti-hero, while Gian Maria Volontè looks formidable in his role as the escaped murderer. François Périer is good also as a dubious club owner, while the real standout performance comes from André Bourvil in his role as the police commissioner. The film runs at almost two and a half hours and is not exactly a thrill ride. However, the director keeps things interesting by keeping the action focused on the important elements. The film does feature crime film stapes such as shootings, but they are kept to a minimum. The first two thirds of the movie are really just building up to the suspenseful heist scene towards the end. Rififi was most famous for its heist sequence - an intricately designed scene in which nobody speaks a word. The heist in this film is similar in that it is also wordless, and I have to say that I preferred the scene in Rififi; but Melville's skill in direction and the calm and composed way that it plays out make good of it. The film boils down to an exciting climax that rounds it all off nicely. Overall, this might not appeal to all crime film fans as the action is more than a little bit slow; but The Red Circle is an excellent film and deserves its reputation as a masterpiece. | 1 |
So I rented this from Netflix because somebody gave me Roger Ebert's book "I hated, hated, hated this movie" and he gave this one a rare zero-star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review "Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor". So I figured from Ebert saying that I would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. I know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. Here we have Richard Dreyfuss as a gangster which I don't think it would be terrible to see Dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. But above all the other things that were awful about this "movie" I can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. While the movie starts off with Jeff Goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching Dreyfuss's girlfriend while Dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. But after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. Then there are a whole bunch of jokes about Dreyfuss being mentally ill. Haha. Not funny. Then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying Frank Sinatra's "My Way" sang by Gabriel Byrne apparently to insult Dreyfuss. Of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader Dreyfuss shoots Byrne over five times and Byrne just will not die. Are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny? I can certainly tell you I did not care or find that funny. Not only am I disappointed in Dreyfuss (who I admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but I am also extremely disappointed in Jeff Goldblum because this was released the same year that "Independence Day" was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. Did Goldblum feel that "Independence Day" would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if "Independence Day" were a bomb? What did an Oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this? The opening sequence of "Mad Dog Time" says that the movie is set on another planet. I only wish now that I have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that I will never get back. Ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough I am afraid. Every copy of "Mad Dog Time" should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. I have yet to top a worst movie I have ever seen because this one has won it's honor as the worst movie ever. | 0 |
Turd Pie:<br /><br />* Take x2 franchises * Par-boil for 5 mins * Stir in mixed cardboard characters (non Actors work best) * Add 2 tons of clichés then bake in Your Plot-Hole Microwave until bored. * Serve with a Sprinkling of Dawson's Crack (not a Typo)<br /><br />Voila! - Money spinning Brain Rot for the Emo/World of Warcraft Generation <br /><br />Looking for the keys in drain was the best bit (?) <br /><br />Aside from the first 5 mins, its one of the worst films ever made. <br /><br />Utter, Utter, Nonsense. | 0 |
This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way. | 0 |
My boyfriend and I decided to go see this movie after we heard on the radio that it was a good movie worth seeing, even up there with "Cars". Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was horrified. For starters, the cows, which should be females, had male voices. Then I realized they really are supposed to be guys. I put the transvestite cows aside for a bit and tried to keep watching the movie with an open mind, but it was just so corny I couldn't help but shake my head. I probably checked my phone about ten times to see if it was almost over. The plot was decent, if not predictable, but it took way to long to reach its point. I was having trouble sitting through it, and I'm 19. The children in the theater were actually getting up and running up and down the aisles. I felt like joining them. But my biggest problem with the movie was that it was loaded with drinking references, not to mention that the cows/bulls actually hot wired and stole a car, then drank and drive, broke into a boy's house to push him out of bed (he deserved it though), then ran away from the cops, whom the writers of the movie made look like terrible people. This isn't the kind of thing I would want my kid to be exposed to. There's way too much of that in the real world, if I wanted my child to watch guys drink and drive and lead cops on a chase, I'd pop them in front of the 10 o'clock news. Children's movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an escape into ridiculousness. What happened to the good morals and happy endings that children's movies used to boast? That's why Disney's old movies, like Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, etc. are classics. If you want your kids to see a great cartoon with basically the same plot as "Barnyard", rent "The Lion King". You can get a great story without the awful drinking and driving and grand theft auto references. The writers of "Barnyard" were obviously trying to continue the great trend of making a children's movie that a parent could enjoy as well, but they did so in very bad taste. I would never take my kids to see this, and I suggest you save your money and watch something else. | 0 |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Released in 1956,and considered quite racy at the time, Douglas Sirk's over the top candy colored melodrama is still a wonderful thing. The plot concerns the goings on in an oil rich dysfunctional Texas family that includes big brother Kyle, who is insecure, weak, wounded & very alcoholic, played by Robert Stack in a very touching & vulneable performance and his sluty sister Marylee played in an extreme manner by Dorothy Malone. Ms. Malone's performance is telegraphed to us via her eyes, which she uses to show us her emotions, which mostly consist of lust (for Rock Hudson) and jealousy (for Lauren Bacall). Malone is the only actress I've ever seen in movies who enters a room eyes first. Now don't get me wrong, her performance to say the least is an absolute hoot, and is one of the supreme camp acting jobs of the 1950's. But it is also terrible, because as likeable and attractive as Malone is,she's not a very good actress, and she's not capable of subtly or shading. Her performace is of one note. She does get to do a wicked Mambo,and in a great montage, as unloving daddy played by the always good Robert Keith falls to his death climbing a staircase, Sirk mixes it up with an almost mad Malone doing a orgasmic dance as she undresses. Stack,(who should have won an Oscar) & Malone, (who won the award, but shouldn't have) are the real stars of the film, the ones who set all the hysteria, both sexual & otherwise in motion, while the "real stars" of the film, Hudson & Bacall fade to grey & brown,which are the colors that they are mainly costumed in. Hudson who was a better actor then given credit for plays the childhood & best friend of Stack's, and the stalked love interest of Malone's who moans & groans over Rock through most of the film. But Hudson wants no part of her,and instead is in love with Bacall who is married to Stack. No one is very happy & no one is happy for very long. The Stack-Bacall marriage falls apart big time after a year, and Stack pretty much drinks himself into oblivion because he thinks he is sterile, and can't give Bacall a baby to prove that he's a man. Sirk who was a very intelligent man, and had a long & fascinating career both in films and theatre in Germany, ended his Hollywood career at Universal in the mid 1950's with a series of intense vividly colored "women's movies" or melodramas. Although they were mainly adapted from medicore or trashy source material,in Sirk's hands they became masterpieces of the genre. Sirk had a wonderful sense of color & design which he brought to play in these films filling his wide screen spaces with characters who played out their emotional lives among weird color combinations & lighting, make believe shadows, and lots of mirroed reflections. In "Written" the characters are always peeking out of windows, listening at doors or sneaking around. So in the end, after much violence, an accidental murder, a miscarriage & more Sirk ends the movie with a final & startling scene of a "reborn" and reformed Malone in a man-tailored suit, sitting at a desk foundling a miniature oilwell. | 1 |
