text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
This indie film is worth a look because of the enormous talent of its creators, Wallace Wolodarsky and Marsha Forbes. Mr. Wolodarsky has directed the young cast, and he is to be praised for this effort.<br /><br />The premise of the film is a cautionary tale of the danger for wanting something one can't have. Which is the story of Alice and Ed. After living together for a while, Alice suddenly gets restless because she imagines she's lacking experience in the sex area. Alice and Ed's relationship, while not an example of ideal happiness, is a comfortable way to share their lives with one another. That is, until the moment Alice and Claire, her sister, happened to bump into a sexual encounter by another couple that has no clue of being observed.<br /><br />This incident makes Alice reevaluate her own sexual life with Ed; she finds it lacks substance. When she proposes 'seeing other people', Ed is shocked, to put it mildly, but not wanting to contradict Alice, he decides to go along. What happens next is that both Alice and Ed enter into a world that's been unknown to them. The people they meet, in the end, are not worth the trouble. They sadly realize at the end, they were made for each other.<br /><br />The film is worth watching in order to see the amazing Julianne Nicholson, who we happen to have liked in another indie film, "Tully". Ms. Nicholson reminds us of a young Shirley McLaine; she projects such a luminous quality about her, that is hard to take one's eyes from her whenever she is in a scene. This young actress proves she is an accomplished performer who gets better with each new appearance. Basically, she carries the movie. Her Alice is a study in contrasts. Alice is a decent woman who thinks she is inadequate in pleasing Ed because of her inexperience.<br /><br />Jay Mohr, is an excellent match for Ms. Nicholson. Both do wonders together. His Ed is perfectly credible. We have known people like him. Deep down inside, he is a good person, who suddenly gets himself in a situation he didn't call for, yet, he goes along only to discover he is too decent and not cut out for a life of gratuitous sex with the willing women that have no problem with a tumble in the hay, just for fun.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is wonderful. Lauren Graham does some amazing work as Claire, Alice's yuppie sister. Andy Ritcher is also wonderful as the grounded Carl, the nerdy friend who finally finds out fulfillment when he meets Penelope, a single mother. As Penelope, Helen Slater, makes a felicitous, albeit of a short, appearance in the film.<br /><br />The director is enormously gifted, who will no doubt go places because he shows he is well suited for the job. | 1 |
Wonderful movie. Adult content. Lots of erotic scenes plus excellent music and dance scenes. My wife and I absolutely loved this movie and wish they'd make more like it. | 1 |
Ugly women-of-the-cellblock flick rakes the bottom of the midnight-movie barrel, combining pulpy sleaze with the hoariest of girls-in-the-shower clichés. Linda Blair plays an innocent sent to jail (we learn offhandedly she was involved in running over some guy with her car), facing hard time in the Big House with some of the nastiest characters this side of a Russ Meyer pic. Blair is continually pawed at, punched, raped, humiliated and harassed. The dialogue is four-letter-word disgusting throughout, and the flick offers no let-up from its barrage of violence and stupidity. Still, some viewers see this as a camp classic, though perhaps its tongue isn't far enough in cheek. * from **** | 0 |
I don't get it! The teenage leads in "Horror Star" supposedly all are devoted horror fans, yet when their favorite idol (Conrad Radzoff) passes away, they dig up his corpse and do all sorts of disrespectful stuff with it, like disco-dancing it around the house and throw food leftovers at it. That doesn't sound like something real horror fans would do, now does it? I'm a big horror fan and I immensely idolize departed icons like Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff, but it would never come to my mind to ridicule their memory. No wonder Conrad comes back from the dead admittedly, after a séance to wipe them all off the face of the earth! Mr. Radzoff already wasn't known for his friendliness in life, since he occasionally killed the directors that disagreed with his visions, and even after his death he suffers from a tremendous ego. Even inside his tomb there are video messages to petrify possible visitors and the group of teenagers will vividly experience that he also enjoys the murdering business outside his film sets. "Horror Star" (a.k.a. "Frightmare" and "Body Snatchers") is a pretty lame 80's horror flick, but there are a handful of cheesy & gory highlights to enjoy. The film mainly suffers from its own stupid plot, since no one not even a film school student is stupid enough to steal a recently buried corpse and actually think he'll get away with it, and there are too many tedious moments to struggle through. Conrad's video-speeches from beyond the grave are overly talkative and definitely undermine the tension, but on the other hand his killing methods are pleasingly inventive. One teenager enjoys the experience of getting cremated alive and another one (Jeffrey Combs in one of his first roles!) loses his head in a delightful decapitation sequence. In the absolute messiest sequence, a poor girl' head is crushed by a coffin. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane wanted to bring homage to vintage horror cinema and he obviously how to make film look sinister. The locations and scenery are great, but Vane lacked the necessary funds to provide his film with a proper continuity and editing-job. The acting performances are overall decent, with Ferdy Mayne (imitating Christopher Lee) and Jeffrey Combs delivering the most memorable roles. "Horror Star" can hardly be called a must-see or even a good film, but it's worth tracking down in case you're an admirer of enthusiastically made B-horror. | 0 |
Snakes on a Train starts as Mexican couple Brujo (A.J. Castro) & Alma (Julia Ruiz) cross the boarder into the US, they then illegally board a seventeen hour train to Los Angeles. However Alma's family didn't approve of her & Brujo's relationship & placed an ancient black magic curse on her that turns all her insides into snakes, ain't life a b*tch? As the snakes pour out of Alma's mouth & slither away to other parts of the train they begin to infect the other passengers with the same unusual ailment...<br /><br />Edited & directed by the Mallachi Brothers (although the IMDb claims it's just one guy using a pseudonym, Peter Mervis) one has to say that I thought Snakes on a Train was crap, it's as simple as that really. It seems the entire film was set-up & made to cash in on the Samuel L. Jackson cult flick Snakes on a Plane (2006) by every horror fans least favourite production company the Asylum who specialise in ripping-off big budget Hollywood flicks & that style of money & film-making is no more evident than here with Snakes on a Train, making a film just because the title rhymes with a more successful film is not a good starting point. The script by Eric Forsberg is rubbish, for a start Snakes on a Plane was great fun whereas Snakes on a Train is a lot more serious & when you actually break it down & look at it this should have been much more light hearted. In fact it probably would have worked better as an Scary Movie (2000) type spoof. You know something, I am struggling to find one positive thing to say about Snakes on a Train it's that bad. For a start the character's are rubbish & it's impossible to emote with anyone, the story is downright awful & makes no sense (if people spew all those small snakes up where did the huge ones come from? Why did Alma turn into the giant snake at the end? Why did Bujo kill the train driver? How was he going to stop the train once it reached Los Angeles? Where did that typhoon come from at the end?), it takes itself far too seriously, the first seventy odd minutes is so boring & uneventful I am surprised I stayed awake & it's just a very, very poor film on just about every level.<br /><br />Director Mervis only has a few train carriage car sets which all look pretty much alike so the film becomes very repetitive & dull to watch. There's barely any blood or gore, there are some snakes borrowing under a few peoples skin, someone gets shot & that's about it. The special effects are rubbish too, the giant CGI snake at the end is truly awful & the least said about it the better. It's not scary, there's zero atmosphere & it's a bit of a bore from start to finish. The real live snakes are a problem too, they are just so docile & nonthreatening. If you look at any scene featuring a real snake & an actor the snakes never make any move towards them or act aggressively & in fact always appear to want to slither away in the opposite direction.<br /><br />Shot in California technically the film is obviously low budget & it show's, basically it looks cheap because it is. The acting isn't great not that the actor's are given any sort of material to work with.<br /><br />Snakes on a Train is rubbish, I am sorry but that's how I feel & I don't quite know how else to describe it. I really can't see what anyone would get out of watching Snakes on a Train, it really is that bad. | 0 |
A group of young travelers that just ran out of gas go into a weird wax museum called "Saluesen's Lost Oasis" owned by a strange man named Slausen (Chuck Conners) as the dummies are controlled by some mysterious force and a madman with special powers wants them dead.<br /><br />One of the most under-appreciated horror movies of the late 70's! This Charles Band (producer of "Re-Animator")production has became one of the scariest and most unique low budget horror productions of it's day combining some psychological themes along without having to result some gore like the usual slasher movie. The movie keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats with tension and some scares, the movie has became a cult diamond in the rough for the genre since then and this is well worth watching.<br /><br />Also recommended: "Pin", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ( 1974)", "The Hills have Eyes ( 1977)", "Maniac ( 1980)", "Magic" ( 1978), "Dolls", "May", "Just Before Dawn", "House of 1000 Corpses", "The Devil's Rejects", "Sleepaway Camp", "Mother's Day", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday The 13th", "Halloween 1 & 2", "Puppet Master", "House of Wax ( 1953 and 2005)", "Jeepers Creepers", "High Tension", "Evil Dead II", "From Dusk Till Dawn", "Waxwork", "Nothing But Trouble" and "Psycho ( 1960)". | 1 |
