text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
Like most people out there who have watched James Bond 007 movies. Most people NEVER knew that Thunderball was originally the FIRST 007 Movie to be released, but after Ian Fleming, wrote the story with kevin mcclory and jack whittingham. The 2 other authors took Ian Fleming to court and WON THE CASE providing evidence that ian fleming took the ideas of SPECTRE(Special Executive In CounterIntelligence Terrorism Revenge Extortion). So rather than making Thunderball they(fleming,broccoli,saltzman) went on to make Dr NO.<br /><br />This movie had the best of the best, From getting sean connery to come back one more time, he was paid over 5,000,000 for NSNA. Irvin Kershner and Sean Connery had problems on the set, that much is true. But overall this movie was up there i think with(Thunderball, Licence To Kill, Dr No) those are my favorite from the bond series. David Dryer was hired for Special Photographic Effects, he was working at the time on Bladerunner beFORE NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. The 100 million dollar yacht makes the disco volante, look like a canoe. This movie starred the best Villian in a bond movie just behind dr no. Klaus Maria Brandeau held together this neurotic business like calm manner, with a little wit to his authority over bond. Barbara Carrera was excellent as fatima blush.<br /><br />The Music was better than every score that didnt contain John Barry doing the backround score music in most bond films. Michel Legrand is not big in the usa compared to over in europe, he has played with miles davis and many other GREAT jazz musicians over the years. Its a little bland at times but the 007 theme that happens around 3 or 4 times in the Movie NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN IS so Cool, i like it more than the original.<br /><br />007 is back One More Time<br /><br />Timothy Dalton explained it right i thought, YOU CANT RELATE TO A SUPERMAN OR A SUPERHERO, he or she has to be human and have feelings. He was by far the BEST SERIOUS TRUE TO FLEMINGS VERSION OF BOND. But Sean Connery proves he can still do the role that made him and others to follow, i bet at 75 now he could still pull off a villian role in a MCCLORY 007 movie if one ever surfaces.<br /><br /> | 1 |
What's fun about Barker's Nightbreed is that it's the story of a human on a rampage, a deadly threat to monsters everywhere. In this one, the monsters (the night breed of the title) are the "good" guys. It shares its sense of celebrating the different, the twisted, and the dark with the first Addams Family movie, and much of Tim Burton's work. It also has the goriness that one expects from a piece by Barker.<br /><br />Especially fun is the performance by Cronenberg as the truly evil human doctor who is bent on destroying the Nightbreed. As happens in most classic monster movies, the villagers surround the monsters' castle with torches and pitchforks. Only this time, the modern setting replaces the castle with an old mausoleum and the rustic "weapons" with guns and bombs. And this time the sympathy you felt when you saw Frankenstein's monster burned in the windmill is the very center of the movie.<br /><br />This isn't a masterpiece, and even Barker has done more interesting, and certainly more chilling, work. But it's pure fun, it looks great, and remains light without mocking itself. Worth a look! | 1 |
Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.<br /><br />This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap. | 0 |
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.<br /><br />Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.<br /><br />Incredible. | 0 |
As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).<br /><br />I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf. | 0 |
There have been "race" pictures almost from the beginnings of the movie business. Films starring almost entirely black casts have been made by segregated Poverty Row studios (more often than not owned by Caucasians) for ghetto theaters. With the growing urban blight during the 1970s, this idea was revived with a wave of "blaxploitation" pictures made for urban grind houses which overlaid black actors and funky atmosphere over traditional B- movie plots. This trend even spread into horror features, with titles like Blacula, Blackenstein and Sugar Hill serving up blaxploitation versions of monster standards. And it didn't die with the closing of most urban theaters it just slowly eased into the video age, and continues with low budget direct-to-DVD releases like this one. Ed and Jose Quiroz's Hood of the Living Dead, adopts the recent popularity of horror movies for the hip-hop audience. Ricky (Carl Washington) is a young scientist in Oakland trying to keep his younger brother Jermaine (Brandon Daniels) out of trouble after the death of their parents. After Jermaine is shot by drug dealers in a drive-by, Ricky decides to use the experimental cell regenerating formula he's been working on in an attempt to save the teen's life. Apparently his efforts are for naught, and Jermaine's body is taken away. However, the body never makes it to the morgue Jermaine re-animates in the coroner's van as a flesh-hungry zombie. He kills the drivers, then goes after the gang that killed him, spreading the zombie infection wherever he goes. Having heard from Jermaine's friends Kevin (Derek Taylor II) and Marco (Raul Martinez) about