text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
This independent, B&W, DV feature consistently shocks, amazes and amuses with it's ability to create the most insane situations and then find humor and interest in them. It's all hilarious and ridiculous stuff, yet as absurd as much of the film should be, there is a heart and a reality here that keeps the film grounded, keeps the entire piece from drifting into complete craziness and therein lies the real message here. This film is about how we all survive in a world gone mad. That seems to be the heart of the film. For as insane and off the wall as things get, Leon, the 30 yr. old paperboy-protagonist, always tries to keep it together. He's like a child forever trying to catch the balloon that is floating away so that everything will work out for the best, so that everyone can have what they want.<br /><br />The acting in the film could have went far over the top but the exceptional cast really keeps the piece cohesive. Van Meter is perhaps the best of the bunch here with a performance that shines through her absurd diseased tics. Just as the characters in the film do, we overlook her sudden outbursts to see the real person underneath. <br /><br />Majkowski is a true genius here. He takes the utmost ridiculous plot twists and keeps them real. It is his script and his cast that help keep the whole thing afloat. It's a true testament to the skill of Majkowski and all involved that this film, with it's grating plot and characters, never once works our nerves. Majkowski has taken a film that could have been abrasive and repugnant, and somehow given it heart and humor. This is a unique film. Not to be missed. <br /><br /> | 1 |
Having loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are "Stand By Me" from "The Body", "Carrie" from the novel of the same name, and "The Shawshank Redemption" from "Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!! | 0 |
"Thunderbolt" is probably Jackie Chan's worst movie since "The Protector" in 1985. Yes, I know that nobody watches his movies for their stories, but the plotting of this one is unusually lame, even by his standards, and while the fight choreography IS up to his standards, the fight scenes (the whole two of them) are ruined, as others have mentioned, by the frenetic, distracting camerawork. Even the most serious Jackie Chan fans shouldn't really bother with this offensively haphazard, stunt-and-plug-filled garbage. Anita Yuen's cute and perky performance is one of the few redeeming virtues. For a good "serious Jackie" movie, I recommend "Crime Story". (*1/2) | 0 |
this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife | 0 |
this is the first of a two part back-story to the conflict between the machines and mankind in the Matrix world and it delivers spectacularly by combining observations on man's fear of the unknown and of being usurped with politics, extensive religious and historical imagery, subverting expected portrayals of parties involved and an at least partially believable and thus terrifying vision of our near future. it isn't perfect and some plot points and images are at once obvious and contrived but it has the desired effect and impact and tells a visceral and cautionary tale.<br /><br />this first part sets the scene - human societies have developed advanced and capable robots, mostly humanoid, to serve people doing menial, unskilled jobs, labour, construction etc. and thus the populace has become lazy and derogatory towards them. one robot, however, rebels and kills his owner, stating at his subsequent trial that he simply did not want to die. he is destroyed but when the robot masses' destruction is ordered to protect humanity many robots rise up in protest, with many human sympathisers alongside them.<br /><br />the imagery here is exploitative, recounting race riots and abuse, Tiananmen square, the holocaust and an overly provocative scene of a robot in a human girl's guise getting harried, hammered in the head and then shot dead as it pleads 'i'm real'. it lays on the ground, clothes and skin torn and breasts hanging out. it's an obvious and obscene image designed to present human fear towards uncontrolled elements and aggression towards groups based on the actions of individuals.<br /><br />anyway, this first portion is much like a compressed version of the film I Robot, but it soon develops into a recognisable Matrix back-story as the surviving robot contingent is exiled and congregates in the middle east, in the cradle of civilisation as the narrator informs us. there, the machines regroup and begin to produce new AI and to manufacture mass technology and trade it with human nations. we see a commercial for a car that uses the circular energy hover engines that the ships the rebels in the movies use and we see sentinel type robots flying around Zero One, the name of their city. their goods and trade make their economy soar affecting other economies detrimentally and human governments and authorities establish a blockade in response. the machines send ambassadors in the form of Adam and Eve resemblances to a UN congress to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the blockade, but they are forcibly removed and the scene is set for war in the second part.<br /><br />the animation is by Studio 4°C who work on quite a few of the Animatrix and it's evocative and visually stimulating, rendering different scenes like imagery montages, CCTV footage and particular scenes of import distinctive and overall presenting the story perfectly. the plot may not be an original concept and it may draw on simplistic sheep mentalities and plot models and resort to provocative material for impact but after the tantalising mystery offered by the first film and Morpheus' vague brief info-dumps this is a nice exposition of the cataclysmic events that left the world ravaged and in the hands of the machines that serves as a warning and as a vehicle for many observations and comments on the human condition, the development of AI and the importance of harmony and co-operation and the devastating consequences of conflict and prejudice, themes expanded on in the movies. | 1 |
<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.<br /><br />Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.<br /><br />One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.<br /><br />More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.<br /><br />This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.<br /><br />Hollow!!! | 0 |
A wonderful family movie & a beautiful horse movie. 75+ %entertainment. Casey, Buddy, Kelly Marsh are very interesting and lovable characters. The horses are real beauties.<br /><br />Has the horse racing as a backdrop for showing how luck is sometimes nothing but some good commonsense. Shows how kids can do stupid things for stupid reasons. Shows how adults can do stupid things for selfish reasons. The very realistically portrayed characters transform the unrealistic theme of the film into something everyone can relate to.<br /><br />Andrew Rubin puts in a wonderful performance as Buddy,the sensible elder brother. Somewhat reminded me of Aidan Quinn(eyes, speech delivery, facial appearance). <br /><br />Casey makes you fall in love with the character because of the earnestness. Sarah Blue is also nicely portrayed by Alexis Smith. Lloyd Bourdelle, the father, is played by Walter Matthau and he IS the character.<br /><br />Though there is room for improvement in the movie, its a very enjoyable, feel-good movie. | 1 |
I first saw this docudrama in the UK in the 1980's, and found myself intrigued and then astonished at how such good intentions could go so wrong. Previous commentators (who are Australian) have explained the unfolding plot's detail better than I ever could, but I would like to make an observation about what may lie behind the Governor-Generals 'UK Sovereign power'. All modern laws, as I understand them, need an ethical or philosophical root to exist in the first place and to become A law at all. That being the case, and if say the Conner's/Khemlani mess had been possibly set up,(just how many businessmen/millionares had been served by Khemlani, presumably without complaint), then the Labour government could have been victims of 'entrapment', which would surely have had to have been investigated' by the Governor-General as or until he could see that the budget standoff was A genuine result of Whitlam's fecklessness, and NOT elaborate entrapment, sponsored by 'person or person's unknown'! If its the case that Kerr in effect didn't have to refer to the law because fiscal circumstances overrides everything, then 'royal power' borders onto unreason; the implications in any Commonwealth country is that 'fiscal' rules literally, and that any person or organisation has Carte Blanche to break any other rule, physical or mental, so long as they have the control over the purse strings ultimately! | 1 |
I first saw this one afternoon in the 80's on network T.V. I think I was like 9.(Picture seeing a violent horror flick nowadays on regular television). Anyway, I've seen it again years later and it's like I remembered,it's really good,scary flick. I think the reason why it might of gone unnoticed is cause it wasn't followed by a ****load of sequels i.e. Friday the 13th. But it's one of those movies that takes the original idea and does it better. Even though this is a killer in the woods flick like Friday,it has more in common with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.That's because the movie lays down a certain atmosphere and feeling of dread,even in broad daylight. And the killers feel more threatening than in Friday. There's also a good amount of suspense. I recommend seeing it now that it's being released on DVD in late July. | 1 |
The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.<br /><br />In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this "Assault On My Intelligence 13" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.<br /><br />Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress. | 0 |
Spanish director Luis Buñuel career spanned almost 50 years, from 1929 to 1977. Arguably, his best films were those he made during his exile in Mexico - from the late forties to the early 60s. There he had to deal with very cheap budgets, and work in an industry interested mainly in churning commercial movies to unsophisticated audiences, yet he somehow managed to make interesting, thought provoking movies that have stand the test of time. This movie is based on a novel by Spanish author Benito Perez Galdos - and the adaptation is quite faithful, even if the setting is now early 20th century Mexico instead of early 20th century Spain. The protagonist, Nazarin, is a priest who tries to live a life that is as faithful as it can be to the one prescribed by Christ. The question many would ask is whether such endeavor would be possible, without incurring in the hostility, incomprehension and mockery of your fellow human beings. As it happens, he suffers a lot of indignities, yet he remains stubborn (until the controversial final shot) to this objective. I think Buñuel wanted to show Nazarin as a somewhat ridiculous figure, but perhaps inadvertently, his stubbornness (at least to this viewer) comes out as admirable. In any case, a great film. | 1 |