The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade. | 1 |
This is one of the oddest movies I have watched in a long while. Usually if they are this strange I bail out early and rarely regret it. Luckily, I held on for this one. While I can't say that this is a great movie (it isn't), I can say that watching it is rather like a good acid trip - only a few really awful moments and the rest filled with "did I really just see that?" wonderment. Lots of laugh out loud moments. A great cast of characters with Meredith Eaton outstanding as the dwarf daughter-in-law with an attitude. Keep an open mind. | 1 |
A few years ago I saw The Scent of Green Papayas by the same director. My feelings about both films are in fact the same: beautifully shot, but terribly slow and boring. I saw this film in a Sneak Preview, and left after half an Hour. Couldn't stand it anymore. How can one make an interesting film about people who are constantly telling each other how happy they are, and how perfect their lives are.........? I had a fantasy about a forgotten American G.I., still wandering around in the Vietnamese jungle, who was not aware the war had ended. How he would suddenly pop up in the film, and would start emptying his M16 at the characters in the movie. The red of their blood would make a beautiful contrast with all the green plants in the film........... So I was not very much gripped by this film! Time to leave! | 0 |
The only reason I came across this movie was that it's on the LITTLE MISS MARKER DVD and I do recommend watching it although you won't like it as well as the better known movie.<br /><br />We have Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard as a con man and his companion. The film starts out quite light, but becomes more dramatic as Coop first plans on using his daughter to extort a sizable amount of cash from his brother-in-law but upon meeting the girl and seeing the discipline she would be subject to with his brother-in-law elects to keep her. However, he has trouble staying on the straight and narrow path and so the drama develops.<br /><br />Cooper and Lombard are good and Shirley still manages to steal the scenes she's in. There's little music in this, and Shirley only has one song. However this is entertaining and worth watching along with LITTLE MISS MARKER. | 1 |
As I write this user-comment, Tim Burton's interpretation of the Sweeney Todd tale is making big money at the box office and the film even earned a couple of Oscar nominations if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen it yet, but I sincerely hope Burton didn't look for inspiration and/or stylish trademarks in good old Andy Milligan's "Bloodthirsty Butchers". Yes, even though the title distinctively mentions butchers, the main characters in the plot are a barber (the infamous Sweeney Todd) and a female baker. Together they form a vile alliance where he kills the customers in his shop and she processes the bodies into her famous London meat pies. In other words, an Andy Milligan premise at his most typical, derivative, delirious and amateurish. I think the IMDb rating for this film speaks for itself. Although the actual story definitely isn't the worst I've ever seen, Milligan somehow inexplicably attracts sheer ineptitude. The production is one gigantic mess, with an incoherent narrative structure, truly hideous photography, poor lighting, lousy acting and directing, laughable gore and zilch tension or atmosphere. More than half of the footage is pure padding and words fail to describe how BORING the film is, even with a running time of a mere 80 minutes. Ed Wood, Ted V. Mikels and Bruno Mattei; you guys need not fear as none other than Andy Milligan is hands down the worst director ever, but I don't think he cared. Maybe if you dispose of a really high level of tolerance, "Bloodthirsty Butchers" is worth one viewing. | 0 |
As a Turkish man now living in Sweden I must confess I often watch Scandinavian movies. Most if them I never understand. I think actors from Scandinavia work best in Hollywood. Last week I watched a film called "The Polish Wedding" together with a polish friend of mine and we both said it was the worst movie we ever watched. Unfortunately I was wrong this movie " House of Angels" is even worse. None of the actors can act, absolutely not the female so called star Helen Bergstrom. The plot is so silly nobody can believe it.I think the whole thing is a mess from the start. lots of bad acting except from Selldal and Wollter. Ahmed Sellam | 0 |
This movie was really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture. | 0 |
Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, I just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_. | 0 |
Scarier than any horror movie ever made because you're in controlled of this blood fest which make it more scarier than watching other people doing it on the big screen or on your television screen. This game got two CDs which make the game much more entertaining.<br /><br />Each cd contains a different character with a complete different story line which make the game much more fun. I recommend you to buy this game and the first game too (isn't as good as this game, still fun though)<br /><br />****<br /><br /> | 0 |
I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences! | 1 |
I watched the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.<br /><br />I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.<br /><br />Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.<br /><br />Overall avoid this crappy movie.<br /><br />Save some money. | 0 |
If you are very sensitive when it comes to extreme racial stereotypes, this cartoon is not for you. But if you are strongly interested in seeing a rare piece of wartime animation, come on in!<br /><br />In this cartoon, Popeye is patrolling the seas and discovers what looks like a Japanese fishing boat. The two Japanese fishermen trick Popeye into thinking that they want a peace treaty signed. But looks can be deceiving; the fishing boat turns out to be a Japanese navy ship! What follows is considered today to be morale-boosting propaganda.<br /><br />Be forewarned, the representations of the Japanese in the film are done in a mean-spirited fashion. Keep in mind, though, that there was a war going on at the time. But I strongly recommend this cartoon to those who are interested in the WWII era. | 1 |
This movie brings back many memories of the classic cinema of old, where actors didn't have to take their clothes off to make viewers watch their film.<br /><br />Firstly I think the main plus point of this movie is the amazing chemistry between Shahid and Amrita, it is definitely the making of the film.<br /><br />I have seen lots of comments regarding the film being sickly sweet and overly slushy. In response to this, I think to a certain degree this is a correct analysis, however considering this is a Barjatya film I think that compared to MPK, HAHK, HSSH and MPKDH, it has been toned down significantly. HSSH was almost unbearable to watch in some places.<br /><br />In this film however, when the sentimental moments come along, you find yourself smiling, wishing the budding couple all the best and hoping that nothing bad happens to them.<br /><br />Another major plus point is the performances of Shahid and Amrita. Both have acted very well, especially Shahid who looks great in the film. Amrita looks simply stunning and should be taken seriously as a future major star.<br /><br />Although I really enjoyed the film as a whole, I do feel that it was too long. Some of the middle could have been trimmed off and it would maybe made even more of an impact. I also think the music, although it fits into the film when you see the situations is slightly old fashioned and the movie could have benefited if a more up-to-date soundtrack had been available. Although the picturisation of the songs Mujhe Haq Hain and Hamari Shaadi Mein are wonderful.<br /><br />All in all, I definitely recommend this film, its romantic, looks stunning and has a dramatic climax (I won't go into details, just in case you haven't seen it.<br /><br />PS. If you're prone to crying-take a tissue! (I needed several) | 1 |
I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it! | 1 |
GAME.... Huh... game. I'm not even sure the bloody hosts of that particular reality-game know what the term 'GAME' means, let alone the bloody PLAYERS in the game! <br /><br />An aspiring PUA would look at that and think... Hmmmmm... What the flying FORK was that useless excuse for a demonstration of seducing women? I've seen my neighbours DOG seduce women with more panache than that! And it is one UGLY bloody dog! And its main approach tactic is to frenetically hump legs! <br /><br />I challenge the frustrated chump hosts of that show to a SHOW-down; a demonstration of their SO-called pickup ability... Can they deliver? If one is to view that piece of un-reality-drivel, then you would realise, No, these grandstanding, mentally-masturbating, suck-me-darling-boyfriend, wanna be hosts of Queer Eye or something similar (not that there's anything wrong with that...), are unable to un-shrinkwrap their penises long enough to provide a demo of a REAL pickup. <br /><br />As you lovely North-Americans say: "...'Nuff Said!..." <br /><br />A message from Down Under... with Love.... | 0 |
"The Matador" is a dark comedy starring Pierce Brosnan as an aging hit man who befriends a straight-arrow, happily-married American businessman (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico. Although the sardonic Julian (ironically surnamed "Noble") appears to be a "tough guy" on the surface, underneath he is really just a mass of neuroses and insecurities, a man who realizes that his chosen profession has left him virtually alone in the world and friendless. Thus on his birthday, he reaches out to Danny, a man who has lived his life playing by the rules and who becomes strangely intrigued by Julian's "unconventional" lifestyle. In fact, both men find in each other the person they could never be but wish they could become in their quieter, franker moments of self-evaluation.<br /><br />Although the film is a bit too reminiscent of "Analyze This" and "Midnight Run" to feel entirely fresh and original, "The Matador," nevertheless, earns points for the complexity of its characters and the quality of its acting. Brosnan, looking aged and almost used up, sinks his teeth into the role of Julian in a way he never has before. Playing a man who seems constitutionally unable to make a serious connection with another human being, Brosnan is flip and cavalier one moment, then genuine and sympathetic the next. He always keeps us off balance so that the humor never becomes crass or stale. Kinnear is also excellent as the Regular Joe businessman who finds himself pulled ever more to the Dark Side as his relationship with Julian deepens. Hope Davis does a fine job as "Bean," Danny's loyal and loving wife who, like her husband, finds herself intrigued by this mysterious and "dangerous" figure from a world far different from the one she knows.<br /><br />At times, we find ourselves feeling that "The Matador" is holding something back from us, not quite plumbing the depths of its situation and premise. At the end it feels a little too light, a little too insubstantial to register the impact it should. This could be because this is the feature film debut for writer/director Richard Shephard, and he hasn't quite gotten his movie pacing down yet. Still, one appreciates the fact that he doesn't always go for the obvious and that he keeps tightly focused on the two main figures in the piece, rarely settling for the trite setup or the easy laugh.<br /><br />'The Matador" is a flawed but generally entertaining little comedy that will, hopefully, signal a new phase in Brosnan's acting career. | 1 |