the attack on the gangsters, Ricky feels that the only thing to do is to capture Jermaine and try to cover up the whole matter before he and his accomplice Scott (Chris Angelo) get arrested for the mayhem they've caused. However, they soon find that the contagion is spreading too fast for them to control it. By keeping things simple, the Quiroz team manages to produce an entertaining little horror feature without overextending themselves to the point where things start to look shoddy. Along the way, they also add in a few interesting bits of business. When first confronted with a zombie, Scott tells Ricky, "Shoot him in the head like in the movies!" an effective as any way to discover how to kill zombies. An extra twist is added when the first head shot doesn't kill the brain, adding to viewer unease. Another good point is that the soundtrack makes only limited use of sub-Eminem style rap, laying in standard "creepy" music throughout. | 1 |
(WARNING: SPOILERS!)<br /><br />Five young people ignore the warnings of forest ranger George Kennedy and hike up to the misty Oregon mountains where they are stalked and butchered by a pair of huge, deformed, in-bred hillbilly twins. When only two are left, Warren and his girl Connie, they resort back to their animal instincts to stay alive. The film ends with Connie shoving half of her arm down one of the killers' throats, choking him to death. A very powerful, if somewhat overrated, backwoods slasher flick thats effective use of lighting, sound and photography make it a cut above the usual FRIDAY THE 13TH cash-in. Lead by an attractive, likeable cast, especially Deborah Benson (where is she now?) and Gregg Henry, this nifty companion piece to director Jeff Lieberman's SQUIRM (1976) and BLUE SUNSHINE (1977) shouldn't be missed. | 1 |
I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards. | 0 |
...but it's certainly not without merit. Already writer-director Preston Sturges is experimenting with unusual cinematic effects in telling his stories, creating broadly drawn yet distinctive characters and situations, and writing clever and sometimes unexpectedly wise and compassionate dialogue. (No wonder the Coen brothers' next movie is going to be an homage to Sturges.)<br /><br />The major problem is that the plot's not all the way there yet; it lacks surprise, the unexpected plot twists and sudden changes of fortune that keep viewers guessing. The coffee slogan is a lousy thing to hang the plot upon, and the ending is thoroughly predictable. Frank Capra does this sort of thing much better.<br /><br />If you're new to Preston Sturges, check out "The Lady Eve" or "Sullivan's Travels" or "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" first. If you've seen these already, then go ahead and watch this one. | 0 |
What a joy to watch this family grow up and see the same children acting in this series eight years later. Anna (Lexi Randall) is a beautiful young lady, working for a physician in town. She is in love with his son Justin, who went away in the army and was injured in war. And the newest daughter of Jacob and Sarah, Cassie, is an outspoken cutie, so transparently honest she often is embarrassing.<br /><br />On a cold winter day a stranger shows up at the farm. He is slow to reveal his identity. When they find out he is Jacobs father, John Witting, thought long ago dead, hard questions about the past are difficult to get answered.<br /><br />Glenn Close is magnificent as a loving mother, who wants only the best for all her family, and is constantly wrestling with the forces that tend to separate them. Sarah talking to Jacob said, "It's all so fragile, this life. Anything can happen in the blink of an eye. I could have died in that blizzard. Think of Justin, and John. probably more ill than we know. Time moves on. The moment passes, then it's too late. It's a shame, don't you think?"<br /><br />Life lessons on honesty and forgiveness make this a meaningful evenings entertainment. | 1 |
Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.<br /><br />It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with "it sucked". (And when asked "Why?", they respond, "Just because." Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, "There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!".<br /><br />This movie is absolutely appalling.<br /><br />While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible "special effects". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.<br /><br />This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good "check your brain at the door" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even "Hard Ticket To Hawaii" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.<br /><br />NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.<br /><br />I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10! | 0 |
Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten. | 1 |
The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.<br /><br />First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.<br /><br />Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.<br /><br />This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.<br /><br />Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.<br /><br />Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces. | 1 |
Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.<br /><br />The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made. | 0 |