<br /><br />It's a generic coming-of-age story -- think "The Member of the Wedding," "Summer of '42," "A Summer Place," even "Little Women" -- and there are moments where Mulligan might have omitted the soupy music, not used slow-motion, or played down the golden-lit prettiness of the setting. Otherwise, it's done with rare emotional perfect-pitch. Nothing's forced, every line has feeling, and the pacing is just right. Even the below-A-list casting helps: Bigger movie stars with more recognizable personalities might have overwhelmed the material. In particular, Witherspoon is excellent: Her line readings are fresh and original, and her body language is just right for a gawky, hoydenish 14-year-old on the eve of womanhood. Waterston is also very fine, even if he has to spend much of the movie climbing in and out of the family truck.<br /><br />One senses that the film's makers were aware of its unpromising commercial prospects -- no big stars, no big car crashes, no special effects -- and consciously decided to make the best possible movie, box office be damned. It's intimate and honest, and it sticks to the ribs. If you find yourself misting up at the end, you don't have to feel you've been duped. | 1 |
This movie came highly recommended, but I am not sure why. I am not really and Adam Sandler fan though, apart from in 50 First Dates where he departs from his usual angry man routine. Damon Wayans is an undercover cop and Adam Sandler is the guy he pretended to be friends with for a year in order to bust him. Naturally Sandler is rather angry about this betrayal. Cue angry shouting and silly facials from the king of variety. They end up on the run and of course they become friends again after a big misunderstanding (involving Sandler shooting Wayans in the head - he survives thus he is Bulletproof). Need I go on? You will work out what is going to happen if you do watch it anyway. When our DVD player kept pausing (hey it was $80 from the supermarket OK?) it was commented that the player knew the film was boring and was refusing to play it. | 0 |
I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. | 1 |
I absolutely despise this film. I wanted to love it - I really wanted to. But man, oh man - they were SO off with Sara. And the father living was pretty cheesy. That's straight out of the Shirley Temple film.<br /><br />I highly recommend THE BOOK. It is amazing. In the book, Sara is honorable and decent and she does the right thing... BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. She doesn't have a spiteful bone in her body.<br /><br />In the film, she is mean-spirited and spiteful. She does little things to get back at Miss Minchin. In the book, Sara is above such things. She DOES stand up to Miss Minchin. She tells the truth and is not cowed by her. But she does not do the stupid, spiteful things that the Sara in the film does.<br /><br />It's really rather unsettling to me that so many here say they loved the book and they love the movie. I can't help but wonder... did we read the same book? The whole point of the book was personal responsibility, behaving with honor and integrity, ALWAYS telling the truth and facing adversity with calm and integrity.<br /><br />Sara has a happy ending in the book - not the ridiculous survival of her father, but the joining with his partner who has been searching for her. In the book, she is taken in by this new father figure who loves and cares for her and Becky. And Miss Minchin is NOT a chimney sweep - that part of the film really was stupid.<br /><br />To see all this praise for this wretched film is disturbing to me. We are praising a film that glorifies petty, spiteful behavior with a few tips of the hat to kindness? Sara in the book was kind to the bone and full of integrity. I don't even recognize her in the film... she's not in it.<br /><br />Good thing Mrs. Burnett isn't alive to see this horrid thing. It's ghastly and undeserving to bear the title of her book. | 0 |
Anna (Charlotte Burke), who is just on the verge of puberty, begins to have strange dreams which start affecting her in real life--especially involving a boy named Mark (Elliott Spiers) who she meets in her dreams.<br /><br />Very unusual fantasy with some truly terrifying moments. Despite the fact that this is about a teenage girl and has a PG-13 rating, this is NOT for children. Also, if you hate fantasies stay far away. But if you're game for something different this fits the bill.<br /><br />Well directed by Bernard Rose with a just beautiful music score and a few nice, scary jolts. The only thing that prevents this from being a really great movie is Burke--she's not a very good actress (it's no surprise that this has been her only film) and it hurts the movie. However, everybody else is just great.<br /><br />Spiers is very good as Mark; Glenne Headley (faking a British accent very well) is also very good as Anna's mother and Ben Cross is both frightening and sympathetic as Anna's father.<br /><br />A sleeper hit when released in 1988, it's since faded away. That's too bad--it's really very good. | 1 |
This film, in my opinion, is, despite it's flaws (which I maintain are *few*), an utter masterpiece and a great and glorious piece of art.<br /><br />What Mr. Bakshi has done here is to create an utterly beautiful film and has shown his immense talent and versatility as a director of animated films. He does not receive 1/100th of the credit he deserves for literally saving the art of animation for an adult audience. If it were not for Mr. Bakshi, I don't believe animation would have survived the Disney onslaught. What is more, with The Lord of the Rings, he has not only created a beautiful animated film, but he has created an entirely new art form - unfortunately one that never quite made it off the ground.<br /><br />Most people will complain about the use of rotoscoping in the film (the use of live action images which are used as background images and often animated over using various techniques from what appears to be small amounts of tinting to full blown animation). But I feel that the people who complain about it simply cannot accept an art form which is out of the norm. No, this is not Disney animation. No it's not live action. No, it's not "cheating" - what it is is a new, fascinating, and absolutely wonderful art form. Something so fresh, and so new that it feels completely at home in such a fantastic tale as "The Lord of the Rings". Bakshi's pioneering use of this technique brings the subtleties of Middle Earth to life is a very dark and mysterious way, in particular, the darker of Tolkien's creatures, particularly the Nazgul, are realized in a way that traditional animation or live action have not been able to accomplish.<br /><br />Peter S. Beagle's screenplay (based very little, as I understand it, on an early draft by Chris Conkling) is a very loyal adaptation of Tolkien's works. Where possible he uses dialogue directly out of the novel and it feels at home in the world which Bakshi has created. There are many cuts that were made to fit the first book and 3/4 into a single 2 hour 15 minute film, but there are very few changes to the storyline. There are a few holes which it would have been nice to have filled: The reforging of Narsil, the gifts of Galadriel, the Huorns at the battle of the Hornburg, but, again, with the time limitations he had (already the longest animated feature in history), these are certainly understandable (though it makes one wonder how they could have been explained in a sequel).<br /><br />Also there is the delightful (one of my favorites) score by Leonard Rosenman (who also scored Barry Lyndon and Star Trek IV (the score for which is clearly based on his LotR work)). It is bombastic and audacious and, dare I say, perfect. It stands on it's own as an orchestral triumph, but when coupled with the images of the film, it enters a whole new world of symphonic perfection. So far from the typical Hollywoodland fare that it turns many people off.<br /><br />The voice actors are wonderful. Of particular note is John Hurt as Aragorn who just oozes the essence of Strider.<br /><br />The character design is also wonderfully unique, though not often to everyone's taste. But remember that it is the duty of the director of an adaptation to show you what he/she imagines, not what you might have imagined, and so Aragorn is realized with a distinctive Native American feel and Boromir appears in Viking inspired garb. This is perhaps not what you imagined, but I can only applaud Mr. Bakshi for showing us what he "saw". It also might be noted that he spent a significant amount of time with Priscilla Tolkien in developing the character outfits for the film.<br /><br />One farther word - the Flight to the Ford sequence, in my opinion, is one of the most subtlety beautiful sequences ever to be caught on celluloid. Bakshi is not afraid to slow down the pace for a moment, and his mastery is clearly shown by the incredible tension is able to build. Bakshi's artistic ability and Tolkien's incredible work fuse in this sequence to a glorious peak which has yet to be equaled.<br /><br />The recent DVD release (2001) by Warner Brothers, is sorely lacking. While we can offer our eternal thanks that the film is finally available in widescreen format, the package is woefully short of extras. How glorious it would have been to have had a director's commentary, been able to see the 20 minutes of extra footage that were removed for the theatrical release. Another delightful addition could have been the assembled the live action footage which was later animated over. Also present in the DVD release is the utterly horrible voiceover at the end of the film which is a departure from the simple voiceover which occurred in the very final frames of the film. This version is plastered and poorly rendered right over the musical climax of the score.<br /><br />Of course, the greatest tragedy of all is that the sequel was never made. We will never be able to see Bakshi's interpretation of Gondor, of Shelob, of Faramir, of the Cracks of Doom, of Eowyn's battle with the Witch King or Gandalf's confrontation with him. We will never be graced with Bakshi's image of Denethor or the Palatir or the Paths of the Dead. It is a shame beyond all shames that we will, in the end, have to accept Peter Jackson's glitz and glitter Hollywood, action film version of these later events in Tolkien's masterpiece, but, I suppose even that is better than having no cinematic version at all.<br /><br />David | 1 |
It's so rare to find a film that provides a plot that can't be figured out at every turn. Surprises throughout delighting throughout.<br /><br />A couple of things I could not quite understand though is that here you have the lead female character who plays "the good girl, hard worker" and yet in the end she ends up being an anti-social risk taker. That was not enough to make me not like it though but it did give me pause.<br /><br />The other thing I could not get was the old man who was being hauled away by the police at the very end of the film. I never did get who he was or what his issues were. If anyone has any ideas, I'd like to hear what they might be.<br /><br />The film was exciting and fun throughout and always left me guessing. Very much worth seeing. | 1 |
Like most other reviewers, I really enjoyed this TV miniseries. I didn't see it when it first came out, but my grandfather - a big fan of mysteries and war films - happened to record it in 1989. I remember watching it at my grandparents' cabin one night and I was completely drawn into the story! It has a very intriguing plot and a good mix of drama, romance, and espionage. I've seen lots of films that are set during WWII, but none with a twist like this! Thankfully, I was able to make a VHS copy of the film several years ago. I've watched it several times since then and I still enjoy it. I would love for this film to be released on DVD. It would be so much easier to view with chapters. | 1 |
Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.<br /><br />Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.<br /><br />The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.<br /><br />All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo. | 0 |
This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!! | 1 |
"Sir" has played Lear over 200 times,but tonight he can't remember his opening lines.Sitting at the mirror,his eyes reflect the King's madness. His dresser prompts him gently,mouthing the words.There is an air of desperation about both these men.The great actor knowing his powers are slipping away,his valet cum major domo cum conscience cum surrogate wife - aware of his boss's decline into madness and knowing he is powerless to do more than ease his passing. "The Dresser" is really a love story between the two.Over the years they have become mutually dependent on one another to the extent that neither can conceive a future without the other. Set during the second world war,it concerns the fortunes of a frankly second - rate touring Shakespearean Company comprising an equal number of has - beens and wannabes led by "Sir", a theatrical knight of what might kindly be called "The Old School".Whatever part he is playing he grabs centre - stage and bellows out over the footlights,bullying his audience into applause.But,somewhere inside him,buried most of the time deep beneath the ham he regularly dishes out,there still remains an occasional glitter of his earlier greatness.It is to catch a glimpse of this that his audiences fervently hope for. Mr A.Finney very cleverly concentrates on the ham,often to the point of caricature,and,just when you are ready to dismiss his performance as mere hyperbole and bluster he will produce a moment of exquisite subtlety and vulnerability that makes you realise that a great actor is playing a great actor. The same goes for Mr T.Courtenay.It's easy to write off his portrayal<br /><br />of Norman as an exercise in stereotyping.Here we have a middle - aged effeminate rather than camp theatrical dresser sashaying his way through life,enjoying the company of "The Girls" and loving the wicked Insider gossip rife in "The Theatre".There were - and I strongly suspect still are - many men just like Norman in The Profession.Infinitely kind and patient,knowing more about the plays than many of the actors,they run backstage with wisdom and affection.I believe the vast majority of them would hoot with approving laughter at Mr Courtenay's portrait. I saw "The Dresser" on the London stage where,against the perceived wisdom,Mr Courtenay's "Norman" was rather more subdued than in the movie."Sir" was played by the great Mr Freddie Jones to huge acclaim from the audience.It was a memorable performance that overshadowed Mr Courtenay's,reducing him rather to an "also - ran" as opposed to an actor on level - billing.The idea that "Sir" and "Norman" might be almost incomplete without each other went right out of the window. "Norman" was reduced to being his puppet,which I'm not sure was what Ronald Harwood intended,but made for breathtaking theatre. Messrs Finney and Courtenay redress the balance in the movie,restoring equality to the relationship. Both men have come a long way since their early appearances in the British "New Wave" pictures when they became the darlings of the vaguely Leftish,"middle - class and ashamed of it" movement.When the British cinema virtually committed Hari - kiri in the 1970s they quietly concentrated on the theatre apart from a few roles to keep the wolf from the door.With the renaissance of more substantial movies,they re - appeared,blinking in the unaccustomed bright light.<br /><br />"The Dresser" marked their return,still fizzing with energy and talent, shouting to the world at large "We're still here".It's not a big movie but is assuredly a great one. | 1 |
Worst.film.ever Nothing more needs to be said. Aaron Carter is utterly repellent and the rest of the cast should fire their agents immediately. It really is a terrible terrible movie from beginning to end. I wish I could be more eloquent in describing the movies many (oh so many) flaws however I cant be bothered/get too angry to form proper sentences. <br /><br />In short I absolutely hated everything about this movie and not in "so bad its good" kinda way...<br /><br />It was unadulterated drek.<br /><br />Gavin | 0 |
I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.<br /><br />Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.<br /><br />It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.<br /><br />What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel "The Last Don" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III. | 0 |
Michael Cacoyannis has had a relatively long career but has surprisingly few credits to his name, including some real duds such as the unfunny cold war satire The Day the Fish Came Out. Iphigenia, however, is a highlight. Adapted by Cacoyannis from the play by Euripides, it's a superior rendering of the classic tragedy and recently made its first television appearance in many years in the United States courtesy the Flix Channel. The film is shot on an epic scale but is decidedly not a 'big' film, with the emphasis placed on the simple story: in supplication to the gods, King Agamemnon (Kostas Kazakos)is compelled to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia (Tatiana Papamoschou), much to the consternation of Queen Clytemnastrae (Irene Papas). Kazakos and Papas are both outstanding, but it is the stunning Papamoschou who brings the most interesting elements to the screen, blending the innocence of childhood with the dawning realization that she is the pawn in a political game. Strongly recommended for fans of international cinema. | 1 |
Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!! | 1 |
The subject of children being terminally ill is difficult and saddening but 'The Cure' successfully portrays the idea that it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom and, if anything, children need to have hope and delight in their lives if they are to find peace before the end. It is also a film of remarkable bonds of friendship and the innocence of childhood.<br /><br />The film sees Erik, a dysfunctional adolescent boy with a distant mother, moving into a new area where their next-door neighbour is eleven-year-old Dexter, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion. After his initial fears and ignorance over AIDS are allayed, Erik befriends Dexter and their almost fraternal friendship sees them embark on a journey down the Mississippi to where they have heard about a New Orleans doctor who claims to have found a cure for the disease.<br /><br />The talent from the two young leads of Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello, who play Erik and Dexter respectively, is exceptional. Brad was able to portray Erik's harder edge without comprising the subtle childish innocence inherent to the character while Joseph depicts the sense of vulnerability to Dexter's character but injects the right amount of boyish enthusiasm and zeal to highlight that his illness doesn't mean he still isn't a child who wants to run and play like any other eleven-year-old boy. The pair's interactions create a feel in the audience that these are two boys who are genuinely close and they carry the film well. Annabella Sciorra also delivers a touching performance as Dexter's mother Linda, who adores her son and delights in seeing him thrive with this new friendship to Erik and eventually becomes a surrogate mother-figure to the other boy.<br /><br />Set against an excellent soundtrack, 'The Cure' is a very bittersweet film that manages to flawlessly weave the story of boyhood friendship that survives unflinchingly in the midst of prejudice and terminal illness without resorting to sappiness or unnecessary saccharine sweet scenes. A very interesting reflection in the film is that is it the adults who have the problem with Dexter's AIDS status whereas the children, even the 'bullies', come to accept him as they would any other. What is also very touching is how, despite Erik's streetwise nature, he is the more naive one in his determination to cure Dexter while the younger boy has this haunting sense that he knows his fate but is swept away by his best friend's enthusiasm for a cure.<br /><br />I highly recommend 'The Cure' for it is rare to find a film that is simultaneously sad and uplifting. | 1 |
The producers of this picture are Hungarians. It's not by crazy artistic momentum that X and Z are capitalized in the titles considering that the word 'isten' means 'god' in Hungarian. - By the way, David, Isten is the word for God in Hungarian... - Hum... Is that so ? <br /><br />Let's consider this movie as 'A History Of Violence' science-fictional sibling. Both films have in common the strength of blowing up respective genres ; thriller and drama in the 2005 one and 'none FX-ed as hell' science fiction in the one we're looking at right now. Everything he does have a meaning and is surrounded by details : The nod to Phil K. Dick (who wrote "In The Days of Perky Pat") by creating a 'Perky Pat' fast-food restaurant. The nod to Stanley Kubrick by using 2001's naming pattern ; as IBM became HAL (one letter down in the alphabet) in the 1968 movie, in eXistenZ 'classic lubricant spray' WD-40 becomes XE-60 (one letter up) when Allegra cleans up Pikul's port. The nod to David Cronenberg by using Videodrome's witty kind of formula ('Death to...' & 'Long Live'..) and by taking another medium for central theme of a picture (tv in Videodrome, Video games and virtual reality in eXistenZ In 1983, you penetrated a TV set. In 1999, you're penetrated by a game. Welcome to Canada!)<br /><br />The nod to good taste by getting Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, Howard Shore's music and Ronald Sanders's editing (a team that wins). For everyone born in the early 80's with a super famicom, a genesis or an arcade stick in the hands, this movie rings a bell. Enough with the nods. The plot ? "Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as a game designer (Allegra) who creates a virtual-reality game that taps into the players' minds" as we can see on the movie main details page. That's the story in the story. To me, this picture is about a 'reality demonstrators' young couple infiltrating the 'brand new virtual game' presentation session to destroy its programmer. I assume that what we see in the last five minutes is reality, if there's such thing as reality. Jennifer Jason Leigh is always playing a game designer in the game they're in and the end of the movie IS the reality, with video games freaks giggles, big hairy dogs, 'Cronenbergy realistic' plastic textures (helmets and stuff) and 9mm handguns. What you see is true. They play transcendenz during an hour or so (in this game, there's a game (eXistenZ) in which JJL plays eXistenZ's genius programmer and Jude -Pikul - Law a marketing trainee associated with Allegra's game), they play eXistenZ because Allegra is very concerned about her pod's health (the thing you plug your nervous system in, in order to play), she has to plug herself and Pikul in then wins the game (Transcendenz) and back in the reality they kill Yevgeny Nourish, TranscendenZ programmer.<br /><br />Playing eXistenZ and TranscendenZ is about facing your essence, face your subconscious while its creating a virtual reality you'll have to overcome in unexpected ways to win the game (by playing the game, the girl playing Allegra, the 'reality demonstrator' turns into Allegra, a 'virtuality goddess').<br /><br />What game would Heidegger have played to feel his abstract da-sein term ? To be truly engaged in the world ?<br /><br />And what about Nietschze (Yes Friedrich, God is dead and you know what ? Willem Dafoe stands for him! - God, The Mecanic -) ??? <br /><br />Yes we do construct a narrative for ourselves, and losing this thread we follow from one day to the next disintegrate people as personalities ; eXistenZ's discusses the fact that reality is the whole perception of itself by anyone who engaged it truly. And we could sometimes get some neat stuff ; a perception of virtuality in virtuality in reality. | 1 |