A nicely done thriller with plenty of sex in it. I saw it on late night TV. There are two hardcore stars in it, Lauen Montgomery and Venus. Thankfully, Gabriella Hall has just a small part. | 1 |
Back in the forties, when movies touched on matters not yet admissible in "polite" society, they resorted to codes which supposedly floated over the heads of most of the audience while alerting those in the know to just what was up. Probably no film of the decade was so freighted with innuendo as the oddly obscure Desert Fury, set in a small gambling oasis called Chuckawalla somewhere in the California desert. Proprietress of the Purple Sage saloon and casino is the astonishing Mary Astor, in slacks and sporting a cigarette holder; into town drives her handful-of-a-daughter, Lizabeth Scott, looking, in Technicolor, like 20-million bucks. But listen to the dialogue between them, which suggests an older Lesbian and her young, restless companion (one can only wonder if A.I. Bezzerides' original script made this relationship explicit). Even more blatant are John Hodiak as a gangster and Wendell Corey as his insanely jealous torpedo. Add Burt Lancaster as the town sheriff, stir, and sit back. Both Lancaster and (surprisingly) Hodiak fall for Scott. It seems, however, that Hodiak not only has a past with Astor, but had a wife who died under suspicious circumstances. The desert sun heats these ingredients up to a hard boil, with face-slappings aplenty and empurpled exchanges. Don't pass up this hothouse melodrama, chock full of creepily exotic blooms, if it comes your way; it's a remarkable movie. | 1 |
If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic "popular" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to "parodies" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth "wisecracking" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE. | 0 |
'Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.<br /><br />In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.<br /><br />Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.<br /><br />Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.<br /><br />The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for. | 1 |
And a made for TV movie too, this movie was good. the acting in it and the plot was just so great. this one of the only movies I've seen that I felt warped my mind because after seeing it I was afraid of Reaper coming to kill me through my computer screen. There were just a few minor things wrong with this movie, but it's very easily over looked.<br /><br />Antonio Sabbato Jr did an excellent role in this movie along with Janine Turner and Robert Wagner. this movie just has so much suspense and it made me wanting more because I never thought a low budget TV movie could be so powerful. After viewing this I read the novel this movie was based on (four times) and it too kicked was great. If you ever see this movie come on TV, I'd watch it. The effects in this movie were pretty well done, I honestly don't know what a live calcifying human would look like but with the way the FX team did this movie I was impressed and all it shows is that all these bad made for TV movies out there with low budgets shouldn't suck so bad.<br /><br />watch it. It's really good, no really, it is! | 1 |
According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a "B" or "C" movie. It is a "Z" movie - but an enjoyable and fun "Z" movie! | 1 |
My children just happened to stop at this movie the other night and as things started to play out it really piqued my interest. I had to head out for bowling league so I had them record it for me on the dvr so I could watch the rest later. Well I just got done watching it and the front of my shirt must be soaked after crying buckets. It was an excellent movie even though I could almost feel the pain and anguish these girls were experiencing. And I never in a million years would have guessed the reason why Alissia had gone from this beautiful girl to an anti-social goth. This was probably WHY my shirt was soaked because I've experienced that same pain that Alissia was feeling. I too would not have sought out this movie, but I'm sure glad I saw it. Very moving, very touching. Great for those who love a good drama or tear-jerker. | 1 |
BROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting about.<br /><br />At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: "I don't think there will be any Q&A." Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz aspect of TV anchoring.<br /><br />WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from executive producer Hunter.<br /><br />Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS) helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty staff member.<br /><br />You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy, there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with.<br /><br />Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director/writer James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations.<br /><br />The script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the wistful conclusion. | 1 |
This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you. | 0 |
A group of model-caliber San Francisco women who have been friends since elementary school are suddenly being threatened and attacked by someone sending them bizarre Valentine's Day cards. Who is the killer and why is the killer after them? <br /><br />My rating will often change on subsequent viewings of a film--sometimes slightly up, sometimes slightly down. However, I can't remember another film where my rating has changed as drastically as it has for Valentine. The first time I watched it, upon its theatrical release, I thought it was pretty awful--I gave it a 4 out of 10, the equivalent of an "F" letter grade. Watching it for a second time last night, I can't remember what the heck I didn't like about it. I can only assume that maybe I was really in the wrong mood to watch it, or maybe I just didn't get it. In any event, I loved it this time, giving it a 9 out of 10, or an "A".<br /><br />It might sound ridiculous saying I didn't get a film like this, but there is something to get. Valentine is almost a comedy/horror. Director Jamie Blanks, who was also responsible for 1998's Urban Legend, takes the stereotypical teen horror formula that became so popular in the late 1990s in the wake of Scream (1996) and pushes most of the elements up a notch, making Valentine intentionally cheesy/campy almost to the point of absurdity (where absurdism is a positive stylistic term). On top of that, he gives us a film imbued with humorous commentary on romantic relationships. The humor is unusual in that it has the same exaggeratedly campy tone as the teen horror aspects. Most of the situations in the film, and the modus operandi of the villain, humorous or not, are tied in to the Valentine's Day theme.<br /><br />Many viewers will likely subtract points from the film for its various cliché-rooted but implausible scenarios and plot developments. However, in light of the above, the film is intentionally clichéd, implausible and ludicrous. It's as if Blanks is attempting (and mostly succeeding) to transcend the typical teen slasher by mocking/spoofing the conventions of the genre while also satirizing eros. That's the attraction to the irony of basing a horror film on Valentine's Day. It's an incongruity that is cleverly woven throughout the film, and that is itself at the heart of the slasher genre, making it prime fodder for Valentine's extravagant lampooning. Scream had a similar aim with its horror material, but the twist there was that the film was "self-aware". Valentine's Day is intentionally not self-aware; the viewer has to rely on contextual clues for satire. Lest some think I'm "reading too much" into the film, it's worthwhile to note that Blanks said in interviews that he "didn't want to just do another slasher film after Urban Legend" and producer Dylan Sellers said he wanted to do something "more adult".<br /><br />Other viewers may dislike the fact that Valentine's Day differs so much from its putative source material, the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, setting and plot are very different from the film. Sellers has said, "While it was a fine book, I didn't think it was the right story for a film". So instead the novel, which is much dryer and more serious in tone, was used as a launching pad, a motif to create variations on for a horror/thriller story centered on Valentine's Day. While those facts won't help purists familiar with the book like the film, it's helpful to understand why the film has its divergent plot and attitude. It's probably better to look at the film as an independent entity with a similar theme.<br /><br />Blanks' direction is impeccable visually. Valentine's Day has a lush look throughout, with complex, deep colors, interesting sets, and good staging. Blanks is admirable for keeping his villain and attack scenes not too dark, with clearly conveyed action. He also directs his actors with aplomb, catalyzing often slyly humorous performances. David Boreanaz, as Adam Carr, is involved in many of the funniest moments.<br /><br />While Valentine's Day is no masterpiece, it's a very good horror/thriller film that seems strongly prone to misconceptions. If you watch it expecting something more tongue-in-cheek you may find yourself appreciating it a lot more. | 1 |
This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A. <br /><br />It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch. <br /><br />Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile. | 0 |