The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best. | 0 |
i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so low when the votes were so high <br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap. | 0 |
I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.<br /><br />This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.<br /><br />One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.<br /><br />What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.<br /><br />The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans? | 1 |
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare starts as dream demon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) leaves a teenager (Shon Greenblatt) on the outskirt's of Springwood with no memory of himself, who he is or why he is there. The local police pick him up & take him to a youth centre where child psychiatrist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) interviews him, she finds a newspaper cutting in his pocket which leads the two to Elm Street in Springwood where they discover that no children live there & therefore no victims for Freddy kill anyone. It all turns out that it's an elaborate plan by Freddy to find his daughter & use her to escape Springwood. When Maggie realises what Freddy is up to her & some kids decide they have to kill Freddy once & for all...<br /><br />Directed by Rachel Talalay this was made with the intention of being the final A Nightmare on Elm Street film which by this time had reached five, of course as any horror film fan know's if there's still money to be made from a franchise or a character then there's no way in hell Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was going to be the last one which, of course, it wasn't. The A Nightmare on Elm Street series has been a franchise of diminishing returns as the films dropped in quality as the series progressed until we got here & Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which for my money is probably the worst out of the lot of them. The film moves at a reasonable pace & it's rarely boring but it's so silly, childish & feels like some sort of live-action cartoon with some awful set-piece horror scenes that seem a million miles from Wes Craven's suspenseful & effective early 80's original. The sequence where stoner Spencer is trapped inside a video game being played by Freddy is terrible on it's own but then we are treated to shots of his body back in reality bouncing around the house from wall to wall & floor to ceiling which is quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while, or maybe the early scenes when the John Doe kid falls from a plane down to the ground just like the Coyote cartoon character in the Road Runner cartoons or the absurd sight of Freddy threatening the deaf Carlos with pins that he intends to drop to the floor to make a loud noise or when he eventually kills him by scraping his knives across a blackboard. You can't take this seriously & I was just sitting there not quite believing what I was seeing. When they do finally try to kill Freddy the hero is given a secret powerful special weapon, yeah that's right a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses! The character's are poor, the dialogue is poor & the plot is confusing, it doesn't really stick to the Elm Street continuity & overall the film is a bit of a mess, the best thing I can say about it is that it has quite a bit of unintentional humour & you can certainly laugh at it.<br /><br />The film has major tonal problems as it tries to be dark, scary & sinister yet it's so silly & simply looks ridiculous at times that any attempt at being serious falls completely flat. There's not much gore in this one, there's some cut off fingers, some stabbings, someone falls on a bed of nails & that's about it. The body count is extremely low here with only three death's. The final twenty or so minutes of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was in fact shot in 3-D although the version I saw presented this part as normal so I can't comment on how well this does or doesn't work but you can definitely see shots which are meant to be seen in 3-D which take advantage of the process. The special effects vary, some are quite good actually while other's are terrible & Freddy's burnt make-up this time looks quite poor.<br /><br />This apparently had a budget of about $5,000,000 (it had an opening weekend box-office take of $12,000,000) & the film has a few nice visual touches & gags which makes the thing feel even more cartoony than it already is. The acting is really poor from the main leads although there are a few odd cameos including Tom Arnold & Roseanne, Johnny Depp & rocker Alice Cooper.<br /><br />Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is probably the worst of the entire series & apart from some unintentional laugh value there's not much here to recommend or enjoy. Fans of the series will probably like it & defend it but for me this is about as far from Wes Craven's original classic shocker as it gets. Followed by New Nightmare (1994) which tried to take Freddy Krueger & the series in a new & different direction. | 0 |
total crap.<br /><br />I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves. | 0 |