I guess that after Leonard Nimoy had been successful in directing "the Search for Spock" and "the Voyage Home," William Shatner thought he could direct too. Although he is a competent actor, he shows here that he's just not a good director.<br /><br />Actually, this movie is hard evidence to support the arguments of Trekkies who say that William Shatner being an arrogant egomaniac. For although his character, Captain James Kirk, was always arguably the most important role in the original "Star Trek," it seems in this movie that he is the heart of the movie, the two other most important characters, Captain Spock and Doctor Leonard McCoy, are just there to support him, and the other characters are just there to add comic relief.<br /><br />The plot is that some emotional Vulcan outcast named Sybok is mindmelding with people and releasing the pain bottled up inside them from that traumatic event early in life that changed them forever. Grateful, they join him in his quest to make the entire world free of pain and thus at peace. Sybok and his followers commandeer the building in which a peace conference between a Human, Klingon, and Romulan diplomat is taking place. This lures the still-being-constructed Enterprise there, since none of Starfleet's other ships have "experienced commanders" (honestly, with how Starfleet is run, the Klingons and Romulans should have conquered them years ago). Sybok adds the Enterprise's crew, save Spock (who is revealed to be secret brothers with Sybok), McCoy, and Kirk. Sybok orders that the Enterprise take off to "the center of the universe" to meet "God," who apparently every race has a word for. However, it turns out that this is only a minor entity when he demands the use of the Enterprise and Kirk asks, "what does God need with a starship." The entity is destroyed, but not before Sybok, realizing he's been lied to for years, sacrifices his life and earns Spock's respect in death after the Enterprises photon torpedos destroy the entity and inexplicably Sybok as well.<br /><br />OK, science fiction movies are not known for realism, but at some point, rationality must be enforced. Why do people follow Sybok just for releasing their pain? Why are all humanoids defined by a single traumatic event? I've certainly led a trauma-free life. Why doesn't Kirk try his crew for mutiny and treason after they join Sybok? What was the point of Sybok sacrificing himself when the torpedos were going to kill the entity anyway?<br /><br />So the plot's weak. Another problem is that Sybok, though played well by Lawrence Luckinbill, is poorly portrayed. Just because he's an emotional Vulcan doesn't mean he should act exactly like a Human religious fanatic. Shatner (who was a co-writer as well as the director) could have at least developed dialog fitting for an emotional Vulcan. I guess he feels that any emotional being talks like us. Gee, I guess that means that Klingons should say "isn't" and "don't" more often than "is not" and "do not." And the Cardassians shouldn't prolong their sentences because they like to talk (yeah, I know it's sad that I know this). Please... every ST race uses unique dialog. Why is Sybok the exception.<br /><br />The only thing to not complain about is the acting. I've always known "Star Trek" to have great actors, and this movie is not exception. Cudos also go to Leonard Nimoy, for it had to be difficult to play the dispassionate Spock in his old age.<br /><br />Some other things I didn't like:<br /><br />Shatner and the late DeForrest Kelly twice show what bad singers they are by singing "Row, Row, Row your Boat" in this movie. I guess Shatner wished to silence his detractors of his singing ability. What he did was prove their point.<br /><br />Uhura does a fan dance while wearing nothing but tree bark to draw some men into a booby trap. After all, the dreams of all us men are filled with images of middle-aged plump women dancing naked.<br /><br />Comedy's all well and good as long as it doesn't affect the nature of "Star Trek" too much, but when Scotty bumps into an object on the Enterprise and KOs himself, it's kinda goin' overboard.<br /><br />Kirk is the only crew member who can reject Sybok's offer of releasing their inner pain and see through the God imposter's deception. Not even Spock can manage either of these? Perhaps this scenes were valantines from Shatner to his character, as many suspect.<br /><br />The concept of an entity posing as God had been used in "Star Trek" before this movie more than once. Be creative, Shatner.<br /><br />Speaking of uncreativeness, I didn't purticularly care for the ripping off of the music of "Star Trek: the Next Generation."<br /><br />All in all, pretty bad "Trek" movie. If you're a Trekkie, watch it once because it's "Star Trek." Otherwise, watch "Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan." It's way better. | 0 |
When this film was made, the hippie thing had gone mainstream. The ideas of the counter culture was well established, that is why such a big film could be made. Yet it has something to say, and it is said really beautifully. Apart from those who're only waiting for the wanking material, this film is given credit for its beautiful scenes(which in itself is more than enough reason to see the film) by the most. The soundtrack to this film, which actually became more popular than the film itself, is another plus. Pink Floyd's "Careful with that axe Eugene" suits really well with the explosions, the absence of music in other scenes gives the film a nice quiet mood. But. It seems as though the messages in this film have been overlooked by the most. If you didn't understand it, which seems to be the case for the most, I'll give you some hints: The man(tough guy, what ever his name is-Mark?) is a part of a "reality group". He leaves this group saying something like "I'm willing to die. But not of boredom" He later go for a joyride with a stolen plane, probably to seek some action. As he is in the air, Grateful Dead's Dark Star(from the Live/Dead album) is played(i think). This song contains the phrase "Shall we go you and I while we can", this is though not heard in the film.(Perhaps stretching it a bit too far meaning that quote is essential?) In the plane, he checks up a girl(Daria), who is driving in her car to a conference(about giving typical suburban families the opportunity to live in a super-relaxing place in the desert, where everything is so simple and nice. For the whole family!), by diving down, almost hitting the car. He lands the plane, and joins the girl on her way to Detroit. They stop at Zabriskie point, where they enjoy each other as living creatures and the nature. Later a family with a big car(of the type which you sleep in) and a speed boat is showed visiting Zabriskie Point, the father saying something like "what a waste driving all the way up here", and the kid sitting inside the car, grinning. I sensed a "this wasn't much better than on the telly"-attitude. Daria takes Mark back to the plane which now is painted in a psychedelic style, with the identity number changed to "no war" on one side and "no words" on the other. "Bucks Sucks" is also written on the plane. Mark takes the plane back to where he stole it from, saying to Daria before he leaves "I don't risk anything" or something, one of several hints about he not caring too much about his destiny. (This because he has the feeling that the environment that surrounds don't give him anything- "I wonder what happens in the real world") On the airport he is met by police officers who shoots him even though he just has returned the plane. Daria hears this on the radio, but decides to go to the conference in the fancy mansion. Here she feels alien after the adventures with her just killed friend. She enjoys fresh water running down a rock, more than the swimming pool. Inside the house the viewer is once again given a hint about anti-materialism -She looks out through a glass wall, holding her hands on the glass like she was trapped. The business men is seen arguing, the one side eager to make a big deal, the other afraid of losing money. Daria leaves the house and looks back at it, visualizing it blowing up. After the house, several other things blow up, for example a television. She smiles, happy she has inside herself destroyed what she after the meeting with Mark look upon as something negative.