My husband and I just got done watching this movie. I was not expecting it to be this good! I was really astonished at how great the story line was. I'm usually very good at figuring out twisty plots...but this one had me. I loved it! I'm going to have to watch it again before I take it back. I might even have to buy it. :) | 1 |
I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal. | 0 |
Definitely one of the lesser of the Astaire/Rogers musicals. It's just very poorly plotted and paced. It only runs a few minutes longer than Swing Time, for example, but it feels a heck of a lot longer. This is partly due to the secondary romance between Randolph Scott and Harriet Hilliard. Scott is rarely ever interesting. I like Hilliard. She's sweet, and I love at least one of her songs, "But Where Are You?" ("Get Thee Behind Me Satan", her other number, is a weak leftover from Top Hat, thankfully cut from that masterpiece). Follow the Fleet would actually be a bad film if not for at least three brilliant dance sequences between Astaire and Rogers. The dancing contest vies for the top spot of any of their numbers. The dance is just fantastic. "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" presents the two rehearsing a dance that they don't quite have perfected yet. Its imperfections make it all the more perfect. And "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is easily one of Irving Berlin's best songs. So the film is well worth watching for its great moments. | 1 |
I think it was a pretty good film. It shows how someone grew up in an environment that created a rich and powerful man but unfortunately because of his ambition and the people around him it led to his destruction. It shows that you can't trust anyone especially in a world that deals with a lot of money and envy.The character that I mostly liked was Sebeva. She was another ambitious, powerful and ruthless woman in a man's world who loved and respected Kilo. She also knew that business was business and a dangerous one. Everything she did was risky but got the job done. She helped Kilo become rich with her connections. Overall, I really liked this film and have it in my collection and waiting for El Padrino 2. | 1 |
I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...<br /><br />Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.<br /><br />But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.<br /><br />On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned. | 0 |
Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the "old favourite" sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.<br /><br />Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics! | 1 |
Right this may be the wine talking but this could be the best movie I've seen in a very long time. Granted I spent much of the first half an hour wondering what the hell was going on but once I had accepted that I would never understand everything from the subtitles I was able to enjoy the film.<br /><br />Can you really hate a film where a staff turns into a flock of birds that defecate over the enemy? What does character development matter when faced with a lesbian alien princess whose people built the pyramids? Why does Buddha wear seriously blinging diamond earrings? Does any of this matter when faced with the sheer sumptuousness of the visuals and the sly humour of the characters. Any battle for my heart was won once I saw the main protagonist dressed as spider-man - awesome! Many people will complain about a lack of story cohesion but for a fun movie to laugh about with a bunch of mates you can't do better, especially if you do an alcoholic shot every time someone says "I will love you 10,000 years". | 1 |
It's interesting to watch how late 1950's society is depicted in this film. Men are lecherous, chain-smoking boozers with one thing on their minds (time hasn't changed men all that much, but "sexual harassment" has) & women are in the workplace only passing time until they find a husband & settle down. Some of the dialog is cringe-worthy but yet it's charming in an innocent, passé way. I love the opening credits that show a romantic, exciting view of Manhattan with Johnny Mathis singing "The Best Of Everything" on the soundtrack. I want to jump right into some scenes, filmed on N.Y. streets, circa 1959 & experience a time I've only seen on film & in photographs. Some scenes in this movie reminded me of Melanie Griffith's "Working Girl". Especially when Hope Lange (who's a cross between Grace Kelly & Dolores Hart) gets bombed in handsome Stephen Boyd's apartment, he tucks her in & just watches her sleep (like Melanie, she wants to know if "anything" happened between them the following day). Joan Crawford is definitely comparable to Sigourney Weaver's horrible female boss except she was outwardly nasty (with a soft core), but Sigourney's character was sweet on the outside & horrible on the inside. I found it distressing how the Suzy Parker character (Gregg) started out as an independent woman with career goals to be an actress, who supposedly didn't need a man to complete her, ended up. She becomes a stalker/lunatic/nut-job when she lets the man she falls in love with drive her bananas after he's done with her. I loved the character Mary Agnes, the office gossip, with her thick New Yawk accent. If you enjoy films like "Valley Of The Dolls" you'll like this one too. | 1 |
Two young friends grow up together in Afghanistan. The events of their lives drive them apart and one of them has now been living in the USA for a good number of years. As he receives a phone call it is clear that he has to return, for there is trouble in the air.<br /><br />This is a film about life lasting friendships, mistakes and making up again. But also a film about darkness, pain and endurance. From the pleasurable young days of growing up and playing games to the falling apart, back to the playing of games. This is a slow film, but not too slow.<br /><br />It plays on emotions and that is quite right for a drama, but it does so a bit too much for my liking. This makes it too much of a tearjerker, loosing it a bit of the quality it carries. It is still good, but not fantastic.<br /><br />7 out of 10 kites ran aground | 1 |
This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.<br /><br />First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a "regular guy" type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.<br /><br />Next, there is "Elaine-Lisa-you name it" (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.<br /><br />Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.<br /><br />It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.<br /><br />Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.<br /><br /> | 0 |
....and now I'm up to episode #7. I really was hoping it'd be over by now (not to mention canceled, once everything connected with the show -including the actors - had been dumped along with some toxic waste in the middle of the ocean somewhere, never to be seen again), because this series really is dire. <br /><br />To have this program listed under the genre of 'comedy' is at best misleading! It's so hard to believe Ben Elton could write something this bad, maybe this points to a lot of input from the other writers in everything he's been connected with before. In some episodes I haven't even laughed once!<br /><br />Oh, and I can't believe Ardal O'Hanlon actually stopped doing 'My hero' & started doing this instead, his decision making skills were obviously impaired that day - perhaps he simply can't read, and didn't realise just how poor the scripts for 'Blessed' were. Don't get me wrong, 'My Hero' is not masterpiece, but it's a million times better than this piece of junk.<br /><br />And just to annoy me even more I bet this gets a DVD release as well, when there are so many great TV series' that aren't getting released! | 0 |
Oh Mr. Carell! How far you've fallen! After a glowing moment in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, Steve Carell's choice of films is beginning to contrast starkly with what has come since. Although THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN was entertaining, it was dwarfed by his "Sunshine" character. Hoping to find something that'd get me to spew popcorn from my nose, I decided to rent EVAN ALMIGHTY and see what possible guffaws might await me here. Not much...<br /><br />Given the trite and clichéd script, the entire film felt forced and unemotional. Poking a bit of fun at flagging family values and the current U.S. administration's take on the environment, Evan Almighty also tries to put a profound biblical moment into humorous terms but fails miserably.<br /><br />Nearly every person on Earth knows the story of Noah and The Ark. God's wrath was sent down with 30 days and nights of rain which flooded the entire planet while Noah, his family, and two of each of His creatures on Earth rode out the wetness in relative comfort via the gopher wood ark. It was a huge moment in human history (if you believe the biblical text).<br /><br />So why would God appear to one man and ask him to build an ark that would only carry the world's animals for a few minutes after a dam break? The simple answer is that He never would. Too much emphasis was given to U.S. government policy and not enough on world events, making Evan Almighty a terribly myopic and Ameri-centric film. Although designed as a comedy, it really never reaches anything approaching belly laughs. Maybe a few grunts and a smile, but little else.<br /><br />John Goodman (CARS) pulls in another forced performance as the despicable Congressman Chuck Long who's only goals are to create development opportunities on protected national land holdings. Even the strong presence of Morgan Freeman (10 ITEMS OF LESS) as God can't help mop up this soaking wet disaster-of-a-film.<br /><br />The only funny moments are between Carell and the animals, especially as Evan learns what animal magnetism is REALLY like. Birds literally flock to him. Sheep herd around him. Lions take pride in being near him (please forgive the puns).<br /><br />The special effects were fun to watch but were brief (with good reason). The "flood" was interesting in that the Ark was obviously guided by His hand and shoved in just the right direction.<br /><br />But other than that you're in for little more than an insult to common sense and intellect. | 0 |