This was among the STUPIDEST and PREACHIEST of the anti-nuke films out of the 1980s.<br /><br />The idea that a kid and a basketball star could "change the world" is pretty far-fetched, given how many "children's peace marches" and "celebrity protests" there were and ARE.<br /><br />But the idea that the Soviet Union would agree to a TOTAL nuclear disarmament, because some apparatchik kids learned of a "silent protest" in the West, is ludicrous.<br /><br />What ended the Cold War? America's tough, dare I say "Reaganesque" stance and the internal failures of socialism. It was NOT the peace marches, the "die-ins" or films like "Amazing Grace & Chuck", "Miracle Mile", or "Testament". | 0 |
I first saw this movie in a queer film festival. 10 minutes after the movie ended a gay couple walked up to me and asked me whether I needed help - I was still sitting, crying like a maniac. The movie is cheesy, it's bizarre, it's over the top, it's gay - but it is amazing. I do think that every character is plausible. Everett's character is mean to a woman who only tries to help, he brutally throws his (terrible) friends out, he does have a temper, he can harm a fly, the "fly" that killed the love of his life, doubly so. Bates is a miracle, she is perfect, just like a role. A woman whose love and admiration is so strong that she even loves the homosexual lover of her idol is to me the essence of true love. I even understand Max (the husband), he is bored with his life, he's got a midlife crisis. He moves out, tries to lead an exciting life, only to realise a) that he's the really boring part in the relationship and b) that he loves his wife. I love the fact that she comes back to him in the end because I think that it gives the film the right balance between dream and reality. For in the end he's her husband and he might not be as exciting as Victor but he's real, he is the man she loves in a very down to earth way. I've watched it about 50 times and I do love this film, everything about it unconditionally. BTW, just read Rupert Everett's autobiography and UL is the only film that he talks of as one of the best films he ever made. To me it's the best film he ever made. | 1 |
DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least. | 0 |
This is the kind of movie that's so extremely bad that you cant stop watching it because you keep telling yourself that 'it cannot continue to be this crappy all the way to the end. It just cant'. You know, 'worse than Jaws 4'-kind of bad.<br /><br />I honestly think I've only seen ONE movie that was worse than this, and then we're talking religious crap about how you'd end up in hell for lying or watching football.<br /><br />Gore? Indeed and lots of it. Well made gore? No way.<br /><br />The acting is beyond bad and all the lines are lousy clichés. Same goes for the storyline which only really consist of sex, blood and violence, like so many other gore movies.<br /><br />If you're hoping for a mix between Ichi the Killer and August Underground
keep looking. You wont find it in Live Feed. | 0 |
this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep. | 0 |
Kubrick again puts on display his stunning ability to craft a perfect ambiance for a film. Mainly through cinematography, but also using an ingenious score, he creates a chilling and ominous tone that resides over the entire film and thoroughly gets my spine tingling from the start. It really is this flawless ambiance that makes The Shining the masterpiece that it is, in my eyes. Of course it doesn't hurt that Jack Nicholson gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. A frighteningly authentic portrayal of a mind gone mad. Duvall and Lloyd are artificial, to be nice, but it's easy to look past those two when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Plus it features the actor with the greatest name of all time (Scatman Crothers). | 1 |
The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.<br /><br />Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.<br /><br />A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.<br /><br />I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.<br /><br />The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.<br /><br />The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel. | 0 |
I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.<br /><br />The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?<br /><br />The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!<br /><br />Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable. | 0 |
After putting a mummy in a local museum goes through the cat-scan, a metal object in it's brain reacts adversely to the procedure, thus freeing the spirit,or phantom if you will, of the mummy, Belphegor. Due to convenient circumstances, Lisa, who lives close to the museum finds herself possessed by the evil spirit. Soon enough she's stealing the museum's Egyptian treasures out from under their nose. Detective Verlac comes out of retirement to catch the supernatural thief.<br /><br />This is a serviceable enough, if you haven't seen any other incarnations of "Belphégor" before. If you have, I recommend skipping this particular version as it can't help but pale in comparison to the others despite the nice locals and scenery.It plays out like a (slightly) higher budgeted Sci-Fi Original film, and I don't really mean that as a compliment.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Sophie Marceau shows ass & side boob <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />DVD Extras: none | 0 |
