text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. | 1 |
Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending. | 0 |
I don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen! | 0 |
Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.<br /><br />Larissa | 1 |
Finding the premise intriguing, and reading the reviews, and being an Angel fan, I watched this movie. It's sexy and original, and quite entertaining. David Boreanaz is Keith. He's a hunky married man, stay at home Dad, and he feels a little inadequate in his marriage. He makes the mistake of penetrating a close circle of teenage girls who are fascinated with the idea of doing it with an older man. They'll do anything to get into his bed, including beg, lie, and blackmail, but they mostly try to push his buttons. The nuttiness that ensues sends Keith reeling, and pushes friendships to the edge. David Boreanaz shows a little skin in this one-- and he's looking hot. Yes-he plays a sleazy cheat - but he shows enough vulnerability and tenderness toward the goofy teens that you end up cheering for him in the end. One more thing, when someone moans "oh yeah, oh..oh..YEAH!!", it's hard to see them as a victim of rape. | 1 |
This movie has a lot to recommend it. The paintings, the music, and David Hewlett's naked butt are all gorgeous! The plot, a story of redemption, forgiveness, and courage in the face of adversity is also very interesting and touching -- and it's not predictable, which is saying quite a lot about a movie in this day and age. But, the acting is mediocre, the direction is confusing, and the script is just odd. It often felt like it was trying to be a parody, but I never figured out what it was trying to be parody *of*. And if it's not a parody, well, it remains a movie with great potential that it didn't live up to. | 1 |
"Let's Bowl" started out on local television in the Twin Cities. It came on late at night, something you'd stumble across while channel surfing after your 7th bottle of Hamm's.<br /><br />Even the ads were locally produced, featuring Wally outside Grumpy's Bar, holding a microphone and stammering nervously -- "Ahh...over to you, Steve Sedahl." Not sure why, but that one always made me laugh.<br /><br />There was a bowling contest featured under the guise of settling a dispute between two bowlers, but the game was secondary to the commentary and clips. Sedahl played it straight, counter-balanced by Rich Kronfeld's bizarre and hilarious "Wally Hotvedt." Highlights included segments like "How to Properly Dispose of an Old Bowling Ball" (chuck them into a lake) and "Tips on Dating," where the duo "date" a couple of hookers and Wally ends with the bitter complaint, "I could have done that myself!" <br /><br />Another segment -- what the duo did on their days off -- featured Steve in beer can strewn hovel, pigging out from the fridge while Wally struggled to climb the cliffs at Taylor's Falls, dressed in his tight pale blue blazer and over-sized headphones. Hilarious! <br /><br />Wally's awestruck comments about "league bowlers," and his struggle to apply the correct euphemism to various splits were also highlights.<br /><br />"Let's Bowl" was picked up by Comedy Central and had some good moments, but the network never really knew what to do with it, running it during prime time and emphasizing the bowling "competition," which was never the point of the show. The constant commercials interrupted the flow and the side characters (Ernie, the Pig, Butch, etc.) were more distractions than anything else. The whole thing seemed rushed and kind of forced. Even Jon Stewart dissed Let's Bowl on the Daily Show -- (not enough lame, snide jokes?) -- an ignominious treatment for a show that deserved far better.<br /><br />How often does a "Let's Bowl" come along in the world of modern television, a locally flavored mix of comedic genius and total crap? The networks have the "total crap" part down cold, but it's a sad thing to watch them kill such a dark, strange, funny little gem like "Let's Bowl." <br /><br />Here's hoping they'll put it out on DVD. | 1 |
Let's get things straight. I was raised Catholic, and in a very religious family, and spent as much time at church and talking to priests as at home. That was useful for two things: to make a convinced Atheist out of me, and to give me deep, insightful knowledge about the Church and its dogmas. And I say: if a Catholic priest witnesses a murder, and clearly sees the face of the killer, he CAN report it to the police, even if the murderer has confessed to him afterwards. He can not reveal what he's told in confession, but he CAN talk about anything he sees outside that, and confession is useless to keep his mouth shut. So, here we have a movie entirely sustained on a lie. And another lie is there's no absolution for murder. According to the Catholic Church, there's absolution for any sin as long as there's sincere repentance. So far, the biggest plot holes in this weak thriller.<br /><br />As people frequently say, this movie would have improved if Bob Hoskins and Alan Bates had switched roles. Hoskins is naturally suitable to play gangsters (I will never lament enough that he lost Al Capone in favor of one of De Niro's weakest performances in "The Untouchables") and Bates' features would have been perfect as the priest with a gray past. But above that, I think the film would have been much better had real-life Ulster native Liam Neeson (back then mostly unknown to big audiences) played Mickey Rourke's part. Not only his face is perfect to play tormented characters, but he'd make us believe the character as real, something Rourke just can't. Back in the 80s, Rourke was not a bad actor (afterwards he seemed to lose his talent along with his looks), but he was one of those performers, like Brad Dourif, who's as good as the director he works with. And as a former IRA terrorist, Rourke's acting comes across more like a pimp. Sad to think that, had this movie been made just some three to six years later (when Neeson achieved moderate celebrity status in 1990 with Sam Raimi's enjoyable "Darkman", and superstardom in 1993 with "Schindler's List", while Rourke became pretty much of a forgotten has-been), Liam and Mickey could have switched parts to greater benefit (Rourke would have been effective in the supporting role of Docherty, but just can't carry this movie along as the lead). Yet another missed opportunity, and yet another film with the potential of being a classic, that became instantly forgettable fare.<br /><br />Ironically enough, the often criticized score (by underrated composer Bill Conti) worked for me. I didn't find it overly-melodramatic, but suitably gritty and beautiful. It reminded me of Howard Shore's score for "The Silence of the Lambs". Here's to Mike Hodges' talent, who made "Get Carter", yes, but don't forget he's the mastermind behind "Flash Gordon" as well...<br /><br />It seems the film was massacred in the cutting room (it shows, as some parts are really choppy and confusing, and others just don't glue) and a Director's Cut is waiting to see the light. OK, but I seriously doubt that will make it a great movie, as we'll still have the bad casting and the false premise there. 4/10. | 0 |
Dull, cheap sci-fi thriller, made with an almost total lack of conviction (a control room full of computers and other devices used to receive and decipher messages from outer space is run by only ONE MAN, and is VERY poorly guarded at night), and full of campy sound effects. Christopher Lee is not only wasted, but he also gives one of his few "I'm here strictly for the money" performances. (*1/2) | 0 |
Before watching this film I had heard a lot about it and certain scenes in the film, but listening wasn't doing it for me so I planned on watching it and wow! Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds make for an interesting group of individuals who are hell bent on canoing down the Cahulawassee river and the unfortunate series of events that transpires upon them all. The character development takes some time in enveloping the viewer with a better understanding of each person, but eventually you know these guys like they were your friend. The acting, dialogue is very very real, as close to reality as you can get for Hollywood acting. Reynolds character "Lewis" was interesting as a guy who comes off very tough but underneath the manly veneer lies a very soft and broken man (I was impressed with his performance!) Jon Voight seems to be the character thats on the spotlight the most, the unfortunate circumstances that seem to find him at every corner really mold and caste him into a different man at the end (his character transition was excellent). Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox really seem like the silly lunkheads that just like to joke around and don't seem to get too awful serious unless they have too, and they did... I really was amazed at Director Boorman's vision of Dickey's novel, very impressed. You cannot go your whole life without watching this film. I give it eight out of ten stars, extremely impressed. | 1 |
Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me. | 0 |
This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.<br /><br />For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.<br /><br />Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock. | 0 |
Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it. | 0 |
Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button? <br /><br />This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting ) <br /><br />It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything | 0 |