Chop Shop. Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani ( Man Push Cart). Bahrani specializes in character driven studies in naturalist style films about the sort of little people that get passed by every day, without anyone ever really noticing they are there, in New York. <br /><br />These are people who have been pushed to the very fringe of society. They exist in a sort of grey world, many of them migrants whose legal status in America is appears somewhat doubtful. Where do they come from ? How did they get there ? How do they cope ? Where will they end up ? These are not feel good stories as such, but stories about survival at its most basic, day to day level. <br /><br />Ale is one such street kid. He has no education and hustles anyway he can, to save money, he is also not beyond turning to petty theft. Mostly he is anxious to be reunited with his older sister. We see him in the early scenes ringing a safe house looking for her, but not having any real success. A young friend, Carlos gets him a job in a chop shop, in the shadows of Shea baseball stadium. Eventually his older sister comes to live on site with him, but he is jealous of the motives of her friends and suspicious of how she makes extra money. He dreams of buying a food van and setting up a vending business with his older sister. <br /><br />Bahrani shoots all his films on location. There is nothing glossy or glossed over about them. This is life as these people have to live it, in the raw. lt is not pretty although it is never ominous, and the slightly despairing air that hangs over much of the film, is the same one that hangs over these peoples' everyday lives.<br /><br />The script is also very natural and the characters are given plenty of scope and room to work in. Polanco is outstanding in the lead role, and Gonzalez gives solid support as the older sister. | 1 |
Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. | 0 |
I just finished up this unofficial adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear" that was shot in Louisiana. Outside of a few changes (names, setting), this follows the short story point by point for the first 70 minutes but then tries to inject its own "twist" ending that you could see coming from a mile away. Either way, it is a much better adaptation than Full Moon's THE LURKING FEAR. Too bad it is a terrible film. Director David McCormick shoots the thing with all the flair of an industrial short. I swear I counted maybe two camera movements. The creature design is cheap (we're talking store bought masks here) but shot in a dark manner (intentional or not) where they are somewhat creepy. The most impressive thing in the picture is the abandoned mansion but McCormick fails to exploit that as well. File this one under good adaptation, poor execution. | 0 |
The topic of religion in Buñuel films is a point that one, as an eater of films, as an eater of art or as a person need to analyze hardly. One can see to a satirical Buñuel in "La Voie Lactée", "Un Chien Andalou" or in "L'Age d'Or". Is very hard and effective in its critic, but when you have seen this and then you see a movie like "Nazarin", after you see this work you begin to be questioned about its author. And much have questioned about what seems to be a contradiction for Buñuel thinks, but is better not called in this way, i think that there's not any contradiction in its work, only that Buñuel religion point of view is very diverse as unique in films.<br /><br />This beautiful film is based on the novel of Benito Perez Galdós, which told us the story of Father Nazario, who lived a humble, simple life dedicated to God and to help everyone. He lived in a simple and poor region. There lived too Beatriz, who is an abused and abandoned wife. She don't find any sense of her life without her violent, macho man. She have a kind of repulse to him. In the other side is Andara, one of the towns prostitutes. Father Nazario has been stolen again, he blames to Andara's cousin. Andara hear this and try to fight without success with the priest, who don't believe in violence. That night, Andara find that her cousin is actually a thief, she have stole her bellboys. Andara fights with her cousin with terrible consequences. With this, Andara search mercy from the priest. Nazario decides to help her, knowing well that this could be against his church, obviously this thing going to have some consequences. Since here, Nazario going to be a pilgrim. Without nothing, even without shoes, but with spirit and faith. But Andara and Beatriz want to be with he, and be like he, to serve God.<br /><br />If is the sweetest Buñuel film that i have seen so far, is too the most spiritual. Is clear here that the thing that most confuse people with the contradiction is that here, we don't see a Buñuel against the power of church, we see a Buñuel whose film is about church but not in the typical - and great - satirical way. Whethever like it is, i don't think that the right word is contradiction, actually i find it pleasant and well done and in spite of contain such religious issues (As his "Voie Lactée") i found it more a spiritual film but that don't try to touch in diversity the Catholic religion as maybe he touch, and laugh of it in another films. "Nazarin" is of father Nazario and its perspective front God and the same religion but all of this is at the end, analyzed in the spiritual life of this man.<br /><br />The other two women are, not a contrast, but as very well another two perspectives of faith. First we have Beatriz, the mistreated woman, that lose all the faith in life, first with her husband and then with a little girl who was in her family. This little girl was very sick. At side of her was too Andara, the prostitute who run of the justice. In the family of the child, just religious women, there a big pain, but faith becomes in father Nazario when he arrives with nothing to this town. He bless the child, a say later she is fine. The priest want go on walking, but Beatriz and Andara have recovered the faith in life and want to dedicate their lives to God with father Nazario. After some complains, father Nazario decide to be with them, discovering with some things until the end how he feels about faith, God, religion and the person in necessity, the people who must request to charity to survive. This last issue then must be noted as one possible explanation for the pineapple ending. This ending we listen the drums (Similar to that in "L'Age d'Or) and a father Nazario, walking over asking about this things, when he refuse the fruit at the first time and at the end decide to receive it as a symbol of necessity or maybe, as an answer for its spiritual road that begin being priest. Meanwhile, the two women must take away of the father, Andara for its crime (Beautiful scene where she thanks a man who helps father Nazario in jail and then she damn the man who hit the priest in jail) and Beatriz because she prefer be with her macho man, in spite that he treat her bad, just because she don't accept that she fall in loved with the priest. Father Nazario - and here is maybe the unique place in film to critic church- walk to contradict the church, the religion that he serves.<br /><br />Father Nazario is that then, is a (Soft for much, but not for me) critic for some thing in religion (Father Nazario helping a women who is guilty of a crime, of a sin) but most of all is one of Buñuel analysis of faith and life, and he really got it, with a beautiful, tender, sweet and unforgettable film, that is, without a doubt, one of his best.<br /><br />*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any. | 1 |
Yes, thats that i felt after i completed watching this movie. The acting is below-average and the special effects are horrible. In fact, the worst i have ever seen. It is a very low budget movie. There is no way this movie will can scare you, it has no creepy or scary moments. Mr. bone eater was more of a funny creature for me. It could have been much better but oh well they didn't had a big budget. The movie fails to convince you that you are watching a horror movie, lol. I would name this movie The Time Eater (waster). I am sure you would have a lot of better movies/etc to watch. Still watch it if: 1. you have nothing else to watch. 2. you get to watch it for free. Not worth renting at all. | 0 |
This is a terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid. | 0 |
Some people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:<br /><br />1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!<br /><br />2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!<br /><br />3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!<br /><br />Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2/10 | 0 |
Inspired at least a little by Ivy Benson & Her All Girls Orchestra, who performed throughout the war years at the Covent Garden Opera house, this film chronicles the attempts by an elderly saxophone player to reform the (almost) all girl band with whom she played as a schoolgirl towards the end of WWII. All too brief flashbacks to the original band on stage bring us some wonderful music, and help to fill in the background to the band members, and in particular to the girls' relationships with the lone male member - their transvestite drummer (who is trying to dodge the call-up).<br /><br />Ian Holm ("Lord of The Rings", "Cromwell and Fairfax") and Judi Dench turn in superb leading performances as the recently widowed Elizabeth, and the conniving, womanizing Patrick, the drummer. The late Joan Sims is perfect as the band's leader, now playing bar piano at the sea-side, and June Whitfield glows as the Salvation Army trombone player. Cameo appearances by other greats like Cleo Laine, Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Billie Whitelaw make this an unforgettable experience. The movie is a romp down memory lane, with an all star cast of what ought, by all rights, to be a bunch of over-the-hill actresses. All I can say is, I hope I look as good at their age! Leslie Caron, in particular, is still an incredible fox, at 69 years of age. She certainly still gets my pulse going! As I watched it, I was mentally berating the casting director for not using women of the appropriate age. Afterwards, I looked these girls up, and discovered that every one of them is old enough to have been performing in the London of 1944 (although this might be a bit of a stretch for Judi Dench).<br /><br />If you like swing bands, thrive on nostalgia, or just want to see how good a woman can manage look with almost three quarters of a century behind her, don't miss this film.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Cult-director Lucio Fulci is probably most famous for his gory Zombie flicks from the 1980s that earned him his rightful reputation as the "Godfather Of Gore". Fulci's absolute greatest film, however, dates back to 1972 and, while it is definitely gritty and violent, it is not nearly as gory as many of his other films. "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" aka. "Don't Torture A Duckling" of 1972 is not only by far Fulci's greatest film, this tantalizing and utterly brilliant Giallo is one of the absolute highlights of the genre. The stunning atmosphere and tantalizing suspense, the great Sizilian setting, the intriguing story the brilliant performances or the intense moments of sheer shock - I don't know what to praise most about this ingenious Giallo! "Don't Torture A Duckling" truly delivers cinematic perfection in every aspect, which makes it an absolute masterpiece of Italian Horror cinema.