All right, let's be realistic about this. Nobody goes into a movie produced by WWE Films (whose owner has challenged God to a wrestling match), directed by a former porn director (the man gave the world the Between the Cheeks trilogy), starring a wrestler named Kane, and expects a little slice of art on a golden platter. If you do then you probably need to find something other than watching movies to occupy your time.<br /><br />So what exactly are we to expect from a movie like this? Well, here's what I was looking forward to:<br /><br />1) Bad acting. 2) A fairly non-existent, clichéd storyline. 3) Kane walking around with a scrunched, sour face that indicates his nostrils just found the potato salad he misplaced a month ago. 4) Tons and tons of gore. <br /><br />Well, if you're hungry for some "so bad it's funny" entertainment then this might satisfy your appetite because it delivers on all counts.<br /><br />Obviously, movies like this are best seen for free, but if you do choose to sacrifice box office bucks then have some fun and make a game out of it. The filmmakers are nice enough to introduce us to each of the annoying delinquents by flashing their names and legal offenses on the screen. This makes it easier for you to write down which ones you want to see killed and in what order. You and your friends can see whose predictions are most accurate.<br /><br />I also suggest that you and your pals write down every single moment of stupidity and inanity that you can find. Tally them up at the end and see who comes up with the most. I think my grand total was 107; can you beat that? I personally want to know how after 35 years and a fire does this abandoned hotel still have electricity, running water, and a working elevator?<br /><br />I know, I know, the filmmakers are assuming that if you pay to see this then you obviously don't put much thought into what you spend your money on and therefore likely won't put much thought into how silly the movie is, but that doesn't mean we can't point it out and laugh at it.<br /><br />I also like how the city wants to turn this huge hotel (which would be condemned and recommended for demolition by any sensible inspector) into a homeless shelter and they think the best way to get it cleaned up is to give eight punks a few mops and brooms. Uh-huh.<br /><br />I think you pretty much know what to expect, but I feel the need to provide you with a couple of warnings. First, if you hate crowd interaction no matter the movie then you might want to stay away. The people in the audience acted like they were at an actual wrestling show. Shouts of "Kill him, Kane!" and "I hope you die first!" and "Chokeslam!" echoed through the theater, showcasing what I hope is NOT the best of what America has to offer. I usually don't appreciate such audience interaction, but for a cheesefest like this I thought the commentary added to the entertainment value. However, I can see how others could be annoyed by it.<br /><br />Second, and this shouldn't even warrant explanation, the film doesn't shy away from the gore. If watching a big ugly dude rip eyeballs right out of their sockets doesn't scream "fun night at the movies!" for ya then you know good and well to save your dough.<br /><br />I must say that I was a little surprised by the extreme lack of dialogue on Kane's part. I wasn't expecting him to put on an acting clinic, but I was hoping he'd have some cute little catchphrase like "Say goodnight" (his character's last name is "Goodnight") right before he killed a victim. Instead he uttered four words in the entire film - "Nooooooo!" and "I see it." But hey, he delivered them flawlessly!<br /><br />If I were a bad guy in a movie then my catchphrase would be something like "Place your BETTS!" or "All BETTS are off!" <br /><br />It'd rule and you know it. We need a new genre term for bad horror films like See No Evil that induce so much unintentional laughter that you almost have to label them comedic. Feel free to send me your suggestions. For now we'll just call 'em HOR-larious! | 0 |
Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.<br /><br />Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.<br /><br />So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!<br /><br />The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.<br /><br />I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!<br /><br />~*~CupidGrl~*~ | 1 |
Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.<br /><br />Although Loretta Young is the lead, the outstanding performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.<br /><br />Interestingly, unlike most movie of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, but it's quite a charming little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's highly recommended viewing when it does show up. | 1 |
Justine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy. | 0 |
I see a lot of folks on this site wishing AG would come out on DVD. Well, I bought it on DVD. (From Borders, no less!) While it is great to have this terrific show in a boxed DVD form, I am upset by the fact that they added very few in the way of "extra's" (A director commentary from Shaun Cassidy on the Pilot episode) and the episodes are shown in the same order they were put out on TV. The missing episodes that were never shown prior to being run on Sci Fi channel are in the box set, but are tacked on the final DVD. If you buy the DVD set, get the actual order they are to be viewed and you will be happier. (You will need to swap DVD's in and out of your player to see them in order, but you will be glad you did.)<br /><br />S | 1 |