Art imitates life imitates art. Atticus Finch is reincarnated into the D.A. in this tragic and suspenseful gripping documentary that plays more like a who-done-it and how did it happen. The authenticity and sometimes reluctant honesty of the individuals make this a compelling story in many layers. Although racism is one of the themes there are other elements such as work ethic, integrity, and coping with grief that have drawn me back to view and review this film again and again. The music is driving but not obtrusive; the pacing and visuals are such that there is no mistaking the fact that these are real people going through an authentic experience. | 1 |
I usually give horror films around 6/10, but this one caught my eye. House of Wax was by far the best horror film I have seen... Even better than the Amityville Horror.<br /><br />Paris Hilton was quite good in this and I must say, has a good future ahead. Her death scene was probably the coolest. I'll just say how she dies...<br /><br />She gets a giant pole right between her eyes and they close-ups on and everything. Gory, eh? Brian Van Holt was very good as both the killers, Bo and Vincent (Vincent had the long hair). Usually he plays a mean cop or soldier, but he did very well in this.<br /><br />Eliza Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray also acted very well as Carly and Nick Jones. Nick took the spotlight in the first half of the movie, then Eliza stole it back by enduring a lot of pain in the second half like getting the finger clipped off, ripping her lips apart after they got glued together, and getting a straight forward punch in the face by Bo.<br /><br />Overall, I give this movie an 8/10. Fans of horror films MUST see this. | 1 |
...I saw this movie when it first came out in France, in my hometown, 54 years ago, I was nine, and today I still remember each black and white frame, especially the black ones, because it was so tense, scary, those sneaking attacks through that dark pass in the mountain, the two soldiers, prisoners forced to fight each other by their captors, the last battle with the uncovering of the wagon with the Gatling in it firing away, the last fight between Peck and the chief, and the Happy End which let me take back my breath. I haven't seen it since then, and I don't know if it would be a good idea to see it again today, it was such a fabulous moment for the kid I was. | 1 |
Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.<br /><br />Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.<br /><br />Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.<br /><br />Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.<br /><br />The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.<br /><br />Dullsville. | 0 |
Respected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy. <br /><br />Mild mannered employee Leon "Foggy" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more. <br /><br />Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd. | 0 |
I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed). | 0 |
On the face of it a film about women wanting to see a football match wouldn't appeal much to somebody with little interest in football such as myself however this isn't about football it is about discrimination and the women's enthusiasm for the sport they love.<br /><br />The film opens on the day of a crucial World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain, a girl is trying to get in to Tehran's Azadi Stadium by dressing like a boy, it looks like she will get in until a soldier tries to search her. Once caught she is taken to a small enclosure high up on the outside of the stadium where there are a handful of women who had already been caught, here they are guarded by a small group of conscript soldiers who's leader would rather be back home tending his livestock. We never learn the character's names but we get to know them as people as the girls plead with the guards to let them watch though a nearby gap in the wall and when refused try to get them to at least provide a commentary.<br /><br />As well as making an important point about the rigid gender segregation in much of present day Iran the film contains many hilarious moments such as the "disguise" one of the girls is made to wear when going to the toilet and the girl who disguised herself as a soldier and was only caught because she chose to watch the match from a seat reserved for a senior officer. The girls enthusiasm for the game is such that by the end the viewer is likely to be on the edge of their seat hoping that Iran will win and thus get to go to the finals in Germany. The soldiers aren't shown as fundamentalists, they are just conscripts who are there because they have to be and when explaining to the girls why woman can't watch men's sports don't seem that convinced by their own arguments.<br /><br />It is a shame that this film can't be seen in Iran itself but it is good that the wider world can see it and thus see that ordinary Iranians aren't a bunch of fanatics desperate to wage war on the west but normal people with the same passions and concerns as people everywhere. The cast did a great job in making their characters seem like real people rather than mere caricatures. | 1 |
One of my absolute favorite childhood films. The Chipmunk adventure packs incredible fun geared for young and old alike. The animation is lively and colorful and the film itself boasts some of the best songs ever put in an animated feature. Who could forget the dynamic "Boys/Girls of Rock n' Roll", the exciting "Diamond Dolls", and the heartrending "My Mother"? <br /><br />This should be considered a nostalgic classic animated gem from the eighties. It's too bad they don't make them like this anymore. Most animated films today resort to violence, crude humor, or sentimental mush... except of course the folks from Pixar.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: An amazing and unforgettable adventure for all ages. | 1 |
I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and "perfect". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8/10 | 1 |
I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.<br /><br />Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
I would just like to say, that no matter how low budget the film is, it needs to be shown throughout this world the point to these movies. We don't read that much anymore, instead people want to see movies. Having this series out on DVD, has made me want to read the whole series, and want more. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. Please don't change any of the characters either, it ruins the effect. Because I have grown to love the actors who have played the characters. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. I want to see the message, and watch the message that these books and now movies are here to portray. We don't get that enough anymore. AWESOME JOB!!! | 1 |
For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.<br /><br />This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.<br /><br />If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity. | 1 |
I completely disagree with the other comments! I too saw this film at an early screening and found it quite enjoyable. Robin Williams is in top form. True, the tone is familiar, but it is Williams of Good Morning Vietnam: smart, funny, on point. After too many dark turns, Williams is finally back to what he does best. The supporting actors give great performances, especially Laura Linney and Chris Walken. Chris plays himself, as usual, but as the "agent" to the next president he was a delight each time on screen. Lewis Black plays only himself basically, but he is wonderfully well used here. There is also a fun turn by Jeff Goldblum. The movie is more than what the trailer suggests, as well. The movie is funny, but it is not a pure comedy as suggested. It has a bit of a thriller line, which everyone should seriously consider, especially if you pay attention to the newspaper. | 1 |
this movie is trash because, out of many reasons, it is based on Mark Furman's book, which is also trash. let me must say that Mark Furhman is a racist pig that is just looking for another way to get himself into the spotlight - and others that right this type of trash belong in jail. for the movie itself, being based on the book, was horrible as well. the only reason that this murder case became such a big book and movie was because the guy is related, thru his aunts marriage, to the Kennedy family and it is ridiculous that people still believe that this family somehow has the ability to make and cover up murders - they are just a family and middle America needs to get over the obsession. this poor guy, and his family, have been hounded by the police for years, they couldn't get tommy so they went after Micheal. its amazing that he went to jail with all the evidence that supports that he Didn't do it, besides the facts that the statute of limitations, among other things, should have kept this trial from being brought back after TWENTY years for the love of god, don't watch this garbage | 0 |
This movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie. <br /><br />Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the "suspense" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable. <br /><br />To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended. | 0 |
I thoroughly enjoyed this film for its humor and pathos. I especially like the way the characters welcomed Gina's various suitors. With friends (and family) like these anyone would feel nurtured and loved. I found the writing witty and natural and the actors made the material come alive. | 1 |
this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending. | 1 |