Although written by Stephen King, an overrated writer if there ever was one, this is actually quite entertaining B-movie. Vampiric, incestuous creatures who live in the candle-lit house and drain the life-force of virgins, great graveyard scenery, heroic cats and very pretty virgin. The soundtrack even has Enya's music, an idea which I found quite... nice. I'm sure King is disappointed to this little movie, although it HAS crappy dialogue and ideas, all of them from a true and tedious King potboiler. (Albeit Sleepwalkers, if I'm understood right, is a script without any novel or short story behind it). Still, those touches of sewer-odors show he DIDN'T use a ghost-writer after all... | 1 |
Having reviewed 3 of the 4 Perry and Croft sitcoms, I thought I would get them all done now. Dads Army, is my all time favourite sitcom, It ain't half hot Mum is also a classic as is You Rang M'Lord. I don't regard Hi De Hi as a classic, but it is still funny.<br /><br />It's about a holiday camp, similar to Butlins, but instead of red coats, it's yellow coats. It is ran by Jeffery Fairbrother, a well meaning man, but has the personality of a sock. The staff include fun entertainment manager Ted, his sidekick Spike (he ended up being thrown in the swimming pool nearly every episode), yellow coat Gladys, careless maid Peggy who longed to be a yellow coat and the Punch and Judy man Mr Partridge who hates kids. Situations occurred mostly round the swimming pool, where someone would be thrown in every episode (with there clothes on of course).<br /><br />Not a classic, but still funny. Jeffery Fairbrother left half way through, so this, a bit like Only Fools and Horses, outstayed its welcome. Jimmy Perry was actually a red coat at Butlins.<br /><br />Best Episode: Peggy's Big Chance, series 2, episode 2. | 1 |
Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie. | 0 |
The trailer to this film focused so much on the chain (of course, because it's so sensational) that it missed most of the movie, which is about a developing, although rather simply drawn, relationship between Lazarus and Rae as they attempt to recover from their past pains with each other.<br /><br />Of course, with the premise of a nymphomaniac in chains, it's no surprise that there's plenty of implied sex involved. However, at it's core, Black Snake Moan is a basic tale of redemption and the healing power of helping another person along. Maybe it's just me though, but I think poor Lazarus should've had his story focused on more. He's a hurting man after his wife leaves him, but we never fully see how helping Rae resolve her past pains heals him too. It's just implied that it does--in essence, he plays the wizard that helps the young Rae overcome her curse, through a big ol' chain and some blues.<br /><br />I like the story, but I wish it were a bit more even and didn't have to rely on the sensational. The side characters were fairly decent, if simple and I liked the music. The acting was good enough, although I can't be certain if the Rae character is fully believable. But that might just be my naivety.<br /><br />All in all, I liked the film, but I wasn't compelled by it. Maybe it's that I'm too critical, but the story seems a little too convenient to be fully believable and so, while it all seemed very cool, I could never truly buy it. The chain thing was a little too far-fetched for me. Still, this can provide some entertainment for those looking for dramatic redemption stories with a shot of the blues. 7/10 | 1 |
The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.<br /><br />There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!<br /><br />A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing! | 1 |
This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of "Mortal Kombat", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the "Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and "Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking. | 0 |
"Two Hands" is an entertaining, funny story about Australian lowlifes. The screenplay contrasts the world of fast money and deadly acts with the inexplicability of fate and circumstance. In a subtle way we are asked to ponder the concept that major events in our lives are sometimes generated without our being fully aware of the root causes. The forces of fate and circumstance take Jimmy, the main character, into situations that bring about the realization of his shallow dreams and, ultimately, an understanding of a more personally promising world.<br /><br />The clueless Jimmy, portrayed with acumen by Heath Ledger, is a kid who grew up without opportunity. The high paying world of crime offers the greatest appeal to his blunted senses. The love and help of friends guides him to a higher plateau.<br /><br />The film is well-directed and well-acted. The band of criminals teeter between likable and despicable, keeping us interested in their crazy antics all through the film. | 1 |
Screened at the San Francisco International Film Festival under the title ' Come Undone', April 25, 26, & 27, 2001. The cinematographer uses techniques that add to the storytelling. Even with fall/winter backgrounds for the 'present' and spring summer for the 'flashbacks' there can be some difficulty following the continuity.<br /><br />Whether either lead is gay, the actors well-portray the budding relationship in real life terms; from physical violence toward each other to their passionate lovemaking. The story pulls you into the characters a bit slowly in the beginning. But as the end approaches, you really care about where these guys will be next summer! You, too, will want a sequel to find out. | 1 |
HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get! | 1 |
This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.<br /><br />It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic. <br /><br />The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them! <br /><br />If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague! | 0 |
Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret government place titled "RTX". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed their country for top secret information.<br /><br />Directed by the late Oscar-Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life. Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released. Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****/*****). | 1 |
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen; it makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look wonderful. The acting is wooden, the plot silly and the SFX non-existent. The only good thing about it is the fact that it is not a long film. The scenery is sometimes quite pretty, assuming you like trees, if that helps any! | 0 |
While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.<br /><br />I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.<br /><br />You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking "how come the human being can be so vicious" to "why not after all?".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.<br /><br />Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.<br /><br />*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:<br /><br />- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :<br /><br />what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.<br /><br />interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me! | 1 |
Considering how much money was budgeted for this film, you would expect more from the story as a whole. This could be quite possibly the most worthless movie I have ever watched. There was no real advancement of anything. Character development, minimal. Plot advancement, maybe. Enjoyment, none. I'm not sure what points were even trying to be made. If you want to see a movie where terrorists are kinda good guys, American CIA bombs everything that doesn't agree with our opinions, all capitalists are corrupt, and you like to see anything resembling a storyboard advancement accompanied by a death, have at. For those of us who realize that it doesn't take killing off a good guy to make a point, we'll stick to other movies. In summary, this was a horrible attempt at an 'Ocean's 11' style hide-the-plot-so-person-has-to- think movie because not only do you not know what's going on, nobody who made the movie did either. Home Alone 3 was a better cinematic piece. | 0 |
I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher "Ride the Snake" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun. | 1 |
A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.<br /><br />Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.<br /><br />Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time. | 0 |
The only reason I don't give this movie fewer than 3 stars is because it isn't quite on par with a movie like Manos: The Hands of Fate. This movie's greatest crime is the fact that it is head-meltingly boring & terribly, unforgivably British. The premise of this movie sounds potentially promising, the whole teleporting concept, but the direction they went with it was completely uninteresting. It was more a movie about research funding and bowties than projecting lasers. The actors were wooden, unemotional, and aloof. As was the love affair between the two scientists-- which was anything but intriguing. I never was able to tell what the attraction was between them as the chemistry was non-existent. Nor did I really understand why the melty-faced main guy decided to slaughter everyone he met. At least now I know that I should always give someone a fair hearing before I cut off their research grants, else they go rampaging about, killing wantonly with goofy hand gestures. | 0 |
I agree with "Jerry." It's a very underrated space movie (of course, how many good low-budget ones AREN'T underrated?) If I remember correctly, the solution to the mystery was a sort of variation (but not "rip-off") of 2001, because the computer controlling the spaceship had actually been a man, who had somehow been turned into a computer. And like HAL, they tried to disconnect his "mind", but not the mechanical parts of him, and as with HAL, it led to disaster. There is at least one funny moment. When the Christopher Cary character, who can't find any food, finds the abandoned pet bird, there's a kind of ominous moment, but then the obvious thing doesn't happen after all. | 1 |