<br /><br />To summarize: Mark obviously experience the "reality group" as not very useful as they just sit and talk, taking no action. He clearly has bad feelings about things being as they are, and it seems like he feels that it's no use fighting against it. He wants to leave. He helps Daria, who is "in mind but not in action" seeing his point of view. Where his feeling of being misfitted turns out leading to his death, one can hope Daria uses the ideas in a way that will turn out more constructive. In the film you see how a town (LA) is being polluted by commercial (too bad you have to show the commercial to make the point), you see business men deciding what is the future, et cetera, and you see people being unhappy with these and other situations which is parts of the modern world.<br /><br />I have only seen the film once, so I have not caught all points, but I certainly got a feeling of what this film has to say, and I find it strange that this film can be called meaningless. If you say the points are being too obvious, I can see why, this film probably intended to appeal to the post-hippie radicals "digging" the thoughts of anti-establishment. Even though, it has a lot to say, and its message is still needed today, things pretty much evolving in the same direction as it did before the sixties. Zabriskie Point is a really great film, telling a story about quite normal young people (not far out hippies tripping around tip toe on acid, digging everything) seeking what they percept as real, dissatisfied with the conventional. And it is done in a truly beautiful way. | 1 |
Kurt Russell is so believable and the action so non-stop that it takes thinking about it afterward to realize that there were honest-to-goodness important themes [overcoming fear of The Stranger, learning to rise above early conditioning, the strength that love and friendship can bring, etc.] in the storyline. This is so very rare for a 'guy's action flick' that even I [who thinks most A/A is violent pap] liked the film and have recommended it to every guy I know.....it's a shame this one was overlooked because by rights it should have been one of the biggest action-adventure box office hits -- it has something for everyone without straining credulity or losing the nearly non-stop action moments. I'm afraid the answer to it not becoming a hit lies in the fact that adults did not go to see it. Anyone under 20 probably has not only seen more violent action in their video games but probably would either not catch the multi-layered, multi-themed beauty or not care about it. This film could convert anyone who avoids A/A as mindless violence. If a guy takes his lady [or rents it or sees it in a cable listing] to see this film he'll be much more likely to get her to go with him to other action flicks. | 1 |
As far as Christian film goes,it's typical.Lacking of a mega-budget they try their best.Some times falling short,sometimes hitting the mark.This one almost hit, great acting can only carry a movie so far.A combining of H.P. Lovecraft,and Frank Peretti was a good idea.All's it needed was better back story, and better character development to make it great movie.The visuals are not that bad,also smart holding off the demons till the last few minutes helped keep the suspense at a good pace.Could of used a better ending though.Not a bad premise having terrorists experiments go wrong.Much better than typical Hollywood treatment about the demonic realm.Maybe someone will finally do "This present darkness" as a movie. | 1 |
A thinly veiled attempt to push Hulkamania to the film going non-wrestling fan. What could be worse than Hogan in the movies? Bad actors in the wrestling ring, and this film produced both, as Tiny Lester made his way to the WWE that summer in the mother of all promotional blunders. See the dictionary under Oops. As a card carrying member of the stupid kids of the world paid to see this in theaters and when I came out I immediately checked into H.A. - Hulkamaniacs Annoynimous. I am proud to say I have been off the Hulk for 17 years now and have never had a craving since. Since this was made to bring in more fans to the juggernaut that was the WWE in Hogans hey day one has to wonder if there weren't more fans like me who turned to other past times that did not poison ones mind like this offense to celluloid did, such as huffing gas or Russian Roulette. | 0 |
First off, I never got into Dr. Who until recently. Honestly, I never got the opportunity to watch any of the previous incarnations (pun intended) since it was never "big" here in the US as it is everywhere else.<br /><br />That said, I must say (obviously) that after finishing the 2nd season, that this is one of the best sci-fi shows I've ever seen.<br /><br />Now, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows from all over and this show stands out.<br /><br />The first season was tops to begin with, with Christopher Eccleston in the title role and I thought he was terrific. Of course, so was the lovely Billie Piper who just adds such humanity and warmth to the character of Rose that no one could've done it better. Let's not forget Camile Coduri as Jackie and Noel Clarke as Mickey/Ricky who are just a blast to watch. Then there's David Tenannt. At first, I thought he was too gawky-looking to play the character (his ears!!), but after watching the 2nd season, he fits in just fine. His sharp acting and physical comedy is almost flawless. He's great with snappy dialog and can turn serious without batting an eye.<br /><br />Aside from the great acting from the cast is the acting from most of the guest actors that have appeared. A lot of them are veteran actors but some are new to me and are damn fine.<br /><br />The production and direction of the show is top notch. Occasionally, there'll be some cheesy effects here and there, but that's always been a factor in the original series and, like those episodes, is negligible.<br /><br />My favorite thing of all about the series: The stories. Writing folks, is always the key to great entertainment. Russell T. Davies has written many of the episodes along with a few other writers and they have done an excellent job. They've managed to bring excitement, ingenuity, intelligence and fun with clever concepts and great dialog. I also appreciate the fact that they can breach the older Doctors' past story lines and enemies well (my friend explains much of this to me while we watch the show) and respectfully.<br /><br />I won't mention anything about the 2nd season and how it ends since the Sci-Fi channel just started airing the 2nd season.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to spoil it. It's so much fun and excitement. You'll never want to take your eyes away nor miss a word of dialog.<br /><br />It really is that good.<br /><br />PS: Thanks to the producers for Nicholas Briggs back! **EXTERMINATE!** | 1 |
Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back. | 0 |
Forget Plan 9, this is the ultimate fiasco, a costume drama, ineptly directed, scripted, acted, etc. This film is based on Isabel Allende's not-so-much-better novel. I hate Meryl Streep and Antonio Banderas (in non-Spanish films), and the other actors, including Winona, my favourite actress and Jeremy Irons try hard to get over such a terrible script. Plenty of mistakes (like, for example, since when does it snow in Xmas in Chile?) and very cruel, with tons of that evil named "magic realism", this stands out as the worst movie of all time. It totally sucks!!! | 0 |
At first sight, I must say already, watch The Contractor, 2007. With Wesley Snipes too. A better action movie and with a more dramatic plot.<br /><br />The Detonator has an horrendous plot focusing in some sort of atomic bomb, set in Romania and with awful directing for an action movie-- there is no thrilling moments and an action movie is turned in to boredom.<br /><br />Really, what you expect Wesley Snipes to do, when awful screenplays like this one are offered to him? Don't blame him, he needs the money.<br /><br />This was the first impression when I saw the movie, 3 years ago. But I won't see it again, no way. Screw it. It sucks. There. I said it.<br /><br />PS: I don't think I ever said "this movie sucks" on a IMDb review. Thank you, Detonator! | 0 |
What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.<br /><br />The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence. <br /><br />What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that. | 1 |