I was lucky enough to watch this without any pre viewing hype. I was surprised at the resilience of the ghost's image in my mind the next day, and the day after that. I've watched it 3-4 times, and each time I appreciate it even more. The settings are gorgeous, the town at dusk has beautiful lighting effects, the marsh long shots, and the house itself is sufficiently grown with moss. The main hero is so likable and good natured, that he is easily sympathized with. To the person who complained that there wasn't enough 'spark' in this film, I'd say that it's because the whole fight against the ghost is being waged by just this one person. It is a fairly slow paced film, with an unusual amount of time being spent ,pre and post ghost attack, on developing his character with family and work life. SPOILERS discussion/<br /><br />I especially liked the turning point, when he comes back to the main town and meets with the man helping him and explains about seeing the ghost. He describes the Woman in black, and then at the end of the conversation he says that he is going back, because after all, what harm had she done to him? The other man says, "you can't go back... alone!" and lends the hero his dog. The cute little dog offers a small respite of comic relief, with it's bounding through the house and even into the locked room.<br /><br />The many casual appearances of the ghost really freaked me out. The woman shows up in mid shot at the church, showing that it is not afraid of the church, and is also not shy or bound to the house. This is all in the very beginning. Another unbelievably memorable scene was with the kids outside of the church fence, watching the funeral. As the camera pans to the right, the woman is seen in the background among the gravestones. The older man won't even look at it, but the kids are all yelling and taunting it. Crreeepy... Usually ghosts are hidden in shadows, haunting specific locales or people. As has been mentioned, the ghost's malevolence and wrath are frightening, and I feel it's attacks and the ending were perfect and fully justified. The ending underlined the fact that the hero made a major mistake by going back to the house. Or perhaps he was marked no matter what, by saving the gypsy girl. The guy who plays the hotel manager is so believable, and really fills the role well. I have been spreading the word to my friends about how much I enjoyed this film, and it is reassuring to see others feel the same. I can see how people don't quite see the same masterpiece, especially if they went into it with a lot of review hype.<br /><br />I think another person summed it up when they said that this movie settled the question of whether or not Ghosts could physically harm man. Whew.. I plan to watch it again tonight followed by The Changeling, aaww yeah. Any other films to recommend?<br /><br />Thanks, | 1 |
Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as "a gherkin in a burger". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????<br /><br />Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.<br /><br />Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.<br /><br />At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.<br /><br />On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.<br /><br />All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.<br /><br />Darkhunters 0/5<br /><br />p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me. | 0 |
The best thing one can say about the film "Traffic" is that it brought attention to the superior British mini-series "Traffik". As many people have noted, the current film suffers from truncating the story to accommodate the short attention span of cinemagoers and the turn-around time of the theater owners, who measure a film's success by the overpriced food sales.<br /><br />I first recorded this mini series in 1990 when it was shown on Public TV and have watched it many times. The whole documentary-style series has a strong element of tragedy and doom about it, as the characters are all moving toward their eventual fate. The strongest of the three tales is that of the Pakistani family forced into the City to find a way to keep body and soul together after the poppy crop is burned by the army in a staged show of force put on for the benefit of western politicians. The hardships of the family are similar to that of the rickshaw pullers family in "City of Joy". Eventually the farmer finds work, but he compromises his pride and honesty.<br /><br />The Pakistani segment of the film has a particular relevance to today, with the fight against the supporters of Al Quaeda, and gives some understanding of the support for such movements among the disadvantaged poor of Pakistan and Afghanistan who rarely receive any of the money going into those countries. The film makes a point that the farmers see barely 25% of the aid which is supposed to encourage them to grow other crops.<br /><br />With the American inability to see anything other than in terms of black and white - good guys v. bad guys - it is interesting to see another view where there is no black and white, only shades of grey. <br /><br />Possible spoiler ahead. The only problem I had with the story was that rather than things continuing as they did before, as they would in real life, being a work of fiction they had to wrap it up with the "bad guys" getting what was coming to them. Other than that, this was a fine piece of work of the kind we see all too rarely. The cast was outstanding and the German and Pakistani locations helped give the film a "different" feel (what a change it made seeing Germans as something other than the villains in a WWII film). | 1 |
A friend of mine was in the cast as a FEDS agent (a non-speaking part, as I recall). He brought it over on DVD so I could see it. It was "interesting", but very much felt like an amateur film. A well made amateur film, though. Really boring and poorly written. It was probably fun to make and be involved in, but it definitely didn't deserve any kind of wide release. Maybe in Omaha they'd enjoy it, but this California girl was bored and honestly kind of embarrassed for my friend's involvement.<br /><br />If this film maker has made or makes any more films, he really should try to have a really interesting story line, and GOOD actors. I'm sure this was a great learning tool for them. I wish them luck in the future, and hope they can improve their film making. | 0 |
I think Walter Pidgeon was badly miscast in this film. Just not believable in the role. Barbara Eden was beautiful, and acted her part well enough. No one else was at all memorable. <br /><br />I remember the TV series spun off from this movie when I was a small child. I even think I had a plastic "Seaview" that would submerse and was great for playing with in the bathtub. Long time ago.<br /><br />As for some of the other criticism I've read for this film: It's certainly unfair to judge special effects or science knowledge of 4 decades ago by today's standards. The effects were OK for 1961. Not great, but OK. As for the science, that was ludicrous even for 1961. There's no excuse. Also, the sub was awfully roomy. I understand that the navy refused any help at all for this film, so maybe the filmmakers just had no idea.<br /><br />Overall, the film bored me. (And I'm a sci-fi fan.) Can't recommend this one. Grade: D- | 0 |
"I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!" The small town sheriff laments.<br /><br />"This happens a lot in Chicago?" His deputy asks.<br /><br />Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of "Big Bean, IL". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.<br /><br />The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie. | 1 |
This is an exquisite film about the search for some bliss in everyday life. The pacing, the camera work, the emotion, the haunting musical score and the pure charm of this picture make it a must see. It isn't easily appreciated by the immature or emotionally stunted. The only flaw I can see about this film is that it wasn't captured in a more technically perfect film format. It deserved Todd-AO, Technicolor and the very finest sound format available.(An intimate film can be made in seventy millimeter.) The gorgeous Italian villas effect on its inhabitants would have rendered even more lushly and the small lovely moments would be even more beautifully seen and heard. As it is, it still demands attention as a sweet moving small film. I can't stop myself from watching it every time it comes on satelite. The transformations of the characters from contained, tight and mistrustful is always a joy to watch and I really should recommend it more often.<br /><br />The casting is perfect, the mood is perfect, the acting is above reproach. It is a film about middle age and the choices people make.It is deep and thoughtful without beating the viewer up with heavy handedness. Watch it in one sitting and let it have its effect on you. If you don't get it, perhaps you haven't lived enough, or something else is wrong with you. | 1 |
BEGIN SPOILER: Fitfully funny and memorable for Mr. Chong's literal roach-smoking scene: Chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe's bowl, lights up, coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity,then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat, re-loads the bowl properly, re-lights, re-tokes. END SPOILER. Alas, I began to lose faith less than half-way through the proceedings. It occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. I have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners, Harold and Kumar. I simply prefer brighter company. Yet, the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble-minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they-- the former are sober. Notable guest appearance by Paul Reubens spouting obscenities in pre-Pee-wee form. | 0 |
Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to "The Silence of the Lambs", this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen. <br /><br />It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.<br /><br />I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me. | 1 |
It was only when I saw Napoleon Dynamite that I remembered seeing Cracker Bag. Just beautiful sentiment and yet never stooping to being soppy. There is some terrific cinematography and the lead girl is quite brilliant. It captures more than the nostalgia of the time. It has a real heart to it. It is the Achilles wound of childhood that is exquisite and painful. A simple story is always effective when done well. This Glendyn Ivin has a big future and I for one, am looking out for his next project. The follow up is always the most difficut thing. It's like the second album blues for most people. <br /><br />I just hope his next film is not something lame like a shark film. Cheers to all. Enjoy your cinema. | 1 |
ah man this movie was funny as hell, yet strange. i like how they kept the shakespearian language in this movie, it just felt ironic because of how idiotic the movie really was. this movie has got to be one of troma's best movies. highly recommended for some senseless fun! | 1 |
I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book. | 0 |
I love most movies and I'm a big fan of Sean Bean so I thought that I would at least LIKE this movie. Also, I'm Canadian and this is a mostly-Canadian movie so I was prepared to cut it some serious slack. Nothing could have prepared me for the garbage that is "Airborne". Steve Guttenberg as an action hero? Give me a break. The acting throughout the movie was so bad I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight. I now have only two wishes in my life.<br /><br />1. I hope that you never have to sit through this movie. 2. I wish I could get those 6 hours back. Oh wait, the movie's under 2 hours - it only seemed like 6 hours...<br /><br />Don't watch this. Seriously. | 0 |
I've seen this programme a few times and the more a see of it, the less I like it. Jamie Lynn Spears was approached to do this because of the fact that she is Britney's sister and I'm sorry to say that that in the show is obvious. They've created the character Zoey to be everything people want to believe Jamie Lynn is, clever, original, smart, pretty, popular etc. The characters around her are only there to make her look better, by being smarter then them, more popular than them, more wanted by boys then them. There is nothing original about this and it's poured with money, so every kid there has the coolest of fashions and stuff. I also have to say, for a 13 year old girl (or however old she is, can't be much older) she wears very mature clothing, those short skirts are too short, it makes young people want to wear them, and all that make-up, this adds to the rising problems of why young girls get into so much trouble. The only thing I will say is that the opening credits are sung by Jamie Lynn and, given her age, isn't bad at all, much better than her sister anyway when it comes to vocal ability. Sorry, it's too mature and yet too dumbed down. It's poorly acted with predictable story lines and there is far too much stereotyping going on too. | 0 |
Although I enjoy Steve Carrell's work, Evan the Almighty, like so many other overdone films turned out to be a lot worse than I hoped it would be.<br /><br />This turned out to be a cheesy family movie, the kind that employ famous comedian to improve their image, but ultimately fail to deliver.<br /><br />The usual Carell's dorky humour is almost absent from the movie and though he did make me chuckle a few times, there was nothing hilarious about him in Evan the Almighty.<br /><br />His 3 kids, although were probably somehow important for a biblical character, were really quite useless in the movie and terrible actors. Even his wife, was somewhat of a third leg for such a simple storyline.<br /><br />Spending so much money on making a comedy was a huge mistake. Although, Carell's career might profit from this movie, there's no real reason to go see it.<br /><br />If only there was a little less of his family, a little more of Carell, Molly Shannon and maybe some other SNL cast, it could have actually been a lot more entertaining.<br /><br />4/10 for a few chuckles here and there. | 0 |
Drew Latham(Ben Affleck)is determined not to be lonely this Christmas. Not only is Drew a millionaire; but also obnoxious and guilty of being very grandiose. Drew goes back to the home he grew up in and offers the family living there, the Valco's, $250,000 to be his "family" through the Christmas season. Tom Valco(James Gandolfini)is reluctant, but is greedy enough to take Drew's offer. Christine Valco(Catherine O'Hara)has little to say in the matter, but learns to like having Drew around...not exactly the same sentiment with daughter Alicia(Christina Applegate), but that too has room for change. Drew's girlfriend Missy(Jennifer Morrison)tracks down Drew and wants her folks to meet his family. Genuine fun is in store as a happy Noel becomes a hilarious dysfunctional nightmare. Other members of the cast: Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, David Selby and Stephanie Faracy. Affleck is comedic, albeit strange. | 0 |
I know one is not supposed to comment on other users' comments, but I will say that a lot of the negative reviews seem to come from people who already knew quite a lot about the Manhattan Project and were annoyed at things that were left out. (From his book 'Smoking In Bed' it appears the original screenwriter Bruce Robinson is another such.) I knew very little before watching the film, however, and found it rivetting. Dwight Schultz is absolutely mesmeric as Oppenheimer - a truly magnetic, charismatic presence, an inspired piece of casting that makes me wonder why he isn't given better roles and more leading parts. John Cusack and Paul Newman are excellent as always. One could quibble with various script or direction choices, but as it is the film is extremely intense and horrific at times and overall I give it four stars out of five. | 1 |
I just attended a preview screening of this film. A masterpiece of documentary film-making it was not. Totally absorbed with its subject, the film becomes incapable of leveling any sort of critical commentary with regard to Ms. Faye. Cloying and sappy, the only redeeming quality of the film was its use of puppets in an attempt (albeit a failed one) to structure some kind of narrative. But the creepiest experience occurred as the closing credits rolled. The audience rose and applauded. Like moths to flame, Americans in the 21st Century are still drawn to freakshows. The narrative of the misunderstood monster is getting rather tired. | 0 |
As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes! <br /><br />Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted. <br /><br />Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy. | 1 |
"One True Thing" is a very quiet film, that opened in the fall of 1998 to glowing reviews but mild box-office. It tells the crippled story of Ellen (Renee Zellweger), a workaholic who is forced to move back home to take care of her terminally ill mother (Meryl Streep), so that her aloof father (William Hurt) can run his academic department. These terms are only general. The strength of "One True Thing" lies in the way the actors elevate their characters above Hollywood cliché territory.<br /><br />Streep is Kate, the perfect homemaker whose ability to light up a room with her charm is evident in her opening scenes at a costume party celebrating Hurt's birthday. But Ellen has never been close to her mother, and since she graduated from Harvard University, has a certain destain about her- Ellen almost thinks her mother is a simplistic air-head. While on the other hand, she admires her father- who shares a special passion: Writing. Ellen writes for an aggressive New York firm, and is almost heartbroken when her latest piece is torn down by Hurt, who seems to be a very lonely figure.<br /><br />To get to the point, as Kate gets sicker, Ellen's perspectives change and she grows closer to her mother and more distant to her father. Hurt keeps making excuses not to be there when the family needs him most, and Ellen assumes he's having an affair. Meanwhile she's given up her desk at work to spend time doing craft activities with her mother's "cult" group The Minnies, and also learning that her mother isn't as weak as she first assumed.<br /><br />Without giving too much away, "One True Thing" is a masterpiece in character study. Streep once again turns in a beautiful performance, this time working on a subtle level that starts slow but ends with a brilliant speech on the vows of marriage. Streep earned her eleventh Oscar nomination for this performance. Hurt is also convincing as the father who carries a secret that isn't revealed until the closing moments. But it is Renee Zellweger who steals this movie. Forget "Chicago", "Cold Mountain", "Bridget Jones's Diary" or whatever else you've seen her do and rent this movie. She is remarkable in it. Working within her character's bitter resentment at understanding her parents, Zellweger manages a realistic portrayal of a young woman fighting to keep her lip up while she's screaming inside. | 1 |