I don't see why all the people are giving this film negative reviews?!?! I loved this movie! Bled is a form of abstract art, and if you don't appreciate art, I can see why you would not like this film. It was a great twist from the average, played out vampire movie. If you are looking for a fresh, new and ingenious new vampire movie, then this is for you. But if you want one of those turn into bats, wolves and melt in the sunlight movies, then go watch your old played out Dracula flicks. Sure, it is a bit on the low budget side, but they did a great job with the budget they had. I'm very happy that I found this movie, because I was about to give up on the vampire genre fro good. I thought this film was brilliant! I give 2 thumbs up to the writer, director and everyone involved in the film. | 1 |
I first saw this movie here in the U.K. in December 1989 when Central TV broadcast it. I still have the video tape, although worn out (over the years many friends and family members have borrowed it and have also been chilled by it!). <br /><br />Anyway, I remember coming home that night, grabbing a Christmas tipple, switching the lights out and watching what was advertised as a 'Christmas Ghost Story'. Even now I remember certain scenes that still send the hairs on my neck standing on-end... <br /><br />I have seen some comments on the movie which say it's not this and not that...I think those people get scared by Friday 13th and the like, stalk and slash rammel, which are laughable. This is a 'traditional' ghost story; there is no big budget action or special effects...no swearing, no blood, no gratuitous sex scenes, no chainsaws or guns etc...So how refreshing!!!! It's atmospheric. IF you like chilling horror, well written, well acted and with a genuinely scary atmosphere, this is the movie for you. I like the original horrors; only last night I saw the original Haunting and that is a superb movie. Very atmospheric again - and so is The Woman In Black. The end of the movie differs to the book, but still very good. I recommend it. Try it...you *will* like it if you like traditional ghost stories...SO...turn off the lights, turn up the fire, lock the doors, grab a drink...and enjoy... :) | 1 |
I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered. | 0 |
If you've never been "Tromatized", this is the Troma movie to see first. Amazing acting, supercharged soundtrack, and bust-a-gut humor blend perfectly with Troma's unique brand of storytelling and special effects. Despite straying from a word for word retelling of Romeo and Juliet, the fact that it stays in iambic pentameter gives you the odd feeling that it's closer to Shakespeare than that overdone music video with DiCaprio and Danes. I assumed I'd seen the ultimate Shakespearian comedy when the cast of Moonlighting overhauled The Taming of the Shrew, but nothing comes close to Tromeo and Juliet. I strongly recommend the DVD version, which contains a second audio track with director Lloyd Kaufman which is just as entertaining as the main track. | 1 |
Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out. | 1 |
Finally, after years of awaiting a new film to continue the sexual mayhem of "Basic Instinct", we have been given a great sequel that is packed with the right elements needed for a franchise such as this! I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind! Make no mistake, "Basic Instinct" was a real winner for audiences everywhere. I can remember in 2001 when we were first given the news about such a sequel. Five years later, we have it. I never would have thought it to end up such as this. When it was declared a dropped project, time sure couldn't tell if it was ever a real possibility to begin with. Well, I guess we now know anything's possible in this case. Even if the original director, or writer are not present, all we need is the glamorous, always reliable Sharon Stone, and we have a done deal! Please, hear me out...<br /><br />When people say that this film is bad, I think it is only due to the fact that the style is extreme, and slightly dated. I use the word "dated" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly. Who needs hole some and clean? Of course it's a pleasant thing to have, but c'mon! Escapism is really seldom these days, and "Basic Instinct 2" gives us real fans what we've been expecting. This film is not an Academy Award winner, nor does it try to be. It simply delivers the die-hard fans what they have been expecting. It's a film for fun. Movies today seem to take themselves way too seriously, but this film is just loose and fun, not taking itself seriously, not too seriously anyway. That said, I shall evaluate the film.<br /><br />The film is a fast-paced film from the first second, as we see Cathernine Tremell in a car, speeding at 110 MPH-and enjoying lustful thrills doing so. Perhaps sex and driving does not mix, because our sexy novelist takes a bad turn and...well, she gets away unharmed, but her studly partner doesn't fare too well. Once again, Tremell is the primary suspect of the accident, and will be put under analyst's and psychiatrists. Dr. Michael Glass (Morrissey) is automatically drawn to to her from the first moment he meets her. Like another criminal investigator before him, he is entranced and seduced, slowly, and surely. His denial of it all begins to crumble around him as she weaves a spell only she has the power to do. Tramell is possibly more dangerous now, than she was before,but like the first one, we'll never really know, will we? Once the seduction is in motion, jealousy, rage, drugs, and a plateful of erotic scenery ensues!<br /><br />This film does not recycle the first one, but rather mentions the previous films incidents briefly from time to time. This is a good thing. It lets us as an audience know that the script has been written to bring the level up a notch or two. Sharon Stone dazzles us again, as though 14 years has not come to pass. Her second run of the deceitful novelist is right on the spot as earlier. Just awesome! David Morrissey is well cast, and manages pretty well. The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform. My final thought-8.5 to 9 out of 10. So it's not the first one, nor can it live up to the first ones prize winning place. It can, however, live up to the standards set by the first film, and it does folks! It does. | 1 |
Samuel Fuller is an interesting filmmaker, mainly because he had some very inconsistent politics in his films. While "Shock Corridor" and "The Naked Kiss" represented the hypocrisies and lunacy of America and "The Big Red One" was an effective portrait of the horrors of war, "Merrill's Marauders" painted war as necessary hell and "Pickup on South Street" is about the dangers of communist spies. All of his films make for very entertaining viewing, and even though he was often pigeonholed as a b-filmmaker, Fuller was just as good as any of the major studio contractors. "Pickup on South Street" is no exception, and despite the dated themes, the film-making style is remarkably ahead of its time. Its also a very quickly-pace, tight, and occasionally brutal film noir.<br /><br />The acting across the board is fantastic. Richard Widmark makes for a great anti-hero and Jean Peters is quite sexy as a girl who works for her communist spy boyfriend. The show stealer is Thlema Ritter however, in an absolutely delightful performance as a police stoolie. The angles Fuller employs are great, making the acting sequences all the more exciting and brutal (this is very violent for its time). The camera continuously moves around just as Tarantino and his school would do forty years later. "Pickup on South Street" is a great action-paced noir thriller. "Shock Corridor" remains my favorite Fuller film, but this is a very close second. (8/10) | 1 |
The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.<br /><br />Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.<br /><br />Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.<br /><br />Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's "talents" other than drumming.<br /><br />Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.<br /><br />I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.<br /><br />Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff. | 1 |
This is not the stuff of soap-operas but the sort of conundrums that real people face in real life. A testament to the ensemble and director for the powerful story-telling of fallible characters trying to cope but not quite succeeding. | 1 |
When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with "Premiere". Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. "Premiere" is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.<br /><br />The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is "shot through a wormhole" and winds up in "a distant part of the galaxy".<br /><br />After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.<br /><br />The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In "Premiere", Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.<br /><br />The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.<br /><br />The puppet/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In "Premiere" he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.<br /><br />The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in "Premiere" as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is "irreversiby contaminated" and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in "Premiere", but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.<br /><br />The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, "Premiere" is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, "Premiere" is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3/4 | 1 |
I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me. <br /><br />The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me. | 0 |
I saw "Paris Je T'Aime" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The "stories" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.<br /><br />The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.<br /><br />I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.<br /><br />There were only two "successful" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.<br /><br />The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.<br /><br />The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, "Paris Je T'Aime" was an awful cinematic experience. | 0 |
What I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of this movie. | 0 |
Seems to me that Joe Estevez spends most of his time hidden under the shadow of his rather successful brother and appearing in really bad movies. Joe spends most his time walking around dressed in black and looking quite moody. He takes orders from a puffy faced angel of death, who you might recognize as the puffy faced villain from Tango & Cash and as the puffy faced cyborg from Future War. Well, Joe and Puffy have a job to do and it involves taking some souls of some kids in a big car being driven by a dumb galloot who questions Led Zeppelin. Well, the car crashes and the chase is on. The lucky kids to escape Joe look like Tonya Harding and Rick Springfield. They're chased around town, break things and Tonya gets leered at by her mom while she's undressing for a bath. The action winds up at a hospital where we learn that heaven is an elevator ride away. In the end, some green lights flash, Joe shouts and Puffy vanishes without a trace. Wish I could say the same for this movie. Watch it from the relative safety of MST. | 0 |