i was part of the cast of Space Odyssey, playing FIDO in mission control. i just want to say that none of us actors, specially those in mission control who had to react to a green screen most of the time, had any idea how amazing it would turn out to be. i knew it was going to be good, if only for the sheer camaraderie and professionalism that the production team at Impossible Pictures provided for everyone involved. but when we all saw it for the first time at the screening at the Curzon Mayfair, well, i for one felt very proud. I was so glad that none of us looked like we were in Star Trek. Joe Aherne, the screenwriter and director, is the most amazing man to work for. He pretty much gets a good team together and then just trusts them implicitly to freely do what they do best. I'm really lucky to have been part of this show. Who knew something this epic and complicated to understand would turn out to be so enticing to watch. and my god it's a beautiful universe out there. | 1 |
Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.<br /><br />In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.<br /><br />The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.<br /><br />All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.<br /><br />Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks). | 0 |
One of the most popular rentals at my local video store is not Borat or The Departed but a 2005 documentary about Jesus Christ called The God Who Wasn't There by director Brian Flemming, an ex-Christian Fundamentalist. Flemming, in his 62-minute documentary, asserts that Jesus was not a historical figure but a legend based solely on Pagan traditions. Using interviews with authors, philosophers, and historians to debunk the long-held Christian belief that Jesus, the son of God, lived among men, was crucified, and was resurrected, Flemming compares the Christ story with those of cult figures Isis and Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus and Adonis in Greek mythology, and Roman mystery cults such as Mithraism and finds many surprising similarities.<br /><br />In addition to his evidence about Pagan cults, he also states that the earliest sources for the Christ story, the four gospels, were written forty or fifty years after the date given for Jesus' crucifixion and that the letters of St. Paul show little evidence of Jesus being a flesh and blood figure. Flemming, unfortunately however, is not out to conduct a solid investigation of the truth about Jesus' life but to use the subject only as a point of departure for a full throttle attack on Christianity and all religion. Most of the interviews are with those philosophically aligned with the director including avowed atheists such as Biologist Richard Dawkins and author Sam Price. The only Christians interviewed are those on the fringe such as Scott Butcher, the creator of the website Rapture Letters.com, and Ronald Sipus, principal of the fundamentalist Village Christian School, which Flemming attended as a boy.<br /><br />Like Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, his interview with Sipus is so contentious that Sipus walks out in the middle. In a sarcastic tone, Flemming tells us how wrong Christianity was wrong about the sun revolving around the earth, then points to atrocities committed in the name of Christianity such as those by cult leader Charles Manson who killed 11 people and Dena Schlosser, who cut her baby's arm off for God. He also lifts a statement from a book by LaHaye and Jenkins that says that Christians "look forward to the day when all non-Christians are thrown into a lake of fire, howling and screeching." To further turn us against Christianity, Flemming shows us extended clips from Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, detailing in minute detail each scene of violence and torture. What could have been a serious discussion on a very interesting subject eventually becomes a childish rant and a polemic against all religion. In the process of condemning those who used Christianity to commit unspeakable acts, he ignores such people as socialist Muriel Lester, a famous Christian pacifist, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, a Mayan Indian of Guatemala who helped found the Revolutionary Christians and received the Nobel peace prize in recognition of her work for social justice, and Mother Teresa, whose work was about respect for each individual's worth and dignity.<br /><br />His most telling argument is his comparison of Christian doctrine with the Pagan cults and he makes some good points, yet Flemming does not tell us that while some aspects of these cults may resemble Christian doctrines, there are no texts or source materials for these cults before 300AD, long after the New Testament. Also it is important to note one major difference. The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. This is anathema to Christianity which believes that a Church hierarchy including priests and bishops all the way up to the Pope are required to interpret God's will to mankind.<br /><br />Although I am not a Christian and have some doubts about whether or not Jesus Christ was in fact a historical figure, the truth is that, in the long scheme of things, it may not matter. What matters is that a message was introduced to mankind and spread around the world that contributed to mankind's spiritual evolution. Regardless of the distortions and crimes later committed in its name and there were many, Christianity as conceived was a doctrine of compassion and love, and a moral and ethical code that furthered respect for our fellow man.<br /><br />While I applaud the fact that the film was made and that a taboo topic was discussed, what is sorely needed is not another divisive attempt to use religion as a field of combat but to see it as a common thread that can bring the world's people together. While there is room for debate and discussion on religious subjects, in the words of Annie Besant, "spiritual truths are best seen in the clear air of brotherhood and mutual respect. The God Who Wasn't There is recommended only for those whose idea of a good time is to trash the religion of others. | 0 |
Well since seeing part's 1 through 3 I can honestly say that they should have NEVER made part 4. Everything from the tacky, and I DO mean tacky score to the really bad acting, I dare anyone to watch this and not be bored out of their minds.<br /><br />I mean parts 1 to 3 kept the vibe strong on the plot of Damion, but without him around in this one it's just not the same. Sure by the end of part 3 I was getting a little tired of the continued story line's, but it was a good closure at the end of the third one. Again there was no reason for a part 4. Even if there was they could have done a MUCH better job than this sh*t I had to sit through, lol. There goes an hour and a half of my life i'll never see again. | 0 |
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....<br /><br />This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again. | 0 |
The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.<br /><br />Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book "Star Trek Memories," this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in "Plato's Stepchildren," play music with Hippies in "the Way to Eden" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. <br /><br />Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best "unusual and high quality shows" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, "All Our Yesterdays" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.' | 1 |
Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10. | 1 |
Battleship Potemkin is a celluloid masterpiece. The direction of<br /><br />Eisenstein is truly a sight. The film chronicles a ship of disgruntled<br /><br />sailors who are tired of being mistreated by their superior officers.<br /><br />Eventually, the sailors finally have enough of the abuse and send the<br /><br />officers packing. During this time period, there was a shortage of film<br /><br />stock in the Soviet Union. The goverment wanted to get their message<br /><br />out to the people so they started a National Film Company and one of<br /><br />the members was Sergei Eisenstein. The films were shot on miniscule<br /><br />budgets and the shortage of film stock forced Eisentein to be careful<br /><br />and selective with the footage that he shot. In the end, Eisenstein had<br /><br />to reuse footage in order to make a feature length picture.<br /><br />The most famous of the action set pieces in this film is the much<br /><br />talked about massacre on the steps. This scene was spoofed in Bananas <br /><br />and most recently in Brian De Palma's The Untouchables. If you want to<br /><br />learn film-making, I strongly advise you to watch Battleship Potemkin.<br /><br />It's one of the essentials.<br /><br />A+ | 1 |
I read that "There's a Girl in My Soup" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.<br /><br />All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless. | 0 |