<br /><br />Contrary to other Gialli, it is not seductive beauty queens who are slain one by one, but little boys who fall victims to a killer on the loose. Bodies of little boys are found in rural Sicily. While the police are desperately searching for the killer, the little town is basically full of strange people, and the townsfolk are screaming for a culprit...<br /><br />The film is stunningly suspenseful and uncompromising from the very beginning, with a gritty, dark, and constantly tense atmosphere that has yet to find an equal. The acting performances are among the best in Italian Horror cinema. Tomas Milian (one of my personal all-time favorite actors) is excellent in the lead, as journalist Andrea Martinelli who is investigating the crimes. Sexy Barbara Bouchet delivers both eye-candy and a brilliant performance. Equally outstanding performances come from Irene Papas and Florinda Bolkan, who is utterly brilliant in her role. The great score by Riz Ortolani brilliantly intensifies the suspense and atmosphere, and the film is ingeniously shot in fascinating Sicilian landscapes. Although not as gory as many other Fulci films, this film is definitely gritty and uncompromising in its violence, with a few shockingly brutal scenes.<br /><br />"Don't Torture A Duckling" has everything brilliant Horror requires. This is not quite as easy to get hold of as most other Fulci flicks, but I assure that searching it will pay off. Any Horror fan MUST see this personal favorite of mine, and I highly recommend any true lover of film in general not to miss this. A Masterpiece! | 1 |
Really bad shot on video "film" made by not one, not two, but three amateur video makers.<br /><br />If you're going to make a bad horror film at least throw in some blood, gore and nudity. There is some blood provided by latex cut off arm props bought at a Halloween store. There are lesbians and hookers but no nudity or sex. The lesbians spend a lot of time in bed but only talking.<br /><br />There seems to be no editing effects- fades, wipes etc. Once in a while a bit of black appears to separate scenes.<br /><br />Terrible music by bad heavy metal bands whose websites take up the majority of the end credits.The werewolves are represented by rubber masks that are attached to just the "actors" face. They didn't even bother to apply brown makeup to their necks, arms or wrists.<br /><br />I guarantee a 10 year old with a video camera could put together a better movie.No reason at all to buy, rent or watch this film except as an example of how not to make a low budget video. | 0 |
Maybe James P. Lay knows what do to in the sound department if a director supervises him.<br /><br />In 'Dreamland (2007)' however, he cannot accomplish anything as a writer or as a director.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing in this film, no story, no character building, no events, no atmosphere, no plot, no twists, no acting that deserves that name.<br /><br />In any of those departments this movie is billions of light years behind any short film that has some actual thinking in it, even a one minute one.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with any of David Lynch's works!<br /><br />I actually think it could be used as mental torture or as negative propaganda material against the West.<br /><br />Recommend it only to your worst enemies! | 0 |
Who ever put that review as 'of bad taste' is not all quite there... its so funny, genius and fantastic you could watch it until your eyes are square! not to mention the rest of the work he has done on the rest of the series...all is as good as Morris' standards. if you think that it is 'awful', 'distasteful' or 'sick' then i can only think of one thing to say to you: "go to hell." thanks. it had to be said! i think that the way that so many people complaining was a complete joke...i would like to make a shout out to all the people that actually did that: "haven't you got anything better to do with your time? what are you trying to prove?" thanks for reading my heart-filled review on the matter...cheers | 1 |
What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of SH"), but this version of "The Sign of Four" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of "Murder, She Wrote" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.<br /><br />Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.<br /><br />Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!<br /><br />3/10. Travesty. | 0 |
This is an excellent film, but Momento (Nolan's other big budget film) is much better . I would recommend people go to see Momento and then if they like that, see this film. THe film is shot in black and white which I was a bit annoyed with at first but once into the film you understand black and white is the best way for the film to be seen. It is extremely gripping and reasonably easy to understand even though the way it is made is extremely clever. Elements of the storyline i think are a bit daft but the film is definitely worthy of a second viewing. To conculde the film has a clever plot, clever twists and turns, very good acting and bearing in mind the budget of the film I have to say that it is pretty amazing. | 1 |
What a gas of a movie! "Film Noir" has always been one of my favorite genres, but this one stands apart from the rest. Only "The Big Sleep", "Out of the Past", "Murder My Sweet", and "The Killers" can come close to this caper classic. I know these four American films I mentioned are not caper movies per se, but rather detective stories with complicated story lines, which still exude a "noirean", gritty quality about them, similar to "Rififi".<br /><br />What is different here is the way Jules Dassin sets into motion the total ambiance of the film, not only in the gritty realism of the principals, but also in the usage of the streets of Paris as a subliminal character and co-conspirator unto itself! The movie centers around "le Stephanois", a dark, moody and complicated ex-con getting pulled into one last shot at the hefty payoff. Even though he is an unsmiling and hard-nosed tough guy, one still senses in him a yearning for some kind of redemption by extricating himself from the demons of his past (hey, he saved little Toni!). Dassin picked the right guy (Jean Servais) for that role.<br /><br />That aside, the rest of the story development kind of falls into place as we journey through the famous "silent" caper scene to the the eventual demise of the principal "perps". Only their women survive, except for Ida, Mario's honey. They seemed to best understand the underlying futility of it all! | 1 |
THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.<br /><br />Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die
but when you strip a man of his dreams
The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off
what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****. | 1 |
I like the phrase "British post war suburban paranoia" that one of the reviewers used. It describes so well the kind of films John Mills excelled in ("The October Man" (1947), "The Long Memory" (1952)) in between "big" pictures ("Scott of the Antartic" (1948) and "War and Peace" (1956)).<br /><br />This distinctly "Eric Ambler" style plot had John Mills playing Dr. Howard Latimer, who promises his friend, Charles, (unseen) to meet a visiting German actress, Frieda Veldon (Lisa Daniely) at the airport. A creepy "reporter" Jeffrey Windsor (Lionel Jeffries) is in his consulting rooms at the time and offers to give him a lift but while he is tracking the actress down Windsor informs him she is already in the car waiting!!! (something fishy is going on!!!). Howard is dropped off for his date and thinks no more about it.<br /><br />The next night he finds her body when he arrives home from work, further more, he finds his friend Charles could not have rung him as he is still in New York and Windsor doesn't seem to exist. Earlier on a patient, Mrs Ambler(Rene Ray) who has been referred to him by Doctor George Kimber (Mervyn Johns) tells of her recurring dream about finding a dead body and a brass candlestick with a square base. It is a nightmare that is coming true for Howard but of course when Detective Inspector Dane (Roland Culver) interviews her, she denies all knowledge of the conversation - the candlestick is later found in the boot of Howard's Daimler.<br /><br />When Howard is lying low, Robert Brady (Wilfred Hyde-White) visits him. He calls himself a "friend" - he has a photo of Windsor that he wants to trade for a box of matches Frieda gave Howard at the airport. Howard returns to the flat, Charles rings and while Howard is on the phone an unknown assailant knocks him out and steals the matches!!! Who can he trust - who hasn't something to hide!!!<br /><br />This is a top thriller - not quite in the same class as "The October Man", but with John Mills doing what he does best - playing ordinary men caught up in impossible mysteries!!!<br /><br />Highly Recommended. | 1 |
In "Red Letters", Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with "Red Letters"...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the time. | 0 |
No matter how you feel about Michael Jackson himself, you can't deny that this video is the most unique video of all time. There is no other video that is even remotely close to "Thriller" The first time I saw it was when I was 6 years old and it scared me bad. Now I watch it with a smile because I can now appreciate the marvel that it is. I love this video and it will be around for as long as music videos exist. I think everyone should sit down and watch it when its on sometime and look back and see how great it was, especially for being 1983. | 1 |