I suppose I like this film as well as any I know; it is not perfect, but under the title "The Americanization of Lily" this charming and memorable semi-musical satire might I suggest have been appreciated more, and still loved by those who recognized its special Blake Edwards'-produced spirit of gentleness, clever humor and solid narrative. The improbably but delightful story-line follows Lili Smith, a fringe-type spy for the Germans in a much simpler and less black-and-white war; Lili Schmidt passing as Smith is helping her Uncle who is patriotic too, for Germany but neither cruel nor political, merely opportunistic. Lili's target is William Larrabee, a charismatic U.S. squadron leader who can supply her valuable information. The plot thickens comes when Lili falls in love with Larrabee, has her eyes opened to the consequences of her playing spy, and sees the effects of combat on wounded men at a hospital and realizes what it might mean to his men whom she has met and likes. She gets jealous of a rival for Larrabee's affections, then realizes she can no longer do what she has been doing and gives up the spy business. The logical end of the film comes when after the terrible WWI has ended, as she sings the theme song of the film, "Wishing" in a darkened theater, one by one the members of Larrabee's squadron appear, including her lover himself, indicating they have forgiven her and their former opponents; and even Uncle Kurt enthusiastically joins in the singing of "It's a Long To Tipperraree", to indicate all is well with the world again. This is an audacious and sometime brilliant story idea, written by director Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty of "John Goldfarb" fame; and it is a delightful narrative. Larrabee's squadron, including an inebriate who keeps crashing and other lovable types populate this lively film; and the feel of this stylish and glowing film is almost epic, both in its scope and realization. Credit must go to Jack Bear and Donald Brooks for their costume creations, Reg Allen and Jack Stevens for sets, Fernando Carrere for another beautiful production design, Henry Mancini for his sensitive and appropriate musical score, and to Russell Harlan for his shining cinematography. In the beautiful footage, the principal actors are Julie Andrews as Lili, Rock Hudson as Larrabee, Keremy Kemp outstanding as Lili's Uncle Kurt, Michael Witney, Lance Percival as the inebriate pilot, gorgeous Gloria Paul as Lili's stripteasing rival, and many other fine actors in smaller parts. It is hard to say enough nice things about the pace, or the cleverness of the just-this-side-of broad comedy; this element is introduced by Edwards to leaven the horrors of actual warfare, to example the almost comic-opera approach with which men made war back in a more innocent-minded era of human civilization.. This comedy also helps prepare the way for Lili's conversion from uncritical acceptance of a duty to the German state to acceptance of the reality of what she is doing and potentially what she may be causing. This is a rare "sense-of-life" film about Lili's "Americanization", her assertion of herself in the real world and then among others before tragedy can happen. It is haunting, I find, and beautiful in many ways. I consider it to be Blake Edwards'masterpiece of directing; and under the title "The Americanization of Lili" I believe with hardly any changes it might have been recognized as the polished sapphire of a film it is by every standard I know. | 1 |
Mel Brooks really outdid himself with this hilarious stand-up of the Robin Hood story. The cast is perfect, and Cary Elwes does a fine job at his role. In my personal opinion (besides the fact that I'm a Cary Elwes fan) this movie is the best, and funniest, I've ever seen! It will have you laughing every time you see it! | 1 |
Hood of the Living Dead had a lot to live up to even before the opening credits began. First, any play on "...of the living dead" invokes His Holiness Mr. Romero and instantly sets up a high standard to which many movies cannot afford to aspire. And second, my movie-watching companion professed doubt that any urban horror film would surpass the seminal Leprechaun In the Hood. Skeptical, we settled in to watch. <br /><br />We were rewarded with a surprisingly sincere and good-hearted zombie film. Oh, certainly the budget is low, and of course the directors' amateurs friends populate the cast, but Hood of the Living Dead loves zombie cinema. Cheap? Yeah. But when it's this cheap, you can clearly see where LOVE holds it together. <br /><br />Ricky works in a lab during the day and as a surrogate parent to his younger brother at night. He dreams of moving out of Oakland. Before this planned escape, however, his brother is shot to death in a drive-by. Ricky's keen scientific mind presents an option superior to CPR or 911: injections of his lab's experimental regenerative formula. Sadly, little bro wakes up in an ambulance as a bloodthirsty Oakland zombie! Chaos and mayhem! I think it's more economical to eat your enemies than take vengeance in a drive-by, but then again, I'm a poor judge of the complexities of urban life. (How poor a judge? In response to a gory scene involving four men, I opined "Ah-ha! White t-shirts on everyone so the blood shows up. Economical! I used the same technique in my own low-budget horror film." Jordan replied, "No, that's gang dress. White t-shirts were banned from New Orleans bars for a time as a result." Oh.)<br /><br />A lot of the movie is set in someone's living room, so there's a great deal of hanging out and waiting for the zombies. But the characters are sympathetic and the movie is sincere-- it surpasses its budget in spirit. <br /><br />Zombie explanation: When man plays God, zombies arise! Or, perhaps: Follow FDA-approved testing rules before human experimentation! <br /><br />Contribution to the zombie canon: This is the first zombie movie I've seen with a drive-by shooting. As far as the actual zombies go, infection is spread with a bite as usual, but quite unusually head shots don't work-- it's heart shots that kill. Zombies have pulses, the absence of which proves true death. And these zombies make pretty cool jaguar-growl noises. <br /><br />Gratuitous zombie movie in-joke: A mercenary named Romero. Groan. <br /><br />Favorite zombie: Jaguar-noise little brother zombie, of course! | 1 |
this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke) | 0 |
This film was an interesting take by Hollywood on the novel by of the same name by Pearl S. Buck. While some today might think it is rife with racial stereotypes, for the time the very idea of Chinese protagonists was progressive in and of itself. I found that the white actors playing Chinese was not as bad as I expected, that it wasn't the Asian equivalent of blackface. Back then there were not really any Asian actors in America (not even George Takei was acting) and Rainer did a good job with her part. It wasn't the greatest performance I have ever seen but for old-school pre-method acting it was nice. The locust scene was very well shot and contained convincing special effects.<br /><br />I wonder that the timing of the release during the Great Depression sort of turns this film into an allegory. Especially the political upheaval bewildering the peasant farmers and how them seem to be left behind by all of it.<br /><br />The film had some parallels to the John Ford style, but I think the Eastern influence affected it as well. If this had been an western family, the locusts would have won at the end, punishing the farmer for his pride, lust, and gluttony. However here he learns his lesson, then wins. | 1 |
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.<br /><br />There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes! | 0 |
A true yawner and a bad film even for the Chan series. I like a good Charlie Chan film or even a reasonably good one, but this one falls way short of the mark. Charlie is enlisted to help figure out the murder of a scientist working for our government when someone in the house has stolen the plans for another power. The mystery is very pedestrian and the acting doesn't fare much better. The only saving grace for me in the film was the presence of Mantan Moreland as Birmingham Brown. He gives the film a little comedy and has some good scared faces, but after that the pickings are rather slim. Benson Fong is here as Tommy Chan and pairs up with Chan's daughter of all things. What about Sidney Toler? He is pretty decent but looks like he is straining to carry the film. What I noticed most was the way the film was shot. Chan director Phil Rosen, of whom I generally like most of his entries, uses lots of long shots with no action(like Charlie's initial walk into the house from outside). Why? The film is only 64 minutes long for crying out loud! Shots like that tell me the director had to fill time up because the script was even weaker than he was accustomed to. This probably isn't the worst Chan film ever made, but up to now it is the worst I have sat through unfortunately. | 0 |
How to round up every possible cliché and stereotype existing in the genre of horror and then subsequently stuff them into one massively lousy movie? The answer: "Camp Blood". This is amateurish slasher nonsense made on a micro-budget and a little bit too obvious inspired by "Friday the 13th". Four of the most intolerable teenage characters you'll ever see they're like a combination of ugly, stupid and annoying go camping and quickly find themselves pursued by a homicidal maniac in a clown suit. Don't even ask me what the killer's motivations were or even who he/she was, because if it did feature in the film, I totally missed it. This is one of the worst movies ever made, with no inspiration or craftsmanship whatsoever. The production values were so pitiable that there are actors playing multiple roles without even bothering to make them unrecognizable. The only half-decent and worthwhile sequence throughout the whole of "Camp Blood" is the opening in which the impressively voluptuous Meredith O'Brien has sex in the woods with her geeky boy scout. Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a totally shallow remark to make, but then again this is a juvenile and retarded film, so who cares? | 0 |
This movie was incredible. I would recommend it to anyone, much better than what I had already anticipated. It was definitely a heart-wrenching spectacular movie. It is an amazing story, with amazing actors and creators. Definitely another great movie with Denzel Washington. (shouldn't surprise anyone) Derek Luke did a wonderful job as well. | 1 |
I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation. | 0 |
Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also. | 0 |
This film is one of Michael Keaton's best. Throughout the film he is 'on'. With co-stars like Ms. Henner, Joe Piscopo and Danny DeVito, you can't go wrong. Great laughs, great fun for everyone. | 1 |
The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half. | 0 |
Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore ("oh wait now that you're close you do look old" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time. | 1 |
Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back. | 0 |