I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.<br /><br />You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.<br /><br />With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.<br /><br />Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.<br /><br />A must for old school horror fans. | 1 |
Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.<br /><br />It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.<br /><br />Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.<br /><br />The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.<br /><br />I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).<br /><br />Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.<br /><br />I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them. | 1 |
GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II.<br /><br />We've had quite a few documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming. Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own.<br /><br />There was CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied Commander.<br /><br />Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man/Author, Jim Bishop was the host/navigator of BATTLELINE.<br /><br />And there was the excellent WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's speaking the words of Sir Winston.<br /><br />It is the 1952 NBC Television Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the cigar, hands down.<br /><br />To begin with, this had to have taken the production several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.<br /><br />Once that was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a series of 1/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture project.<br /><br />The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode descriptions.<br /><br />Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are intricate, full, variable and even "classic" in the true sense.<br /><br />The Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record/cassette tape/compact disk, it has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing to the viewer/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake.<br /><br />* SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers.<br /><br />** We had in additional "Ace in the Hole" in our house in the person of our Father, the Late Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate any of the situations that were depicted in the series.<br /><br />He and our Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister, Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant. | 1 |
In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.<br /><br />The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort. | 0 |
I saw this in Detroit in what must have been its original run. I literally rolled into the aisle of the theater. It was that funny. I haven't seen it since, but would love to. Where do you get a copy? Anybody saying anything about it being dated or overdone are, for my money, just a bunch of poseurs. Each skit is either wickedly, erotically or perversely hilarious. Each one! There is not a weak one included. The opening sequence, for instance, which parodies 2001, features gorilla go-go-dancers with pendulous breasts. Felinni would have filmed it had he the wicked wit... If you come to this film with an open mind and a blithely sneering heart, you'll pencil it right into your very best list. | 1 |
I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought "hmm, can't be too bad." Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was "not too good".<br /><br />Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance. | 0 |
Definitely one of my favourite movies. The story is good, acting is great, all technicals (especially cinematography) are sharp and the script is clever.<br /><br />Heath Ledger is terrific as Edward ''Ned'' Kelly. He is gripping as the legendary outlaw, and is supported well by Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Orlando Bloom. All action sequences are on point<br /><br />The film is edge-of-your seat stuff right up to to the end. One of my favourite films from the late legend Heath Ledger, who has been the highlight of every film he has starred in. And makes no mistake here.<br /><br />An excellent film all round. | 1 |
What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.<br /><br />The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.<br /><br />This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men. | 0 |
Disgused as an Asian Horror, "A Tale Of Two Sisters" is actually a complex character driven psychological drama, that engulfs the viewer into the problems of a seemingly normal family. I was really surprised at the depth of this movie. Director Ji-woon Kim's decision to focus more on telling a story rather than providing cheap scares, has proved a correct one. Creating one of the most ingenious new horror movies.<br /><br />"A Tale Of Two Sisters" tels the story, as it's name suggest of two sisters Su-mi and the younger Su-yeon, who after spending time in a mental institution return home to their father and apparently abusive stepmother. From then on we witness how the sisters deal with their stepmother's gradually rising aggression and erratic behavior. To say what would happen next would be to be spoil the entire experience. So I'll just leave it at that.<br /><br />The plot is very tightly written. With the characters nicely fleshed out. Ji-woon Kim's focus on a small cast offers a much more detailed view on them and their relations to one another. Furthermore each of the four main cast has a vastly different role and type of character. From the protective Su-mi, the weaker Su-yeon, the visibly uninterested father to the stepmother's frantic and later deadly behavior. There is great sense of mystery, with a lot of the plot not revealed up into the end and even after that the movie still leaves a great room for interpretation. Even after watching it once, the viewer will be compelled to see it at least once more so that he can gain a better understanding to it.<br /><br />The actors superbly fit their roles. It is especially hard to create strong, emotional scenes in psychological movies but it is a great joy when one succeeds in creating them and this is a prime example of such a feat. Ji-woon Kim's direction is slow paced and gripping, building up tension for the film's horroresque scenes. While few in number those moments are strong and quite frankly terrifying. The cinematography and score are top notch further helping to establish an atmosphere fitting that of a psychological film.<br /><br />"A Tale Of Two Sisters" is a demonstration how the horror genre is in fact so much more than a simple thrill ride. With it's strong focus on character and mystery this is one complex movie that could easily seduce you in watching it again and again just so that you can understand it better. | 1 |
Antonio Margheriti, director of the enjoyably cheesy cult horror Cannibal Apocalypse, helms this Gothic-flavoured giallo starring gap-toothed 70s icon Jane Birkin (as well as her massive-conked French lover of the day, Serge Gainsbourg).<br /><br />Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of such treats as a tasty bi-sexual French teacher and a terribly unrealistic killer orangutan, Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye ends up a dreary mess which is a struggle to endure.<br /><br />Pretty schoolgirl Corringa (Birkin) returns to her family's Scottish estate after many years away, only to discover that a maniac is murdering her relatives one by one. Using the whole array of 'spooky old house' tricks (hidden doorways, dark corridors, creepy graveyards, candlelit cobweb covered rooms), Margheriti cobbles together a confusing tale which at times promises supernatural goings-on, but ends up with a lame cop-out ending that is unimaginative in the extreme.<br /><br />'And where exactly does the cat fit in to all of this?', I hear you ask. Well, a rather pudgy moggy witnesses each murder thus justifying Margheriti's rather cool sounding title.<br /><br />'Gory, stylish fun' claims the DVD cover; 'Boring pile of dung' says I. | 0 |
Like the characters in this show, I too was a teen during the 70s. The producers really nailed the whole zeitgeist, of being a suburban teenager in the 70s. The 70s fashions, cars, home furnishings, foods, and fads, are all very authentic in this show.<br /><br />The show boasts a very talented ensemble cast, who all mesh together very well on camera. I really like the unique, psychedelic-style film sequences. No other show does camera tricks like this. These cutting-edge film sequences, really help to convey the campy hipness, that characterized the 70s era.<br /><br />Overall this is a very funny sitcom. The one thing that bothers me about this show, is it's over-reliance on cruel humor, to generate laughs. In this way, I think that this show tries to be too much like Married With Children. While Married with Children is a great sitcom in its own right, it's tacky that the creators of That 70s show, keep trying to imitate it. <br /><br />I do recommend That 70s Show, mainly due to it's nostalgia factor. It could be an even better show though, if the writers relied more on witty dialog, rather than bawdy, tasteless jokes and pranks. | 1 |
Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should be seen over and over again. | 1 |
Greenthumb Grace is left penniless after her husbands death so she turns to ganja-growing in order to pay the bills. It sounds promising and the ever-reliable Brenda Blethyn doesn't disappoint but the material is sitcom-thin. There's actually a scene where Grace asks her young gardener to "Give me one" (a toke) and he thinks she's asking for sex and acts all awkward. Yes, it's humour so twee a nun would be bored. Saving Grace doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: the stunning cinematography and stately pace evoke memories of Ryan's Daughter whilst the light-hearted whimsy of the country townsfolk could be lifted from any episode of Antiques Roadshow. It does speed up after the first hour but by then it's too clichéd to care. The climax manages to be unpredictable only by introducing the most shameless Deux ex Machina I've ever seen. | 0 |
"Winchester '73" marked the first of a series of westerns involving James Stewart and director Anthony Mann. As in most of them Stewart's hero has an violent edge that threatens to explode at any time.<br /><br /> The title refers to a "one in a thousand" rifle that is up for competition at a rifle shoot held in Dodge City on July 4, 1876. Into town comes Lin McAdam (Stewart) and his sidekick High Spade (Millard Mitchell) who are on the trail of Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) for a past dastardly deed. They arrive just in time to see Marshal Wyatt Earp (Will Geer) running saloon girl Lola (Shelley Winters) out of town. It turns out that Dutch Henry is also in town for the rifle shoot. Lin and Dutch Henry shoot it out for the coveted prize with Lin winning but Dutch Henry robs Lin of the gun and escapes.<br /><br /> Lin and High Spade trail Dutch Henry across country where they encounter Lola with her cowardly beau Steve Miller (Charles Drake) hold up in a U.S. Cavalry camp awaiting attack by the Indians led by Young Bull (Rock Hudson) who has acquired the prized rifle by murdering wily gun runner John McIntyre. He had got the weapon by cheating Dutch Henry at poker. Young Bull is killed during the attack and the gun passes to Steve.<br /><br /> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Lola and Steve meet up with notorious gunman Waco Johnny Dean (Dan Duryea) who kills Steve and takes the valued rifle and Lola for himself. When Dean meets up with Dutch Henry, he allows him to take back "his gun" planning to murder him later. In the town of Tuscosa, Lin kills Dean as Dutch Henry's plans of holding up the bank go bad and he escapes into the hills with Lin in pursuit. In one of the best final shoot outs ever, the two meet in the final showdown.<br /><br /> I believe that this movie was the only one of the Stewart/Mann collaborations that was shot in B&W. It is beautifully photographed, especially the scenes in the "wide open spaces" and in particular, the final showdown. Stewart playing against type, plays the hero with a violent revenge motive edge, an emotion that he would carry into future films with Mann.<br /><br /> As in most Universal westerns, this one boasts a cast of seasoned veterans and contract players of the day. In addition to those mentioned above, J.C. Flippen appears as the cavalry sergeant, Steve Brodie, James Millican, John Doucette and Chuck Roberson as various henchmen, Ray Teal as the sheriff pursuing Duryea, Tony Curtis and James Best as rookie soldiers and Edmund Cobb, Chief Yowlachie and John War Eagle in various roles in the Dodge City sequence.<br /><br /> A classic western in every sense of the word. It was responsible for re-generating Stewart's career as an action star. | 1 |
A Kafkaesque thriller of alienation and paranoia. Extremely well done and Polanski performs well as the diffident introvert trying hard to adapt to his dingy Paris lodgings and his fellow lodgers. Horrifying early on because of the seeming mean and self obsessed fellow tenants and horrifying later on as he develops his defences which will ultimately be his undoing. Personally I could have done without the cross dressing element but I accept the nod to Psycho and the fact that it had some logic, bearing in mind the storyline. Nevertheless it could have worked without and would have removed the slightly theatrical element, but then maybe that was intended because the courtyard certainly seems to take on the look of a theatre at the end. I can't help feel that there are more than a few of the director's own feelings of not being a 'real' Frenchman and Jewish to boot. Still, there is plenty to enjoy here including a fine performance from a gorgeous looking Isabelle Adjani and good old Shelly Winters is as reliable as ever. | 1 |
There are certain scenes in this film (like the hero's first meeting with super-villainess Shirley Eaton) where it seems to be on the edge of breaking sexual taboos and doing its premise (females want to rule the world by making men slaves) justice, but it never dares to. The result is a film with no sexuality and some tame violence. Despite the choppy plot, the film is not overly bad until its climax, where its amateurishness runs rampant (terrible editing, overuse of stock footage). Worth seeing only as a curio. (*1/2) | 0 |
CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages. | 1 |
This outing of Knotts includes one of his best sidekicks ever, Frank Welker. Welker makes the film. Knotts and Welker compete for the laughs and both receive plenty. Knotts works for a small "no where" town where the city is being run by some of the most ignorant officials. When things go wrong the city fathers, allow Knotts to take the fall. Frank Welker's character befriends Knotts and together they stumble together to clear up the mess and Knott's good name. This film shows the usual Knott's scared to death character that made him famous for years on television and film. This may have been Knotts' last good outing. When you have an extra 90 minutes, get a good old fashioned laugh a great icon, Don Knotts. | 1 |
This is bar none the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. Beginning with the four delinquents being sent off by their fathers to Wienberg Military Academy, a tone is set that steadily continues all throughout this goofball film, and it does not let up for a second.<br /><br />It's tough trying to describe this film; the humor elements are so spot on and brilliantly concieved that upon a first look it appears as nothing more than a stupid 80's teen lust comedy. But it is oh so much more than that! Fresh from the minds of those folks over at MAD Magazine, Up the Academy serves up a formula and style that I have never since seen duplicated by ANY of the "funniest" offerings to come out of Hollywood in years past. Basically the film is so full of infantile cornball material that you might guess that the writers were a couple of 14 year olds themselves. See this movie if you love to act "immature." A classic. ***** | 1 |
I thought this movie'd be totally different than just another teen-slasher. Well I was totally wrong. There's a liquid nun coming out of the toilet seat and something really odd. I know that Spanish culture is a bit different and their movies too, but I didn't expect to see a fake Hollywood film. They certainly faked it pretty well though. Why'd they make a movie without any new aspects? This is just plain boring and it'd been done totally without any imagination.<br /><br />I thought that having a nun as the bad guy in the movie'd be something really original. It turned out to be a teen slasher. If this'd been done ten years ago then it'd have been something new.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie for anyone but it certainly has some comedy value! It's like a horror parody in some points. | 0 |
I have just written a comment to "ACES HIGH" (1976) and that remind me of this film which I watched as kid when it was released; since then I have watched it only once and that was more than enough. As Kevin well says "it is a complete waste of time". Apart from the dog-fights which are nicely done the rest is a sequence of badly patched scenes with actors struggling with a lousy script and equally lousy direction. I do not remember the silly German accents mentioned by Kevin in his comment, but that is another pathetic mistake; if Corman tried to make more convincing the characterization of the German pilots why didn't he use German actors or have those parts dubbed? On the other hand is good example of the appalling Hollywood-style of film-making with their "villains" so clearly identifiable, not only by their cruel actions but also by their grotesque accents.<br /><br />Talking about "cruel actions" the ridiculous scene were Lieutenant Hermann Goering murders English nurses during an attack on an airbase is an absolutely disgusting piece of propaganda done with "historical hindsight". If you want to a see a factual, moving, very well acted and directed film about the air war during WWI watch "ACES HIGH" (1976) or that wonderful classic "THE DAWN PATROL" (1938) you shall not be disappointed. | 0 |