If a more masterful adaptation than this one even existed, you need not look for it; you will find all and more in this near-perfect presentation of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.<br /><br />Rarely have I seen a film that would urge me to read the novel on which it was based, but I admit to that here. Although I have not read Jane Eyre, I am convinced that I have missed very little in the way of dialogue and plot or of intensity and emotion. I only wish to explore the novel due to the immense curiosity and emotion that this masterpiece has stirred within me.<br /><br />I need not divulge anything in the way of plot here. Let me just say this: if you are perhaps unsure as to whether you should watch or read the beautiful story that is Jane Eyre, I implore you to doubt no more! Every atom of might and magic that has reared Jane Eyre as a popular classic of English literature has successfully been captured in this film.<br /><br />What Brontë did not bring herself, Clarke and Dalton managed to translate in the limelight with stupendous intensity. The movie's success is, no doubt, due in no small part to their acting prowess.<br /><br />Love Jane Eyre or hate her, but appreciate the richness, the vitality, the truth of the story; love the characters; love the actors; all just as you would love what is great in cinema. | 1 |
I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think "Kettle of Fish" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen. | 0 |
An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity. | 0 |
Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA! | 1 |
i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.<br /><br />I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.<br /><br />As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO | 0 |
If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0) | 1 |
Warner Bros. made many potboilers in the 1930s and most of them are fast paced, economical and very entertaining. I really love how the studio exploited the less glamorous elements of our daily life. This is one of Warner's few hard-edged melodramas that simply doesn't work. Edward G. Robinson plays a ruthless editor of newspaper who resurrects the 20-year old story of a murderess with tragic consequences. Robinson gives a lively performance but he is surrounded by actors that don't cut the mustard. H.B. Warner, Aline MacMahon and Boris Karloff are good, but the bad acting of Frances Starr and Anthony Bushell in the second leads really hurts the movie. Starr is particularly bad during her big dramatic scene near the end of the movie. In addition, the moralistic tone of the film seems ridiculous in the context of pre-code Hollywood. LeRoy's direction is full of innovative visual touches but he cannot overcome the bad acting and the unintentionally funny situations. Sol Polito's camera work is strong. Somehow, this piece of dreck got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (in a year that gave us "M," "Dracula" and "Frankenstein"). | 0 |
This movie was nothing like the book. <br /><br />Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.<br /><br />This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.<br /><br />I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.<br /><br />Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is. | 0 |
Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.<br /><br />This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked." | 1 |
Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are "Three Smart Girls" in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called "Precious" (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.<br /><br />This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful "Il Bacio" in a police station.<br /><br />One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.<br /><br />Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.<br /><br />Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna. | 1 |
Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans. | 0 |
Having only seen five episodes of the show before this, (I've been watching the repeats on BBC Two) I haven't really had much experience of the League, but as a fledgling fan as well as a massive fan of British comedy, I can say this film is hilarious. Seeing Herr Lipp, (who I had not seen on screen before the film) Briss and Geoff on the big screen was a great comedy experience. Being on screen is something that the League take full advantage of, with heads blowing up, (it'll come as a surprise who it is) and gruesome murders with random Middle Ages style battles all the way.<br /><br />Geoff is easily the funniest character of the three protagonists in this film, because he has the best one liners and overall behaviour, just like in the series. One of my only disappointments with the film was not hearing Geoff shout "Well now I've got this gun" even once, (even though there is a build-up to it in one part of the film.) The film itself overall is, to use the phrase everyone else does, Pythonesque and it's very reminiscent of films like "Life of Brian." Appearances from Tubbs and Edward were welcome, but Papa Lazarou's line "Hello Daves" cracked me up more than anything said by them, (Lazarou's probably my favourite Vasey character after Tubbs and Edward.) It's got quite a poignant ending with one of the main character being killed off and I can only hope this is not the League's last on-screen Vasey venture. With Gatiss mentioning the possibility of another series or film, I'm now very excited. This is a film I will see again, partly because the projector died towards the end, leaving out 10 minutes or so of the film, but mainly because it's inventive and hilarious. I'm not really bothered if it's not as good as the TV series, because I loved it.<br /><br />One thing though, if you've never seen the League, you'll still love it, but Dave knows what you'll think about the people who make this stuff up. As Tubbs or Edward might put it, it's a local film, for local people, and a precious thing at that.<br /><br />**** out of ***** (4/5) | 1 |
Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.<br /><br />In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there. | 1 |
A rich experience is to be gained from watching this film.<br /><br />This is a seemingly simple story of a gifted pupil, Yiu Kwok, who later becomes a teacher of classical Chinese poetry. He is married with two sons, and things at home seem normal. He still loves his wife after twenty years of marriage, and his sons alternately fill him with pride (the elder one) and disappointment (the younger one).<br /><br />His passion for the poetry makes him an object of infatuation for a senior student in one of his classes. The student, Choi Lam, draws pictures of him during class, significantly, one of him with a flower coming from his mouth. She teases him more with her intelligence than her sexuality, although that too is an element. He of course is not immune to her attention, though he tries for a while to keep the demarcation line between teacher and student in place.<br /><br />The reason why he doesn't succeed in the end is complicated. Firstly there is a real depth to the communication between him and Choi Lam. It becomes clear that she genuinely likes him, and it's mutual. Secondly, there is a long-standing problem in his marriage that is brought to light when an old friend of both his and his wife becomes ill. The consequences of the wife's involvement with this friend, both past and present, are almost too sad to bear.<br /><br />Nothing is treated trivially in this film. All the characters have a vivid internal life, and an easily discernible history. The two leads, Jacky Cheung and Anita Mui, are outstanding, as are Karena Lam as the student Choi Lam, and Shaun Tam as the elder son On Yin.<br /><br />Recommended without reservation. | 1 |
The short that starts this film is the true footage of a guy named Gary, apparently it was taken randomly in the parking lot of a television station where Gary works in the town of Beaver. Gary is a little "different"; he is an impersonator and drives an old Chevy named Farrah (after Fawcett). Lo and behold the filmmaker gets a letter from Gary some time later inviting him to return to Beaver to get some footage of the local talent contest he has put together, including Gary's staggering performace as Olivia Newton Dawn. Oh, my. The two shorts that follow are Gary's story, the same one you just witnessed only the first is portrayed by Sean Penn and the second by Crispin Glover titled "The Orkly Kid." If you are in the mood for making fun of someone this is definitely the film to watch. I was doubled over with laughter through most of it, especially Crispins performance which could definitely stand on it's own. When it was over, I had to rewind the film to once again watch the real Gary and all his shining idiocy. Although Olivia was the focus, I would have liked to have seen one of the "fictitious" shorts take a jab at Gary's Barry Manilow impersonation, whic h was equally ridiculous. | 1 |
Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.<br /><br />First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.<br /><br />First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.<br /><br />A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.<br /><br />So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie. | 0 |
Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.<br /><br />The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.<br /><br />The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.<br /><br />Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century. | 1 |
Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said | 0 |
I know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing. | 0 |
This movie is available as a special "bonus" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.<br /><br />Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.<br /><br />The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.<br /><br />Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be "forced entry." If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.<br /><br />The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.<br /><br />Dreadful. | 0 |
I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization. | 0 |