I have to admit to enjoying bad movies. I love them I watch all of them. Horror especially. My friends and I all gather after a hard week at school and work, rent some crazy tapes, order a pizza and have a blast. This one had a great box, so I was expecting less than usual.<br /><br />The story is about a housing project that is built over a nuclear facility that has had the above-ground layers bulldozed, and the other underground layers are simply covered up. The inhabitants of this neighborrhood find the covered up facility when some kids fall into a hole inside a cave. This wakes up some zombies.<br /><br />From this point on, it's chunk-city. The gore effects and action never stop until the end credits roll.<br /><br />OK, it's not great art, but this one, with its in-joke dialogue and over-the-top gruesome stuff was our favorite of the evening. Actually, it was one of the best "party tapes" I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And you could tell it was done on no money, with a bunch of crazy people. There are hundreds of zombies, and the Director looks like Brendan Frazer (he has a cameo) and it is just a wild trip. | 1 |
I never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time<br /><br /> thank yu<br /><br /> Jay harris | 0 |
I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name "Sholay" in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out. | 0 |
Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...<br /><br />Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned! | 0 |
I remember this show from Swedish television. I was only 7 years of age and it scared me beyond belief.<br /><br />I would love to revisit this series and see if it was just as excellent as remember though i suspect my taste and demands have changed.<br /><br />Although this was released before alien and a plethora of other space-thrillers i suspect that it has its root in scary movies from the 50:s and the political climate of the 70:s. When i think of it, this was a real sci-fi, a movie trying to discuss scientific and political questions about who we are and what we are. The term sci-fi has since then become bleak and come to be the term for any movie that has space-ships in them. | 1 |
I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that. | 0 |
As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power. | 1 |
After having watched "Guinea Pig", two questions come in mind ( besides 'Am I really a psychopath to watch that ?' ) : 'Is it a snuff ?' The answer is no ; although it's the closest thing to a snuff movie I've ever seen. And then : 'Where the hell have they found that girl ?'. Because she gets tortured for '45 min, without any reasons given ( in fact, there is nothing else in this movie !) : Fingernails teared off, beaten with hands, feet, tools, infested by maggots, ... and many more until the final scene ( I'm still not sure how they did that ). Because it belongs to the 'japonese underground scene', it's obvious she didn't get a lot of money. So what were her ( their ) motivations ?<br /><br />I saw it in japonese without subtitles, but it's not a problem ( no real dialogues, the boys are just insulting her in a few scenes ). I haven't seen yet all the serial, but the first "Guinea Pig" is not known for being the best one. Still I've rated 8, because if the purpose was making people believe this a snuff, the issue is quite good ( ask Charlie Sheen, the actor ). But I think they could have gone further, which they did in the following ones.<br /><br />Another movie I'm hiding from my parents.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel. | 0 |
at first I had the reaction a lot of people left with after seeing this: that shots of fat people sunbathing, etc were cheap shots in a way. OK so he's doing diane arbus meets. . . whatever. . . but it wasn't long before I realized that this wasn't being done in a dehumanizing way, as the images unfold I felt that the problem was entirely the audience's: we are conditioned by Hollywood and also movies from just about everywhere actually to feel that to watch people above a certain age behave in a sexual way is something unseemly, something that ought not to be shown. if this were all the film offered it would be a great deal. however, the story of the woman with the abusive boyfriend and his drunk friend really hits like a ton of bricks: very eloquent storytelling, incredible performances, and to think the scene was improvised. that blonde guy is a genius actor. finally I want to contradict those who say this film is all about how pathetic all these people are. the old man who is on the make with the woman who finally dances for him is completely an a OK character that breaks that mold, so don't oversimplify the film by overlooking him. yes his dog gets killed. this ain't a rosy picture of the world but it's not . . . completely hopeless. anyway I felt really grateful to the filmmaker for making such a beautiful film all in all. I wouldn't say each of the threads were as strong as the strongest, but I say this movie basically kicks ass and would highly recommend it. . . | 1 |
Wow...This movie really really sucks...'Nuff said.<br /><br />The Story: A psychopathic internet predator stalks and lures young men and women into torturous traps...It goes like this, kidnaps people, they find him, he becomes a changed man and is released on the world yet again, reverts back to his old ways and starts the torture again....The story is stupid, it's implausible. The characters are stupid, they're implausible...Or at the very least way over the top. It's got some very violent imagery, and if you have a week stomach you might just want to stay away...But than again, even if you don't have a week stomach, you might want to stay away...It's that stupid.<br /><br />The Cast: Dee Snider, Kevin Gage...If you're a die hard fan of Twisted Sister and Dee Snider, you might find this one interesting, since he's the writer and star of this film. His acting is laughably bad, and you can tell that he's the one that wrote the God-awful script. Kevin Gage...Well they say he's been in numerous other movies that I've seen, but I don't remember him from any of them...And you won't remember him from this...These two sadly, make the film...They don't make it good mind you...They just make it...<br /><br />One to Five Scale: 1 It's bad...It's very very very bad...In fact it's so bad, that this movie should come with a clip loading pistol to play Russian Rullet with... | 0 |
Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.<br /><br />This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.<br /><br />There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.<br /><br />I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such. | 0 |
Chilling, majestic piece of cinematic fright, this film combines all the great elements of an intellectual thriller, with the grand vision of a director who has the instinctual capacity to pace a moody horror flick within the realm of his filmmaking genius that includes an eye for the original shot, an ice-cold soundtrack and an overall sense of dehumanization. This movie cuts through all the typical horror movies like a red-poker through a human eye, as it allows the viewer to not only feel the violence and psychosis of its protagonist, but appreciate the seed from which the derangement stems. One of the scariest things for people to face is the unknown and this film presents its plotting with just that thought in mind. The setting is perfect, in a desolate winter hideaway. The quietness of the moment is a character in itself, as the fermenting aggressor in Jack Torrance's mind wallows in this idle time, and breeds the devil's new playground. I always felt like the presence of evil was dormant in all of our minds, with only the circumstances of the moment, and the reasons given therein, needed to wake its violent ass and pounce over its unsuspecting victims. This film is a perfect example of this very thought.<br /><br />And it is within this film's subtle touches of the canvas, the clackity-clacks of the young boy's big wheel riding along the empty hallways of the hotel, the labyrinthian garden representing the mind's fine line between sane and insane, Kubrick's purposely transfixed editing inconsistencies, continuity errors and set mis-arrangements, that we discover a world guided by the righteous and tangible, but coaxed away by the powerful and unknown. I have never read the book upon which the film is based, but without that as a comparison point, I am proud to say that this is one of the most terrifying films that I have ever seen. I thought that the runtime of the film could've been cut by a little bit, but then again, I am not one of the most acclaimed directors in the history of film, so maybe I should keep my two-cent criticisms over a superb film, to myself. All in all, this movie captures your attention with its grand form and vision, ropes you in with some terror and eccentric direction, and ties you down and stabs you in the heart with its cold-eyed view of the man's mind gone overboard, creepy atmosphere and the loss of humanity.<br /><br />Rating: 9/10 | 1 |
Two years after this short, the last "Our Gang" short was made. After seeing this, you wonder how it even lasted that much longer. The quality of "Our Gang" nosedived soon after moving from Hal Roach to MGM, and this short is a perfect example. The gags are all very unfunny and Froggy's last line of this being the happiest day of his life paints a bad picture in your mind of what it's like for him the rest of the time. A very poor example of film making. | 0 |
Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this "gem" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.<br /><br />As you may have caught Mickey Rourke "stars" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.<br /><br />Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4/10 | 0 |