This is just dreadful. I regret every second of the 80 minutes I spent watching this dreck. I think it's supposed to be a comedy, but I don't remember laughing much, except at a few blatant inconsistencies and downright glaring errors.<br /><br />An unattractive middle-aged man called Lester meets up with rich unattractive middle-aged women via lonely hearts ads, and then murders them for the money he needs to feed his gambling addiction. That's the whole plot, and that's really all that happens. Along the way there is an attempt at intrigue when Lester starts to get phone calls from a mysterious stranger who taunts him about knowing his secret, but its so badly implemented, you may not realise what is actually supposed to be happening. The sequences in which Lester murders the rich widows are all quite brutal but also seemingly dressed up as comedies. One sequence has a woman bludgeoned with a wooden pole and then shoved into an oven. It's very cruelly depicted, but it is played out against blaring big-band waltz music, with Lester pulling faces and adopting comedy poses throughout. Another scene has the victim murdered while she constantly sings shrill opera songs...you have to see this to believe it! Actually - you don't have to see it at all, in fact I strongly recommend you avoid this flop. Fulci does not seem to know which hat he is wearing and there's no evidence of any of the flair seen in his earlier career. One sequence stood out to me as particularly wretched: the revelation when Lester suddenly realises that he has no shadow. Fulci seems unable to think up any visual representation of this phenomena on screen, so from this point on he just films the actor as normal, shadow and all!! And thus totally blows the whole angle. Either he had zero budget for effects, or he just didn't care enough to think up any way of showing it. Whatever it was, that should give you a taste of how lame this whole project is. I couldn't even understand most of the film, and there certainly wasn't anything on screen worth looking at half the time. Even the ending was as flat as a pancake. A real dud. | 0 |
To this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.<br /><br />Here are some real facts.<br /><br />* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.<br /><br />* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.<br /><br />* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.<br /><br />* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.<br /><br />* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.<br /><br />* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.<br /><br />* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.<br /><br />* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.<br /><br />* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.<br /><br />This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'. | 0 |
I have watched thousands of movies in my life and I believe this movie is the most "perfect" movie that has ever been made. By perfect I mean the storytelling, the plot, the acting, the staging, the camera work, etc. (This is a lay opinion; I have no background in film production.) A lot of movies have perfect scenes, such as the bartender filing a report with the police officer in the movie Fargo. (Indeed, that scene could play well as a short.) In The Dead every scene is done to perfection, making the entire movie perfect. Perhaps, John Huston sold his soul to the Devil to make such a movie. Hopefully, Daniel Webster has gotten him out of the contract! | 1 |
Apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually.<br /><br />Despite some high profile disappointments like Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981), I love werewolf pictures in general but, to be honest, I quickly lost interest in this film's "plot" and just stood there gazing at my TV screen counting its absurdities as it were. There were far too many to mention them here but I have to say two which struck me as particularly hilarious were the schizophrenic nature of the Werewolf persona (i.e. going from a raging beast in one shot to a dazed, zombie-like state in the very next one - as if he's on a casual midnight stroll in the countryside, and sporting an entirely different wardrobe to boot...and, yes, I did know the reasons for this beforehand), as well as the "Phantom Of The Opera" look of the Wolfstein character! But what do I know - perhaps the elusive full-length version of this mess could very well have been a bona-fide horror classic! | 0 |
I gave it a 2 just because Natassia Malthe (as the vampiress Quintana) looks sooooo sexy in this movie.<br /><br />Certainly there is very little logic to this movie, but so are most of the sci-fi vampire flicks. The movie probably tried too much to break away from the traditional vampire stories. Unfortunately, it went too far and made the whole story not just unreasonable, but ridiculous.<br /><br />There is too much gore and too many rip-off-the-body scenes that made me feel sick. A good vampire movie should be more sensible that you don't need to see a lot of blood -- we all know when a vampire jumps on a human he/she is going to do what a vampire will do. A few moans or screams are all it needs to describe the scene (like the one at end when Quintana tries to sexually arouse Rosa, all it needs is a few moans, the rest is your imagination). Anyway, it's just my personal taste. | 0 |
Why else would he do this to me?<br /><br />Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.<br /><br />Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.<br /><br />To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?<br /><br />How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?<br /><br />Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.<br /><br />Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.<br /><br />That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...<br /><br />Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!<br /><br />fade to black<br /><br />my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.<br /><br />But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place. <br /><br />The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves? <br /><br />I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism. <br /><br />Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious. <br /><br />A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department. | 0 |
Generally it was a good movie with an ideal ending; the acting was spectacular and the characters didn't stray from their persons. I especially liked the plot, although you knew what was going to happen it still gave the element of surprise through out the entire movie. However, I find that coming on to the ending it could have been a little longer (extended maybe)- to me it seemed like it was rushed a bit; as if the writer was trying to take linens off the lines before the rain fell. For instance- What happened to Tristan's brother, Hayden? For all we know he died in the hospital. Maybe he was the one that setup the entire thing?! Who knows! Maybe there will be a sequel? Maybe? If there is.. I cant wait to see it. | 1 |
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.<br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!?? <br /><br />This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.<br /><br />So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.<br /><br />Weasel100 <br /><br />Canberra, Australia | 0 |
For a danish movie, I have to say, that this is very good movie.<br /><br />It's in a class of its own, yet it has an international potential.<br /><br />The movie has a big budget, and is starring famous danish actors, and a few newcomers, who play very well. It can be watched by anyone who like adventures, and a little bit of 'ghost' movie.<br /><br />Don't be afraid, be thrilled! | 1 |