"In Cold Blood", adapted by director Richard Brooks from Truman Capote's famous novel, deals with the brutal and senseless murder of a family of four by a pair of hapless criminals. The film excels as a character study of the killers, particularly trigger-man Perry Smith (Robert Blake).<br /><br />The cast includes few recognizable names but they nevertheless bring the story to life with ease. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson are excellent together as two criminals with disparate personalities. They play off of each other effortlessly while Blake also gets plenty of opportunities to explore his character's idiosyncrasies. The rest of the cast is merely average and isn't worth remarking on.<br /><br />Richard Brooks received Oscar nominations for both his script and his direction. In my opinion, both were excellent, though the script does miscalculate with some ill-advised narration in the late stages. The Oscar-nominated cinematography by Conrad Hall is also top-notch, as is the editing. Also worthy of note is the jazzy score by Quincy Jones which secured the last of the film's four Oscar nominations.<br /><br />Unlike so many other crime films, this one doesn't glamorize violence. Brooks turns the killers into pitiable characters rather than flatly condemning them. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment the film does present an interesting alternative to the usual Hollywood approach. I recommend the film for this reason and also for the expertise with which the technical aspects are handled. | 1 |
Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time. | 1 |
What exactly is the point of pretending to "con" people out of things like ski passes and pizza? I fail to see a point. I'd not clever or original and it strikes me as being extremely pointless. <br /><br />Skyler Stone doesn't seem to be a very down-to-earth or even a nice guy. He has very little charisma and just about anyone could do what he does in this show. <br /><br />The worse thing about this piece of crap, is the fact that a lot of the phone calls are reenacted, so not only are they apparently conning the poor people on the other end of the phone, but they are also conning the audience who don't have enough time to read the "disclaimed" that flickers across the screen for about half a second at the beginning at the end of the show!<br /><br />Not only that but he also claims this is how he lives his whole life. What an lie. No one could live their lives like this and the fact he says this is not only yet another con to get his show watched, but it's also one of the most fabricated, blatant pieces of bull$hit I've ever heard. This guy is an @$$!<br /><br />What makes them think that going to all the trouble of, for example, write and record a song, get someone to pain a HUGE picture of you and two mates, get dance lessons and actually travel to a ski resort is actually worth only getting free ski passes and some food for free? What is the point of that? It's an awful lot of trouble to go to just for a few ski passes and a bit of snow. <br /><br />As far as "comedy" goes, this is bottom of the barrel stuff. | 0 |
To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.<br /><br />LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome. | 0 |
Then you must see this film, to understand the reality. Having read the book, Ms. Duke is now an advocate for those afflicted with bipolar disorder; formerly labeled manic-depression.<br /><br />It is hard to believe that in this day and age, people still critique others with emotional problems, or those who seek psychiatric help. Regressive and discriminatory thinking still exists, and this is unfortunate.<br /><br />In this film, the audience sees the pain and suffering Ms. Duke had been through, especially as a child. Many of us may remember her from the teenage "Patty Duke Show". She was a household name in America by age 15.<br /><br />You learn of her exploitation by the Ross'(well played by Howard Hesseman). As she was growing up in the 1950's, the stigma was in full-force. However, we see as she advances in her career, yet the illness becomes worse. She goes through bouts of substance abuse and promiscuity; even marries someone whom she divorces the next week; and she has several conflicts and tantrums with her children and elderly mother. All these problem occurred before she received adequate therapy, and medication.<br /><br />A recent survey released by NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) recorded that a majority of US adults fail to recognize most of the classic symptoms of bipolar disorder. It also was released that one in five respondents to the poll believed that people could CONTROL their illness without medication if they wanted to. (bp Magazine, Winter 2006) If you watch this film, you will learn the true story of a talented woman who could not "pull herself up by her bootstraps" and "get well" until she was educated about her disorder, and received proper treatment. Thank you, Ms. Duke, for being an advocate against ignorance and prejudice. | 1 |
This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.<br /><br />I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.<br /><br />It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!<br /><br />one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ... | 0 |
I think that the shots and lighting were very poor. When I watched it for the first time I thought it was the old version(1956). When I really found out the true year of the film I was shocked. I didn't know that there could be such a bad film made so recently. Thats really all I wanted to say. This film had a good plot though, nothing you couldn't miss out on if you would simply read the novel that George Orwelll wrote. All I really want to say has already been said except for this: I can't believe that this film could have possibly received so many awards and nominations.I gave this film a One (awful), because I felt that it was very badly made. Well that is all. So long | 0 |
In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality. <br /><br />Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...<br /><br />Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money. | 0 |
Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).<br /><br />*******Possible Spoilers********<br /><br />The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.<br /><br />I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.<br /><br />I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films. | 0 |
**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**<br /><br />The biggest part of the movie that doesn't work IS the Wendigo, and when your title character fails, your movie usually isn't far behind it. The filmmakers' interpretation of the Wendigo's form is interesting, and can be properly menacing when filmed correctly - when the fleeing killer sees the Wendigo in a flash in his rear view mirror, for instance - and the tree-form was actually very good. However, as a monster character it never really comes to life. We don't get much of an explanation for its behavior, and what we DO see from it doesn't jibe with either the story told in the movie itself, or any Wendigo lore I've ever read.<br /><br />I think one of the main reasons that the monster fails is that it isn't given enough to do, in the movie. When you boil this film down to its bones, what you have is a suspense thriller with a little bit of a supernatural element, instead of a movie about a monster.<br /><br />The cinematography is good, though a little cheesy; the filmmakers use scenery, lighting, and time of day to convey atmosphere and mood rather well. The character of Otis comes across as truly dangerous and unpredictable, making him the real monster in the film. It might have been more effective to explain his behavior as him being possessed by the hungry spirit of the Wendigo, which would also be a more accurate representation of the real legend.<br /><br />I have heard unconfirmed reports (from a newsgroup) that the reason the Wendigo doesn't do much is that, when the monster suit was built, it wound up so heavy and and uncomfortable (in order to mimic the stance of it standing on cloven hooves, the performer had to walk on his toes) that it was nearly impossible to run, walk, or otherwise perform in it. Thus the many flashes of the creature standing still, and the obvious sped-up footage of it running. I stress that these reports are uncomfirmed. | 1 |
I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.<br /><br />I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.<br /><br />This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.<br /><br />I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.<br /><br />Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV. | 0 |
If the Australian Post Office ever needed a promotional film for recruitment then this is it.This is one of those movies who's heart is in the right place and you can watch again and again. Miranda's performance is touching as it shows an aspect of Australia unimagined by many Europeans, in that it can be cold, wet and bleak, just like anywhere else and just like anywhere else what is important is the people that surrounds you. The characters in the movie are warm and welcoming and make the prospect of a career move into a 'dead letter office' a thought to be considered. Miranda has gone on to do bigger movies, but I hope she always keeps a thought inside for this one?. | 1 |
After a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal "Every Which Way But Loose", "Every Which Way You Can" and "Peter's Friends", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.<br /><br />Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*t. | 0 |
I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said "This is a free adaptation of Eça de Queirós' novel". I should have turned off my TV at that moment.<br /><br />Vera Sacramento's idea of "free adaptation" is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in Eça de Queirós' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.<br /><br />As of the characters, in the novel, Amélia and João Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Amélia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. João Eduardo, her fiancé, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Amélia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. João Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.<br /><br />Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! Eça de Queirós surely did not deserve this. | 0 |
"Lost", "24", "Carnivale", "Desperate Housewifes"...the list goes on and on. These, and a bunch of other high-quality, shows proves that we're in the middle of a golden age in television history. "Lost" is pure genius. Incredible layers of personal, and psychologically viable, stories, underscored by sublime cinematography (incredible to use this word, when describing a TV-show), a killer score, great performances and editing. Anyone who isn't hooked on this, are missing one of the most important creative expressions in television ever. It may have its problems, when watching only one episode a week, but the DVD format is actually an incredible way to watch this. Hope they keep it up (as I'm sure they do). | 1 |