I loved the story. Somewhere, a poster said there are no families like the one portrayed in this film. Well maybe there ought to be. I thought everybody seemed really human and believable. What a top notch cast. What great music on the soundtrack. What a nice this, and what a nice that, but most of all, I will say two words to recommend this film.<br /><br />Steve Carell.<br /><br />He really showed a nice, subtle depth that touched me. He was truly commanding as a widower who had dedicated himself maybe a little too much to being a good dad first, at the cost of denying his own needs.<br /><br />Did he act like a petulant ass? Why, yes he did.<br /><br />And you see, that's what was perfect about this film. The actor who played this character made me believe he was FEELING something, and not simply ACTING like he was feeling something, and he conveyed to me perfectly what it was that he was feeling, and what he was feeling was denied.<br /><br />Denied happiness.<br /><br />Denied fulfillment.<br /><br />Denied love.<br /><br />Losing your love is painful beyond belief, and many who do so will never feel something like that again.<br /><br />Beautiful film.<br /><br />I gave it an eight out of ten. | 1 |
I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.<br /><br />Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.<br /><br />They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.<br /><br />Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash. <br /><br />Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.<br /><br />Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars. | 0 |
I found this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.<br /><br />For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.<br /><br />But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.<br /><br />A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.<br /><br />There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.<br /><br />Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.<br /><br />The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well. | 0 |
Walter Matthau can always improve a mediocre film, and this movie proves it. He turns in a very realistic performance as a small-time horse trainer and single father, not sugar-coating either role.<br /><br />He can be, by turns, soft-hearted and doting, then iron-handed to his boys, and we can see the same dichotomy in his approach to horse training (we see that he doesn't want his young prospect racing horse overworked and hurt in small-time races, but he seems to be willing to risk the horse's life when he gets into the big time).<br /><br />This is just one of Matthau's wonderful performances, and one that I highly recommend. | 1 |
There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.<br /><br />"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. <br /><br />This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.<br /><br />I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!<br /><br />On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.<br /><br />Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
Sweeping and still impressive early Talkie Western of pioneering days; other contemporary films in the same vein include THE COVERED WAGON (1923), THE IRON HORSE (1924) and CIMARRON (1931) none of which I've watched, though I do have the latter on VHS. It was simultaneously filmed in the "Standard" fullscreen ratio and in an experimental Widescreen process called "Grandeur", but only the former has been released on the bare-bones Fox DVD; one can only surmise how it would look in a wider ratio, but the careful framing not to mention the splendid cinematography is evident enough even in the "Standard" version.<br /><br />Young John Wayne is surprisingly commanding in the lead (a role which, however, didn't lead to the expected stardom as he'd languish in 'B' Westerns for the best part of the next decade, before John Ford came to his rescue with STAGECOACH [1939]!); anyway, he and Marguerite Churchill (from DRACULA'S DAUGHTER [1936]) make a nice couple despite her somewhat tedious character. Supporting characters include a variety of stock types: veteran westerner, comic-relief sidekick (with a penchant for making noises with his mouth!), burly and uncouth villain (played by Tyrone Power Sr.!), his two slimy cohorts (a Mexican and a Southerner, the latter also filling in as Wayne's rival for Churchill's hand), etc. Also among the members of the wagon party is a timid Swede (full of optimism for the promised land, but who's continually put down by his irascible mother-in-law) and later Wayne regular Ward Bond.<br /><br />The episodic narrative resolves itself into a number of alternately cornball, lyrical and action-packed vignettes as we see the prospective settlers combating the elements, the Indians and themselves; the film, however, has a completely authentic feel to it which smooths over its essentially dated and static quality. Also, the editing is somewhat choppy (particularly during the second half) little wonder, since the DVD edition of the film is only 108 minutes long against the complete 158-minute "Grandeur" version! | 1 |
I just started watching The Show around July. I found it by mistake, I was channel surfing during a Vacation. It is a great show, I just wish it wasn't on so late at night. It's on at 12:30 AM. As a working person it makes it hard to watch all the time.<br /><br />I read some comments. I did not agree with the late one about not growing up in the 60's and not believing that this stuff can happen.<br /><br />I grew up in the 60's. I'm Hispanic and I had a "White" boyfriend plus we had black friends in High School. I believe people get along because of their interests and personalities and it has nothing to do with being a certain race or color.<br /><br />I can't wait till the show goes on DVD so I can buy it. This way I can see it from the beginning. | 1 |
A very moving and thought provoking film that raises issues of mental health, terminal illness and euthanasia. Sound a bit too heavy? It is a little, but this is all treated in a realistically straight forward way within a story of the changes that take place to the family who have to deal with these things. This is a positive story of facing up to life and responsibility that isn't overwhelm by the subject matter.<br /><br />Afterlife is beautifully shot and crafted film set in modern times and dealing with modern issues. It is a character driven, enthralling film with a strong cast and some very good performances.<br /><br />Unfortunate it is not the sort of film that always performs well at the box office, so catch it while you can. | 1 |
James J. Corbett, heavyweight champion of the world from 1892 to 1897, turned out to be Errol Flynn's favorite role. Possibly because he didn't have to wield a sword or be in a western. He grew tired of the swashbucklers and he said in his autobiography that he felt he was miscast in westerns and couldn't understand why people liked him in them. It is an enjoyable film, but hardly does tell the real story of James J. Corbett.<br /><br />As portrayed Corbett was the first scientific boxer to win in the heavyweight division, a man who used brains and speed more than brute strength to win. He defeated John L. Sullivan and lost to Bob Fitzsimmons the heavyweight crown. He was also a compulsive womanizer and in that was a lot like the man portraying him. Of course that was not shown on the screen. The character that Alexis Smith plays, the banker's daughter who falls for him, has no basis in reality. Corbett was in fact married twice and was flagrantly unfaithful with both of his wives.<br /><br />Also though after he lost his title and after the events of this film are concluded he suffered a great personal tragedy. His father in a moment of depression, probably over finances because he lost heavily betting on his son to beat Bob Fitzsimmons, shot his mother and then turned the gun on himself. The murder/suicide hardly squares with the happy clan that Alan Hale presided over.<br /><br />One thing though that I did like about Gentleman Jim. Ward Bond got the career role of his life in playing John L. Sullivan. Director Raoul Walsh got a great performance out of Bond as the blustering, but lovable Sullivan. Even given some of Sullivan's bad points that don't make it to the screen like rabid racism, Bond's portrayal is the quintessential John L. and the best thing about Gentleman Jim.<br /><br />Speaking of racism, one thing that should have been told was the fact that Sullivan while champion refused on grounds of race to meet Peter Jackson who was black and from Australia and probably the best heavyweight of his time. I say probably because as a challenger Corbett met him and fought him for 61 rounds to a draw. That fight more than any other created a demand for a Sullivan-Corbett title match. Of course when Corbett was champion he refused to give Jackson a title shot. Maybe he didn't want another 61 round marathon with someone who may have been better on that particular day.<br /><br />Gentleman Jim is not Jim Corbett's story, it is a movie of Errol Flynn playing at being James J. Corbett. But Corbett had he been alive in 1942 no doubt would have loved the movie and loved Flynn's portrayal of his life. It's as he would have liked to have been remembered. | 1 |
Freebird is the perfect marriage of road trip comedy, gang caper, "stoner" film and feel-good British movie.<br /><br />It is the brilliant lead characters that set this movie apart from other films in this genre. Stars Phil Daniels, Gary Stretch and Geoff Bell have a great chemistry and make their characters hugely likable and realistic. The main story centres around their road trip from London to Wales, and the adventures and mishaps that occur along the way. This small film also has a great heart - it is not just for bike fans, as it bases around the character's relationships with each other including dreams and regrets, such as Gary Stretch's Fred longing for the family he left behind. The cinematography is also great - a love letter to the Welsh countryside as well as capturing the grittiness of London streets and typical pub life in the Welsh country towns.<br /><br />Stylish, slick, fantastic soundtrack, likable characters and funny storyline - I would recommend Freebird in a heartbeat! | 1 |