The Kite Runner was beautiful, poignant and very moving. I particularly loved the two child actors in the film as well as the actor portraying the father. It really made me want to go back and read the book again.<br /><br />The music was a wonderful part of the fabric of the movie. If there is a soundtrack coming out for the film, I will buy it to accompany my second reading of the book. It is also a visually stunning film. The cinematography was gorgeous and really added to experience.<br /><br />The Brazilian word 'saudades' is very descriptive of how I felt at the end of the film..."it is a deep feeling of longing for someone or someplace, which is very sweet but also tinged with an inescapable sadness" (definition provided years ago by Antonio Carlos Jobim).<br /><br />Saw it at a small cinema here for an advance screening. I would love to see it again on a really large screen with a tricked out sound system.<br /><br />Can't wait for the formal release. I will definitely recommend the film to friends. | 1 |
Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors. | 0 |
Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.<br /><br />Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.<br /><br />I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D- | 0 |
PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.<br /><br />CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.<br /><br />- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.<br /><br />- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.<br /><br />Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this. | 0 |
In defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does one expect? Hitchcock?<br /><br />I felt the movie never took itself seriously which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the 50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much and I go a lot more then I bargained for. | 1 |
Trailers of this movie may show scenes of violence or non mainstream sexuality, but these scenes are just rare fragments, picked out to attract audience. They are, of course showing the main message of the movie:<br /><br />People who are constantly kicked on their heads in their jobs and lives, using power, which they may have somewhere else, to notoriously oppress others. And at the low end of the oppression chain, mostly women.<br /><br />A movie showing this as brutally as Hundstage is surely tough to face, but having to endure such lives, is even tougher.<br /><br />Technically the film is much like Short Cuts, but consisting of documentary style episodes, featuring people like your neighbour, playing just the way they are. Without any glitter, and most disturbingly, without any hope. Its documentary style makes the movie even more disturbing, because you realize, such people are out there, and there are many of them, although our society focuses on the nice exterior looks. Somewhere the porn industry has to do its business, somewhere unreported domestic violence has to take place, somewhere hopes have to shatter. I sure do know such people.<br /><br />If you want to see a movie without any funny scenes (some may think the handicapped woman repeating the top ten supermarkets is funny, but this happens for real) and without any melodramatic, go watch this movie. However it will lose when you are focusing on subtitles I fear, as subtitles can´t transport accentuation. | 1 |
Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...<br /><br />I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood! | 1 |
A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable. | 0 |
I totally disagree with the other reviews.All basically negative.I took a chance on this movie and was glad that I did.Glad indeed.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Nothing period.The script is original.The actors are all likable and convincing.Dee Smart reminded me of Marcia Brady from the Brady Bunch.But this gal truly can act.The setting in the Australian Outback is perfect.Incredible scenery.Great soundtrack i.e Paul Kelly.God bless Paul Kelly.The Cranberries are also here.I have seen this movie twice in less than 24 hrs.I will probably watch it again.It is that interesting.It makes one think.It is(was)probably better than nine-tenths of the so-called Hollywood blockbusters that were also out during this time.Back Of Beyond is a likable.Well photographed film.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Check it out!My first review! | 1 |
Skip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original "Spoorloos", or by the English title also called "The Vanishing". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the "successful formula" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful "The Scarlet Letter" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be "the feel good movie of the year" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.<br /><br />Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess. | 0 |
A brilliant movie about family, guilt, sacrifice, betrayal, and love. Macy is such a great actor. It was almost a shame to see him in the same scenes with Campbell, who looks the part of a neurotic sex object but doesn't have the chops to work with him on the level the script called for. But he's such a good actor that he played down to her level to make the scenes work. I highly applaud the casting of Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife. Who knew? Sutherland is also very good. The way he moves makes his character look taller (and even younger in some scenes). Almost everyone knew what they were doing.<br /><br />Macy's portrayal of the only situation in which his character is not able to be careful is nothing short of complete mastery. | 1 |
Radio was not a 24 hour 7days a week happening when I grew up in the 1930s England, so Children's Hour was a treat for me when we had batteries and an accumulator to spare for the power. The few programmes I heard therefore made a great impression on my young mind, and the 3 that I recall still are "Toytown", one about all the animals at the Zoo, and --- Grey Owl, talking about the animals he knew, which he called his "brothers". It was only in recently that I learnt that Grey Owl wasn't a genuine "Indian", but the tribute paid by the Sioux Chief makes great sense to me "A man becomes what he dreams". Would that we could all dream as world changing and beneficial as Archie Grey Owl Belaney. Would that a new Grey Owl could influence world leaders to clean up the environment. | 1 |
A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent. | 0 |
I was reading in a Stuff Magazine about some of the goriest, bloodiest films that Asia had to offer and I immediately jumped to Netflix to quench my thirst. Boy what a mistake I made. This movie is one of the worst films I have seen. First and foremost no plot, what I expected to be the plot (see: "Revenge") turned into a series of events just happening in a effort to spend their special effects budget of $14.89 and waste studio time. They should have kept their money and not wasted their time nor yours.<br /><br />When a major plot twist occurs, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer is given a new identity and I wasn't buying it. A flashback is given that should answer our questions, but seemed to me like I turned on Showtime at 3:47 am and dropped ACID. The movie continues and spirals out of control with cheesy graphics and special (olympic) effects.<br /><br />Do I seem bitter about this film? Yes. Did I see Iron Man? No. Was there a plot? No. Was it so symbolic that I didn't understand? NO. Was there a Body Hammer? Beats the Hell out of ME. So take my advice and STAY away!!!!!! <br /><br />(I must admit though I have had so much fun writing this and laughing to myself about this film that if you want to laugh, WATCH IT!!!) | 0 |
This movie is a desperate attempt to ride the skirtales of the success of the Star Wars movies. The film uses recycled footage from "Battle Beyond the Sars" which is another Roger Corman Sci-Fi Turd, but atleast this one is better than "Battle Beyond the Stars" - there is no real acting in this film (but its a Roger Corman film-What did you expect)again the entire soundtrack was done on a Keyboard/Synthasizer, the sound effects are recycled from "Battlestar Galactica" - there are no special effects because they were recycled/rearranged space scenes from another movie, the costumes look like something right out of 1981 salvation army salvage. --ironicaly, the little boy in this film gives one helluva performance, and he'd resurface again to star in the Sylvester Stallone movie "Over the Top" - I give this movie 3 stars out of 10 | 0 |
This has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. Awful acting, awful script... and they were the good points! One to Definitely miss! The jokes, if you could call them that, were so predictable as to be pathetic. Pamela Anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic! I sat willing to give it a chance, hoping that it was going to improve which, alas, it didn't! If it was a choice between this and a book, I suggest you settle down for a good read! I like Denise Richards, which is why I gave this movie a go, but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.