Joline (Heather Graham) married Carl (Luke Wilson) and about five hundred and some days later, Carl is very depressed and leaves her, expecting to `clean the fog' in their lives. Joline faces her marriage as an important commitment to the end of her life, and decides to look for Carl in Texas. She is very supported by her brother Jay (Casey Affleck), who meets her in the border of Mexico. There, Joline meets the confused Carl and realizes that she can not change his decision, while Jay knows Carmen (Patricia Velasquez) and starts dating her, and in the end `life goes on'. This movie is very unpredictable, having a very different story. I believe it is an independent production. In some parts, it is a little slow and boring, but there are certain dialogs that makes this movie worthwhile. I liked it, and my vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Rebeldes Até o Fim' (`Rebels Until the End')<br /><br /> | 1 |
Interesting story and sympathetic treatment of racial discrimination, Son of the Gods is rather too long and contains some hammy acting, but on the whole remains a fascinating film.<br /><br />Story about a Chinese passing as White (Rchard Barthelmess) starts as Barthelmess leaves college after being insulted by a trio of brainless co-eds. He embarks on a world tour to discover himself and ends up as secretary to a British playwright (Claude King). In Monte Carlo he meets beautiful Alanna Wagner (Constance Bennett) and they fall in love. But when she discovers he is Chinese she goes berserk in a memorable scene.<br /><br />Plagued by guilt and love, Alanna goes into a mental spiral and makes a few attempts to contact Barthelmess. After his father dies he takes over the business (banking?) and dons Chinese garb as a symbol of his hatred of the White race that has spurned him. After a San Francisco detective tells him the truth about his birth, Barthelmess makes the decision to honor his Chinese father and mother.<br /><br />And I agree that one reviewer here never saw this film. Alanna declares her love for Sam BEFORE he tells her of his recent discovery. And that makes all the difference in this film.<br /><br />Barthelmess and Bennett each have a few scenes where they chew the scenery, but on the whole this is a solid and interesting drama. Frank Albertson is good as the nice college pal, Claude King is solid as the playwright Bathurst, Bess Flowers has one scene as an Oklahoma Indian, and E. Alyn Warren is the Chinese father, Dorothy Mathews is nasty Alice. Not so good are Anders Randolf as Bennett's father and Mildred Van Dorn as Eileen. Also note the gorgeous blonde to the right of Barthelmess at the roulette table. What a stunner whoever she was! | 1 |
This is high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce "wannabe" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided "let's throw a flashback" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand this film.<br /><br /> | 0 |
"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out. | 1 |
I've Seen The Beginning Of The Muppet Movie, But Just The Half. Because I Only Watched It At Mrs Kelly's Friend's House. The Songs Were The Best And The Muppets Were So Hilarious. They Learn That If They Believe In The End Of The Rainbow, Anyone Can Make It, No Matter How Small, No Matter How Green(Which Was Included In The Trailer).<br /><br />Kermit Is My Favorite Protagonist(Which Means It Describes The Main Character) And So Are The Other Muppets. Mel Brooks Was Amazing When He Played Professor Max Krassman. The Scene Where Miss Piggy Saves Kermit By Doing Kung Fu On Those Guys. It Was So Cool.<br /><br />The Muppet Movie Is The Best Jim Henson Film With The Most Hilarious Characters And People Will Cherish For His Successful Film. | 1 |
First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.<br /><br />First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.<br /><br />Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!<br /><br />Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!<br /><br />Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing! | 0 |
In film, I feel as though it should be more than just art. I think it should be more than that, a way to tell a story on screen. This short from David Lynch tells a story but not much of one. I felt that it was funny but too bizarre to be a comedy. It is good film-making but there really isn't anything else to it. As I've said before, I am a huge David Lynch fan but I get frustrated by some of his work because I don't see a need for it at all. This is definitely my least favorite thing he has done so far but I know he's still got a ton of talent and I am excited to see what he has in store for us in the future. If you like Lynch, check this out but don't be surprised when you don't like it very much. | 0 |
I got the first Bill and Ted movie for christmas and I had to get the second when I saw it in a store. This one was (I think) just as funny as the first but a much wierder story. It was funny how they had their own personnal hell and how they had to play death. The funny thing was that they played him in stupid little games like clue. The only thing I'd change is Station and Death being in the band but other than that it was great. | 1 |
Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.<br /><br />Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!<br /><br />If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order) | 0 |
I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one ! | 0 |
This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher. | 1 |
I can't believe people are looking for a plot in this film. This is Laural and Hardy. Lighten up already. These two were a riot. Their comic genius is as funny today as it was 70 years ago. Not a filthy word out of either mouth and they were able to keep audiences in stitches. Their comedy wasn't sophisticated by any stretch. If a whoopee cushion can't make you grin, there's no reason to watch any of the stuff these guys did. It was a simpler time, and people laughed at stuff that was funny without a plot. I guess it takes a simple mind to enjoy this stuff, so I qualify. Two man comedy teams don't compute, We're just too sophisticated... Aren't we fortunate? | 1 |
Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.<br /><br />Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.<br /><br />The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.<br /><br />7/10 Great for all generations. | 1 |
I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.<br /><br />He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God<br /><br />He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations. <br /><br />Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as "he never existed" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.<br /><br />As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us. | 0 |
I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.<br /><br />Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.<br /><br />Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.<br /><br />My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".<br /><br />Love it. | 1 |
1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite "bad" films and great to see with friends.<br /><br />Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.<br /><br />Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad. | 0 |
This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.<br /><br />Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.<br /><br />It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm | 0 |
A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.<br /><br />I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this. <br /><br />The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.<br /><br />I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience. | 0 |
Reportedy based on actual historical events, this disturbingly violent, bloody, and shocking period epic sustains viewer interest by creating a verisimilitude missing in the majority of films set in a remote era. Ms. Bolkan's portrayal of the rebellious nun is a tour de force. Her gradual transformation in character from an obedient if unwilling complicitor in social injustices of her day is adeptly evidenced by telling sequences: her witnessing of the hated local Duke's casual rapist activity, her forbidden love affair with a Jew, her criminal defection to the invading Moslem forces of the sensual Prince Ahmed (Anthony Corlan) There are some painfully realistic gory sequences (human flaying) in this film that are not for the squeamish, but viewers with strong stomachs and an interest in medieval history should find ample interest. Deserves to be seen, if only as an antidote to Hollywood depictions of the medieval world. | 1 |
When I learned of Sir Alec Guinness' death, this was the first of his many films I thought of re-seeing. What a wonderful droll commentary the film provides even after all these years. And Guinness helps to weave the charm into every frame. His eyes and face are as luminous as that white suit he wears. Both he and the film have to be considered lifetime favorites. | 1 |
Since I first saw Anchors Aweigh in 1945, viewing it on videotape holds a lot of nostalgia for me. At age 15, it was easy for me to be drawn into the first of the great MGM Technicolor musicals. Now I am perhaps most interested in thinking about the future careers of the leading players. Though Sinatra had done a couple of negligible films soon after his emergence after his Dorsey days, as a solo singer, this was his first major film appearance. As another viewer noted, this seems almost to be a warm-up for On the Town. Sinatra may have had to work hard at it, but his dance with Kelly is credible, and he would do better in their next pairings. However, observing his physique, it's easy to see why he was caricatured as a string bean. Who would have imagined that within a decade he would win an academy award for acting, and go on to play many roles as a tough detective or leader in combat. Though Gene Kelly's personality and dancing dominated this film, his winsome performance did not suggest that he would become a major creative force, almost the iconic figure, for MGM musicals, where he developed a style of dance complementary to that of Fred Astaire. Finally, it was strange to see the fresh-faced Dean Stockwell and remember that he would later play a "thrill" killer in Compulsion, based on the Leopold-Loeb murder from the 1920s. An additional note: One reviewer praised the performance of Betty Garrett as Sinatra's love interest. She later played opposite him in On the Town, but Pamela Britton was featured in this film. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.