Okay so i found out about this movie and I watched the preview read almost all the reviews and was having a hard time debating whether I should watch it or not. Before i even watched the movie i was emotionally weird on it. i was so unsure if i was going to watch this and be disturbed for like a long time. So i choose to risk it and watched it and heres what i thought: The beginning started off fine for me. It seemed to be heading in a decent direction. Got past the rape scene and i couldn't figure why people were so disturbed or bored by the movie. Don't get me wrong the rape scene was just as sad and scary but it didn't really bother me to a dramatic point. Then as the middle came in i understood the boring stuff that was going on. There was like 5 minutes shots of nothing but people walking around saying or showing nothing! its one thing to have a shot where a person is showing some kind of emotion but this movie didn't have that. It had about 3 of these pointless scenes, where you see the main character Maya kind of get out of control but it didn't show it right making me want to fast forward. Then when she engaged in the hardcore partying it wasn't so boring but still a little dull. Oh and as a note Rosario Dawson still did a great job. Okay moving on so finally after an hour of pointlessness to the middle the revenge comes to Maya's attention. Thats where it got disturbing. I didn't feel bad for him or nothing he got what he deserved but the whole scene was really disturbing and i just felt all eck after it. I cant really tell you whether or not to watch this movie because its so...i don't know i cant find a word to sum it up. But if you choose to watch it just don't be unsuprised. | 0 |
I look around in the video store still in shock how Steven Seagal with his track record of Bad action movies can still have 3 movies hit the shelves in less than a Year.Attack force being the 3rd no less promised the first-time entrance into the Sci Fi Genre for our ever widening Seagal.Visions of bad movie entertainment flashed before my gullible eyes.Sadly this is not the case one bit with no entertainment and a movie as bad as they come.<br /><br />Seagal rebounded a tiny bit with the Trashy-but enjoyable Shadow Man last time we saw him.However Attack force has to be his absolute worst movie ever!Don't argue for out for a Kill,Ticker,or even Black Dawn folks.This is the bottom of the Septic tank here.<br /><br />Anyone who says this is Steven Seagal's return to form should be forced to write a 100 page essay on the word Taste. <br /><br />Seagal is yet another agent/I'm a supreme bad-ass yet again named Lawson wants revenge for the killing of his Team that leads him to a nefarious plot to distribute a really bad drug to the unsuspecting public.Not to mention the dealers are not from around here.<br /><br />The whole Production from Directing to the acting is poor.Was this movie shot in the Dark?Its gotta be the most poorly lighted movie since Howling 2.The action is terrible and very badly done.<br /><br />The Producers have also unwisely decided to do what the fans hate the most:throw in stunt double after stunt double and horribly dubbed Steven Seagal.Who seems to show little enthusiasm here.Can ya blame him?<br /><br />While it has been said that Attack Force was not the movie Stevie signed on for(originally Harvester)and surely has to be better than Attack force.The post-production tampering has not made it more coherent and made Seagal look worse.I feel bad for Directer Michael Keusch and writer Joe Halpin as they are gonna be judged forever for the ill-advised production re-shoots.<br /><br />So Now This leaves Seagal in the impossible position to come up with something to atone for this mess.But after seeing how bad Attack Force has turned out do we really want him to make another movie? | 0 |
The combination of reading the Novella and viewing this film has inspired my wife and I to new levels. Recently I was pondering a statement made by the artist Thomas Kinkade in one of his inspirational books; He states: "You and I were not designed to breathe the fetid air of five o'clock traffic. Nor do I think God had banal television programs, media hype, worthless purchases, and soul pollution in mind when he created the universe..." I hadn't seen "A river runs through it" in a couple of years, but after pondering Kinkade's statement something drew me to watch the film with a spiritual eye. I watched it and saw a whole new world to the film and it inspired me to read the book (a must read). I have always been frustrated in Southern California but somehow got caught up in its materialistic society. The film really puts into perspective of how we should really experience God's creations. A combination of Macleans story and my desire to move back to the Northwest has driven me to move to Montana. I want my future kids to be able to rome the landscape, go fly-fishing with me, ride horses into nothing but open land and serene lakes set in the mountainside. A place where you seldom worry about crime. I look around SoCal and all I see is shopping malls, rude snarling people in their Mercedez Bens, miles of vehicles on congested freeways, gangs, racial turmoil on the verge of violent eruption, and everyone skeptical of each others intentions.<br /><br />Anyway the movie is very inspiring with brilliant acting and a deep story about the fragile connections of loved ones. There is a lot of deep thinking in this film. The scenery is worth seeing alone and actually helps relieve tension. You should finish this film relaxed yet full of insights to your own life. It takes a compassionate, intelligent, and spiritual person to really grasp the meaning. If you don't understand the art of cinema and how a director achieves his goals through dialogue, tone, light, colour, scenery, camera angles/movement, etc. Then this film is probably not for the crowd that thinks "The Fast and the Furious" is the greatest film. Granted it was entertaining but shallow.<br /><br />The bottom line: This film helps to realize that life is not about how much money you have or what things you posses. Rather it is about your relationships with family and friends and the experiences you share together. QUALITY NOT QAUNTITY | 1 |
In what appears an attempt to mix drama and comedy, Manuel Gomez Pereira made this film, 'Things that make life worthwhile. "It is not an original discovery, by many voice you have (quite off the pitch, by the way), but it departs somewhat from the norm in the Spanish cinema. The downside is that the elements forming the film are poorly combined, and while some points are not well developed, others are out of place. A day in the lives of two people close to the median age. It's basically what the movie Gómez Pereira. Jorge (Eduard Fernandez) is a stationary (parado) one which, despite load on your back with a drama major, seems willing to see things change. Only this explains his commitment to a minor could mean a turning point in its existence. In line with Audrey Tautou of 'Long dating' (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2004), Jorge says things like this to herself: "if I find a coin before the corner that is now going to change my luck. " Of course it finds it, begins to play 'Today could be a great day' (Hoy puede ser un gran dia)by Joan Manuel Serrat and in a few crosses on its way Hortensia (Ana Belen).She is another woman entry age, divorced and a little lonely. Take valeriana for sleeping, organizes birthday parties as an exemplary mother, said her belief in God and leads to a speed of homicidal mother. Hortensia is a woman of many contradictions in his behavior, life was going in his head driving data as "70% of people fall in love only once in a lifetime" and said although it is short of Jorge and unemployed and does not preclude the possibility that it is a "sadistic" sleeping in his shoulder in the cinema at the earliest opportunity. Later came a communion, a dance in the luxurious wedding banquet, the back of a car and other things that players seem to live unique experiences like that but end up doing quite heavy for the viewer. 'Things that make life worthwhile' debate between us is the drama of two adult persons who have no other that leads them to see where their strange relationship and, conversely, make us take the case as a comedy, focusing on things like a Chinese singing at a wedding (which seem to be amusing in itself) or the gait of a drunk person. The problem is that it does not leave us time to connect with the players, therefore we can not identify with the dramatic, and not give us a solid base comic too, leaving everything except pure joke. In the end, all mixed in a way that the viewer no longer know very well whether to laugh or mourn, and ends up not doing either. And it is true that something is not seen a thousand times, is not the kind of film that we find to bend every corner, but it is not sufficiently different or special as we want to do. Ana Belén (which apparently far less than the 53 years that has in this film) and Eduard Fernandez are two actors who are very enjoyable to see working, but this time it seems ready or comfortable enough in scenes that require him to break the calm that prevails in the film, so in moments like the "accident" with the children of the bar thing seems to be slipping from their hands. Perhaps a very dramatic change that has to do, but that is no excuse to lower our guard. In any case, both interpreters are erected easily the highlight of the function. 'Things that make life worthwhile' work only up to the modest level of entertainment. Any claim that is beyond that point has not been fulfilled, as a romantic comedy or dramatic as that, we presume, they wanted to do, can not afford to have little moments finished successful (beyond bad) as that in which one of the characters talk and laugh, lost drunk, compared to a boy who remains in a coma in part because of him. Neither do much for people like Rosario Pardo, making the typical friend launched whose biggest contribution to the film is the phrase "must be screwed over," and songs from the soundtrack, though significant, not just fit. It is true that the film by Manuel Gomez Pereira has its hits (some of the moments involving Jose Sacristan), but the whole is a anodyne Story, a film with good intentions and a nice result when the better. | 1 |