Well, for this abomination of a film, I wasn't expecting anything good. I find Steve Carell annoying, and Bruce Almighty was pretty good but there is absolutely no reason for it to have a sequel. Somehow, this film was even lower than my expectations, even when I didn't have any. <br /><br />Does anyone remember the Disney movie Noah with Tony Danza? Well, let's just say that Evan Almighty completely ripped it off in way too many ways for the movie to remain justifiable. Actually Evan Almighty was had the EXACT same plot outline as Noah, with the exception of a few technicalities, it was nothing but a carbon copy of a far-superior movie that was actually FUNNY. <br /><br />Another thing, did anyone get sick of Wanda Sykes' stupid, unfunny, redundant, one-liners that were literally in every single scene? It was completely ridiculous and just dragged the movie down more and more. <br /><br />Despite the fact that I basically had already seen the film ten years earlier(Noah), Evan Almighty has to be the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I figured out the entire movie from beginning to end within the first five minutes and eventually realized that it was ripping off Noah left and right. <br /><br />In conclusion, if you're a little bit unsure of whether or not you want to see Evan Almighty, and are already sick of Jonah Hill playing the same role in every single movie he's in, liked Bruce Almighty, and don't want to see a predictable, dry, unfunny movie with Steve Carell trying to act like Jim Carrey, then please, don't see this piece of garbage. | 0 |
OH MY God I am lost Now I know everything this guy does is Pointless R J A wrote at August 13th, 2006 (posting no. 881): What an awful experience. It looked like a bunch of 3rd graders stole a video camera, borrowed some old editing software from 1995, and played a joke on each other. Trash RGC wrote at August 1st, 2006 (posting no. 747): This movie is a piece of @$#@#@. It sucks Calling this a movie would be misleading. This was a group of friends having a good time and videotaping one another. The storyline was very hard to follow. The attempted artistic camera angles detracted from the story and in to themselves made the entire time a dizzying experience. The acting although comical was very amateurish. The concept is OK, I guess. Perhaps next time, the producers should raise some capital and hire actual professionals and try again. I must say that I'm sick and tired of so many thinking that making a good movie is easy. It is not easy... This fact seems to be lost or ignored by many that believe that without any training/experience and talent that they can make a good product. I guess in the end they will learn just how difficult it is I am so disgusted I HAVE NO COMMENT Chrisite wrote at August 5th, 2006 (posting no. 762): | 0 |
I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this? | 0 |
In 1989, Aardman Animations introduced the two heros in The Grand Day Out. In 1993, they fought an evil penguin in The Wrong Trousers. And in 1995, they had to rescue sheep from an evil robot dog in A Close Shave. In 2005, they're back and they are going to fight something that used to be cute and cuddlely in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In this full feature film, Wallace and Gromit work in Anit-Pesto, a pest-control business. There's going to be a Giant Vegetable Competition, but rabbits keep eating the neighbors vegies. Wallace and Gromit takes care with that problem. But Wallace had an idea. He will brainwash the bunnies with his machine. After doing that, something suddenly eats all of the vegies in the neighborhood and it's big. It's up to Wallace and Gromit to save the day. As a fan of these two characters, I was impressed. It kept what the 3 previous chapters had and instead adding a lot of Hollywood actors for voice-overs, they put a no name cast to the job and boy, they did a fantastic job. Wallace and Gromit has not changed. Wallace is still the cheese-loving freak like he always was and Gromit is the silent newspaper reading dog. Also, the script was not too shabby like other family movies were. There is a twist of who the Were-Rabbit really is. The direction from Nick Park (the director of the 3 previous chapters) does a really good job with the storyline. Instead of adding the Hollywood formula in it, he just took the style of the previous chapters and adds a bit of a dark fantasy twist in it. Well done, Nick. The rabbits are also funny and adorable, but the funniest rabbit in the movie is one who has the mix of Wallace in him. The characters were not bad and they weren't annoying, but they'll never top Wallace and Gromit. The animation is indeed fantastic and wonderful. I've never seen a clay-animated movie that is so amazing since Chicken Run. Overall, fans of the two knuckleheads (including the teens) will love this fantastic film. It is a well done film that should get an Oscar next year. Hooray, Wallace and Gromit. 10/10 | 1 |
I'm a big time horror fan, and I bought this movie from all the hype it was getting on the message boards. Well, let me tell you I don't know whom was giving it all the hype, but let me speak on a few things.<br /><br />First of all this film is "not" a LOT of things. It is NOT scary, NOT suspenseful, NOT overly gory, NOT overly sick (except for one season MAYBE) NOT beautifully scored.... AT ALL.<br /><br />The premise of the movie is that a couple flee to a small island in Greece because they have done a little naughtiness in London. We don't even know what they did, but it is presumed that they killed someone. <br /><br />**spoiler alert**<br /><br />The male lead kills a few people out of his perversion of "cleansing the island of perverts" oddly enough. The killings are cheap, the characters are cheaper and the effects suck.<br /><br />There is one part when he rapes a goat because his wife wont give him any in the morning, but even that is done without any care for how it is shot. <br /><br />end of spoilers<br /><br />The end of the movie is about the only thing that isn't totally predictable. I especially enjoyed when the "herder" farts on the husband. Anyway, if you can rent this and have 2 hours to waste go ahead. It's nothing better than a processed cheese sandwich on moldy bread.<br /><br />3/10 | 0 |
Overshadowed by "Braveheart" released the same year, the two costume dramas beg comparison. I admit my bias against Mel Gibson, yet I maintain a rational preference for "Rob Roy." Both "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" compellingly depict Scots history in bloody, romantic fashion. "Braveheart" is an epic paean to individual honor and courage and a fine revenge fantasy. It's also melodramatic, anachronistic and maudlin. Note its cornball usage of slow motion filming. Its violence is both ugly and glorious. It is the latter quality which makes it more appealing to the adolescent mindset. While "Braveheart" surpasses "Rob Roy" in sheer levels of carnage (not to mention its indulgent running time), the latter film is ultimately more mature and satisfying. Its action is more understated, yet more surprising and clever. Its sex is less showy, yet more erotic. "Rob Roy" also has a better realized romantic interest. Its dialog attempts to approximate the poetry of the period. Its rotted teeth in the mouths of the actors attempt to approximate the dentistry of the era. And Tim Roth is a superlative villain. Also recommended: "The Last of the Mohicans" and "The Patriot." You may find the latter more akin to "Braveheart" with its emphasis on blood lust, with the former more similar to "Rob Roy" in tone. All the of the aforementioned movies merit their R ratings for violence. | 1 |
This is one of the greatest films ever made. Brilliant acting by George C. Scott and Diane Riggs. This movie is both disturbing and extremely deep. Don't be fooled into believing this is just a comedy. It is a brilliant satire about the medical profession. It is not a pretty picture. Healthy patients are killed by incompetent surgeons, who spend all their time making money outside the hospital. And yet, you really believe that this is a hospital. The producers were very careful to include real medical terminology and real medical cases. This movie really reveals how difficult in is to run a hospital, and how badly things already were in 1971. I loved this movie. P.S. - I noticed that the incompetent, wheeler dealer surgeon played the head of the firm in LA Law. The young doctor played in Lou Grant. I also noticed that the registration nurse has appeared since in Becker and other shows. | 1 |
What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for "lowest common denominator" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people. | 0 |
Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch | 0 |
Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine. | 0 |
I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'. | 0 |
I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.<br /><br />I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo. | 0 |
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.<br /><br />Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.<br /><br />It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.<br /><br />As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.<br /><br />The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.<br /><br />There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.<br /><br />Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me. | 0 |
When I first saw this film in the 1980's, I was in my middle teenage years and somewhat reluctant to see this since I considered myself grown up and out of the "Sesame Street/Muppets" age. I honestly don't remember if I liked it at the time or not. However, somewhere in college I watched this film again, and it wound up going (and staying) into my personal Best Films Ever collection.<br /><br />This film is LOADED with humor that goes far above and beyond what one would have expected from the Muppets. I mean, obviously the Muppets always have appealed to adults and children because there's humor geared towards both generations. But come on...Janice is accidentally overheard telling someone "I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it IS artistic"...there's a joke from a father to a son that if the son in love with Kermit the Frog then the father doesn't want to hear it...Gonzo saves a chicken with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (sp?) and afterwards says "I think we're engaged now"...these and plenty of other moments in the film had me rolling. Add to that very smart dialogue, very smart New York/Broadway "wink wink" humor, the usual large amount of celebrity cameos and some really enjoyable songs that don't border on "kid-level cheesy" whatsoever...this film is a masterpiece! I don't throw "10"'s out on a regular basis...but this one deserves it. Over 20 years later, this film totally holds up, perhaps even more so. The Muppets never were and never will be again, as funny and smart and just plain brilliant as this film was and is. ---Q | 1 |