This ludicrous film offers the standard 1970's "hippie mentality" in a nut shell and bores us in the process. Its an attempt to rationalize absurd marriages of young, innocent women with old age sex fiends and wash ups. A naive young hippy played by the waif-like ( Kay Lenz ) hitch hikes and sleeps with all the wrong guys, and then one day she meets the ridiculous (Holden), already in old age, hard liquor drinking and washed up as an actor, and she decides that she is in "love" with him. If you think that is superficial, the whole film encapsulates such scenes. She keeps saying how much she "loves" him and she only met him, it wears thin and really quick. I couldn't help but laugh throughout the film. Its obvious she's just using him as a meal ticket but the director is immature enough to think we are going to buy that there is actually any love taking place. A disgusting scene is where the two are naked and having sex, I had to fast forward it because it almost inspired me to vomit. A corny offering of music from the 70's is also spread through the film. Avoid this if you can. Grade D. | 0 |
This was/is an incredible movie, with incredible cast, music, singing, story, etc. It is a tragedy that some arrogant families (the Gerswhins or Premingers) can keep it from being available to generation after generation. I have wanted to see it again all of my life. I just found this site and read why it has not been available. Shame on these families for their pettiness. My wife is from Germany and she has never seen the movie. Neither have my step-children or my grandchildren. It is very sad that a movie of this depth and quality is not available for them to see. Where do these families get off making such a conceited, self-important, egotistical, condescending decision to prohibit generations from enjoying this film, these stars, these performances, this music! Release the video and let them world judge and enjoy! | 1 |
The Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of "Hollywood conventions". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a "Hollywood cliché". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the "Hollywood convention" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet. | 0 |
Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel. | 0 |
The title got my attention and then I wondered what will come out in the plot, as we have seen so many "super-people" movies these years... and in fact, I really liked it, as there were a number of unusual funny scenes that I didn't expect. Uma Thurman performed as average in G-Girl's role. Surprisingly, I was again able to watch her toes in wide screen (like in the beginning of Kill Bill). Luke Wilson however played very well the idiot everyday guy who meets the big woman, I could really get into his situation. If you want a light touch of fun, you should definitely watch G-Girl's and average Matt's adventures, especially to cheer up your partner. 7/10 in my collection. | 1 |
The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease. | 0 |
Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had. <br /><br />The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything. <br /><br />Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.<br /><br />4 out of 10. Barely | 0 |
This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.<br /><br />At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.<br /><br />Awful | 0 |
Yes, it feels, and for the most part plays like an "after school special", for a slightly more adult audience, alright maybe a teen audience. But add in Bill Murray (already showing some dramatic as well as his usual comedic talent), a nice supporting cast, and an unexpected sweetness about growing up, and remembering those great, or not so great days at summer camp, and you get a heartwarming, funny, sleeper hit.<br /><br />It does get a little too smarmy for its own good, but that is also one of its charms. When you hear the title "Meatballs", and see the poster, you expect a teenage sex romp, but what you get is a sentamental, yet sometimes sexy look back at those formative years at summer camp. The sentamentality, and the remberances of simpler times reminds me of "A Christmas Story", which I also love. The rememberances of summer camp were never so well stated. The only movie I've seen that comes close, is "Indian Summer", which I like almost as much as "Meatballs", and also stars Matt Craven. Let's hope he completes the trilogy. Maybe he could come back for "Return of the Meatballs", and bring some dignity back to the franchise (Meatballs 2 through 4 bare no resemblence to the original classic).<br /><br />"Meatballs" is easily on my Top 10 Guilty Pleasures of all time (not really guilty either). It's a wonderful little film, that always makes me smile. | 1 |
I must say that this has to be the best documentary I have ever seen in my life. I first say the movie at my friends house, and didn't get a chance to finish watching it. From that point on, I spent my free time trying to find the movie. I never found it, but on my birthday, my friend who knew I had the hardest time finding the movie,got it for me as present. Sean Penn does a great job of narrating the documentary. I loved how it told the story of each of the Z-Boys and the history of Dogtown. I have been to Venice and the surrounding area many times, and had never known what had taken place, until I saw the documentary. I didn't get a chance to see the actual movie, and I heard it was nowhere near what the documentary was. I don't know if I actually want to see the movie, but who knows. | 1 |
Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.<br /><br />No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. <br /><br />Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.<br /><br />Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.<br /><br />Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?<br /><br />It gets a "7" based on Karen Black. You'll see why. | 1 |
Altioklar: Master of the thieves. <br /><br />Watch some movie, steal some parts of them, write a script... It must be very easy to be a director in Turkey. I think Altioklar watched "Identity (2003)", "Saw (2004)", a few series which is about crime, murder etc. then he said "Eureka, eureka"(i have found it!) after that he wrote the script of the movie.<br /><br />You can guess the murderer at the beginning of the movie. It took only 10 minutes for me. He shouted "I'm the murderer, i'm the murderer.". There is no mystery. <br /><br />Tamer Karadagli is same(sux). Exaggerated mimics, funny macho man. <br /><br />There is only one good thing in the movie. The performance of Demet Evgar is very good. You may see the movie just for that. | 0 |
First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor. | 1 |
This movie must be exported to the rest of the world! An absolute masterpiece, with a both bizarre and grim film about four different stories from four different locations in Sweden. The one with the newly renovated hotel with the improper wooden figure of an old finance minister is absolutely the best of the four, odd story about love or career. I would love to see all four as a film on their own they can be so much more extended. <br /><br />Also the unique pause in the middle is something I've never seen before.<br /><br />Can't wait for the series (if they're doing one) or the extended DVD. Apparently they had cut out a lot to fit it in to just 3,5 hours. | 1 |
The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic. | 0 |
It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis Armstrong from that film. <br /><br />Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist Hoops and company in their goals to win the race. <br /><br />Memorable scenes include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1 million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse, the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in. Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College. | 1 |
I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").<br /><br />I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.<br /><br />This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out! | 1 |
This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust. | 0 |
My brain was screaming "why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.<br /><br />I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.<br /><br />It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed. | 0 |
This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.<br /><br />This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!<br /><br />This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.