Yep, you read that right, kids. Michael Bay should've studied this film before making either of his over hyped, overlong, overly pointless "Transformers" movies. "Robot Jox" is better than both of them and it probably cost less than the "Transformers" crew spent on Megan Fox's personal trainer.<br /><br />Thankfully, this little robotic gem, initially known mainly for being the film that bankrupted Charles and Albert Band's Empire Pictures studio, seems to have developed a cult following over the years. I fondly remember watching it on VHS during its initial video release in the early 90s and though some of the Cold War-era politics/stereotypes were already out of date by that time (just the Bands' luck that Communism would fall while the film was sitting on a shelf waiting to be released, eh?), it's still a pretty damn cool little B-Movie. They really don't make'em like this anymore, or if they do, they go the Bay route and CGI things to unbearable proportions.<br /><br />For those who are unfamiliar, here's the Robo-scoop: We're somewhere in the future and after a nuclear holocaust, large scale "wars" have been outlawed. Disputes between nations are now settled mano-a-mano (or perhaps that should be machine-o-machine-o) by one representative from each side battling each other in giant sized Shogun Warrior style robots. Whichever 'bot walks away from the fight wins for "his" side. Gary Graham (who would later go on to play Detective Sykes in the "Alien Nation" TV series), plays "Achilles," the greatest Robot Jock in Marketplace (a.k.a. the good guys) history. Achilles has been undefeated in his previous nine Robot bouts (ten being the maximum number of battles before a "Jock" is retired) and at the beginning of the film he faces off against his counterpart from the "Confederation" (i.e. The Russkies!), the psychotic Alexander (who is the most over the top "evil Russian" stereotype bad guy since Dolph Lundgren's infamous turn as Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV"). The match is called a draw when Alexander violates the rules with an illegal Robot Move at the last minute and ends up not only embarrassing Achilles, but killing a whole bunch of spectators in the bargain. A rematch is scheduled to complete the bout, but Achilles simply wants to bow out, hang up his helmet and move on with his life. Rather than violate the Spoiler Rules by revealing much more, I will simply say that there are a great deal of twists and turns, behind the scenes skullduggery, and other difficulties for Achilles and his fellow "Jox" before the two robotic titans clash finally once again in the finale.<br /><br />I hope I'm not making this movie out to be some sort of masterpiece of science fiction, because it isn't. "Robot Jox" is just plain fun. I'll grant that it is a bit higher-concept than your average B-grade sci-fi movie, and though the budgetary constraints do occasionally make themselves known (especially in the scenes involving some painfully obvious green-screen trickery), it is still the best looking movie ever to come out of the Empire/Full Moon Pictures factory. The robot fight scenes are very well done using old school stop motion/model techniques, and the sets and costumes don't look half-assed in the slightest. Empire Pictures and director Stuart ("Re-Animator") Gordon were definitely shooting for the stars with this picture. Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out for them (or the studio) but at least we got one heckuva cool little movie out of the deal. Bottom line: if you want to be aurally and visually assaulted for 2+ hours, feel free to rent a "Transformers" movie. By the end you're likely to feel like you've spent all that time watching someone else play a video game. If you want to have a rock'em, sock'em robot good time, pick up Robot Jox instead. | 1 |
The Emperor's (Richard Haydn) dog is betrothed to Johanna's (Joan Fontaine) dog. However, when Virgil (Bing Crosby) arrives in town to sell a gramaphone record player to the Emperor, his dog is attacked by Johanna's dog. After a revenge attack where Virgil is banished from town, a psychoanalyst insists that Johanna's dog must confront Virgil's dog so that she can overcome her doggy fears. This is arranged and the dogs fall in love. So do Virgil and Johanna. The rest of the film passes by with romance and at the end, Johanna's dog gives birth. But who is the father.......? <br /><br />The dog story is the very weak vehicle that is used to try and create a story between humans. Its a terrible storyline. There are 3 main musical pieces all of which are rubbish - bad songs and dreadful choreography. Its just an extremely boring film - Bing has too many words in each sentence and delivers them in an almost shouty, irritating manner. Its not funny............ EVER..........but its meant to be. Bing and Joan have done much better than this. | 0 |
"Duckman" is a great show. I first saw it when I was 10 years old at the time and after school I rushed home and turned on Comedy Central. I saw a cartoon called "Duckman" and I LOVED IT!! It's such a funny and cool show. It's created by Klasky-Csupo, who are great creators of cartoons. They animated some of my favorite shows ever, like "The Simpsons" and "Rugrats".<br /><br />I've seen lots of episodes of this show and I think they're all really funny and sweet. The voice actors did a great job voicing the characters, too.<br /><br />I wish that Comedy Central could bring this show back, along with "The Critic" and "Dilbert".<br /><br />But this is a great Comedy Central show. Great job, Klasky-Csupo! | 1 |
A documentary without a loss for words... ever...<br /><br />Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable. <br /><br />But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.<br /><br />Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different. | 1 |
For those of you looking for the crazy stunts that typified a Harold Lloyd silent comedy, this is not the film for you. What The Cat's-Paw gives us is an interesting and atypical character for Lloyd who was trying to establish himself in sound.<br /><br />For me the closest movie comparison to Lloyd's character is that of Peter Sellers in Being There. For all the education that Lloyd has received in dealing with the world, he might as well have been brought up in isolation as Sellers was.<br /><br />But where he was brought up was as a missionary's child in China and I don't know how much Christianity he and his family were able to teach the Chinese, but young Harold has learned the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Lin Po whom he quotes constantly like a fortune cookie aphorism. As it turns out Lin Po turns out to be one wise dude.<br /><br />Anyway Lloyd's father Samuel S. Hinds has decided his son needs some education in the modern world of 20th century America and he sends him back to be the guest of the pastor of the home church which sponsors the mission. The pastor there is the perennial candidate of the 'reform' movement of that town of Stockport. But no sooner does Lloyd arrive and the pastor dies.<br /><br />Now the reform movement is a sham and the pastor a patsy of the political bosses who need a straw-man opponent in every election. They decide Lloyd just might be a better patsy than the guy who just died.<br /><br />Of course as it goes in these type of films the patsy proves to be not so easy a proposition. In fact Lloyd constantly quoting from Lin Po, the way Charlie Chan used to dispense wisdom proves quite the adversary for the crooks who run Stockport. In addition Lloyd gains the admiration of Una Merkel, as cynical a dame as Jean Arthur was in Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith. <br /><br />The Cat's-Paw is still a nice political satire though it did not establish Harold Lloyd as big a comedy name as he was in silent films. A nice cast of players was selected by director Sam Taylor topped by George Barbier who plays a political boss who discovers Lloyd and actually proves to have a streak of honesty in him. | 1 |
Anybody who goes to the Manhattan Hospital Center is taking his life in his hands. That includes the staff of The Hospital.<br /><br />I had never seen The Hospital before and I was intrigued at how similar the characters and situations of the plot were to that other Paddy Chayefsky masterpiece, Network. There are elements in George C. Scott's character that have both Al Schumacher's and Howard Beale's.<br /><br />He's the administrator of The Hospital and he's mad as hell and not going to take it any more. He's completely estranged from his wife and kids. It takes a Faye Dunaway type character in the person of Diana Rigg to make him snap out of it. One roll in the hay with her and he's shocked back to reality and the fact he still can contribute in the world.<br /><br />But first he's got a real problem. Someone is out killing hospital staff, four of them in a 48 hour period. And the nice part is their deaths can be attributed to in large part to the general incompetence of a medical bureaucracy. That's where the comedy comes in.<br /><br />There is an actual Howard Beale type character in the person of Barnard Hughes, Diana Rigg's father. His end is not quite as dramatic as Beale's though.<br /><br />Back in my working days it was part of my job to pay medical suppliers. Some of them could be as big creeps as you'll find portrayed in The Hospital. The black comedy satire had some real bite to it for me.<br /><br />George C. Scott was nominated for Best Actor, but having won and refused to accept the previous year's Oscar for Patton, he wasn't about to get a second chance. He lost to Gene Hackman for The French Connection. Still his handling of the role is unforgettable.<br /><br />Try viewing The Hospital back to back with Network and see how many similarities you spot. | 1 |
Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard "Vietnam made for TV" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with. | 0 |
"Talk Radio" is my favorite Oliver Stone movie, though he has made many great ones including "Salvador", "JFK", "Natural Born Killers" and "Platoon". But I like the intimacy of "Talk Radio", a cinematic expansion of Eric Bogosian's searing stage play that was based on a real life account of a Dallas talk show host. Working with ace cinematographer Robert Richardson, Stone turns what could have been a very set-bound exercise into a visually arresting ideological battle that presents a radio station as an arena of war. Bogosian is devastating as tortured on-air spouter of abuse Barry Champlain and conveys the conflicted, destructive nature of his character with conviction and a generous dose of self-loathing. Alec Baldwin, as his Alpha male boss, strikes the perfect note as a man driven nuts by a guy whose monstrousness he helped nurture. Ellen Greene is fantastic as Barry's sweet ex-wife who ends up becoming another target of his vicious personal vitriol. Stone and Bogosian fill every frame with interest and every line of dialog with sweet poison and cutting ambiguity. John C. McGinley, as Barry's long-suffering screener/technical producer Stu, turns in a hilarious, sharp performance, as does the great Michael Wincott. The film is a flawless, underrated masterpiece of superb writing, awesome acting and brutal, uncompromising direction. The Stewart Copeland score is brilliant, too. | 1 |
I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.<br /><br />Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.<br /><br />The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask. | 1 |
I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!) | 0 |
Woody Allen made "September", proving that even a genius could screw up. This is Mel Brook's "September". Monumentally stupid, boring, and unfunny, I must confess I did not watch it through to the end. The flick ranks among the dishonored few (e.g., "The Money Pit", "Out to Sea", "Spitfire Grill") which either put me to sleep or forced me to reach for the "rewind" button. And I say this, sadly, as a devoted Mel Brooks fan. He should stick to straight comedy and leave social commentary alone. How the same fellow that made "Young Frankenstein" and "Spaceballs" could crank out a dog like this is beyond me. To be avoided at all costs. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.