Some thirty years ago, Author Numa Sadoul published a book length interview with the Belgian comic book artist Georges Remi (better known as Herge, the creator of Tintin). This movie catches up with Sadoul today as he recalls the interview, while we listen to the cassettes (Herge died in 1983) and see some old photos and footage of the man himself. Some parts of the interview were not published in the book at the request of Herge, and we now know these dealt with his separation from his wife, after he had an affair with one of his collaborators (who years later would become his second wife). An interesting thing the movie does not address well is the shift in the Tintin books from the early rightist and imperialist books (Tintin in the Congo, Tintin in the lands of the Soviets) to fairly anti-imperialist books just a few years later (The Blue Lotus). On the whole, I come out of this movie knowing a few more things about Herge and seeing him as a bit more unlikable than when I come in to the theater. | 1 |
This movie kinda let me down. It seemed a lot like the movie Jaws when the Hopper was telling the Mayor to close parks was like when Roy Shider was telling the Mayor to close the beaches. They both said no way its summer! But the box says Hopper has to get into the mind of a killer and think like one. But he really doesn't do anything too interesting or exciting. I'm not even a little convinced he and his partner have any experience doing police work when they are in the office wondering how they are gonna solve this case. They just say lets do police work and we'll solve it. And whats up with all the old men with pool cues. I didn't even begin to believe that they were mob bosses. And then the guy who was doubting the guy the mob picked to handle finding the killer. With his hundred dollar haircut and that he thinks his Di@k is the size of a schoolbus. Come on what cruddy lines. I thought he was gonna hit him with a baseball bat like in the other movies. I got this movie used and wouldn't buy it new. I suggest you skip this movie. Oh and it was funny seeing the microphone above the scene where hopper is going out to get coffee. | 0 |
This is a good enough movie and you probably won't be disappointed, but it again has Roy Scheider, right after he did "French Connection", playing a cop with the name 'Buddy'. They also use the same too-memorable wheelman from "Bullitt". At first you'll think you've seen the car chase before if you have his face still in your memory. The car chase is a great one, but as in many car movie scenes, it has some technical and editing errors. Check "Puppet on a Chain" and "French Connection II" for some other good, long, intense chases. | 1 |
I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".<br /><br />I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.<br /><br />So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.<br /><br />Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.<br /><br />The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.<br /><br />(Rhetorical pause.)<br /><br />In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP." | 0 |
I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.<br /><br />This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.<br /><br />Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less. | 0 |
While "The Jackal" [remake of the excellent "Day of the Jackal"] has better esthetics [and a boatload budget], this film nails the actual persona of "Carlos" down...<br /><br />Quinn excels as the Naval officer enlisted to impersonate the wiley Jackal to draw him out of hiding and, at the hands of Kingsley and Sutherland, turns himself inside out to do so. Risking his family, his career and all that he believes in, he takes on the task, albeit utterly unwillingly.<br /><br />To say more would spoil it... this is an excellent film.<br /><br />3 1/2 Niro~Stars [of 4] | 1 |
I just saw DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!<br /><br />Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the "rise to the top" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.<br /><br />Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people "singing" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big "love me" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!<br /><br />AND note to all involved--that "sing-talking dialog" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that "I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't "songs."<br /><br />Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release "one to beat" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype! | 0 |
Though I can't claim to be a comic book fanatic, I have read my share, so I guess I'm part of the audience of this film, and I wasn't disappointed. It does run out of steam near the end, it's almost overflowing with ideas, and it seems like Lena Olin, one of my favorite actresses, was left on the cutting room floor. Also, a little of Hank Azaria's Blue Raja can go a long way. Still, it's easy to forgive all of these faults when you have a film which is this much fun. All the actors seem to be having a blast with their roles, especially William H. Macy as the straight-arrow Shoveler, and Janeane Garofalo as The Bowler. And unlike some, I found the design of the city to make the joke even funnier. I also liked how disco was the music of choice of the bad guys; somehow, it seemed appropriate. | 1 |
And I don't say it in a bad way.<br /><br />I watched this movie at the cinema when I was 6 or 7. For me and my cousins it was magical, beautiful and scary at the same time. When we left the theatre, Michael was our best friend even though we knew he had no idea about it.<br /><br />Over the years, I saw this movie being aired a few times but I always changed the channel. Even seeing a few seconds of it would bring back that feeling of magic and warm my heart. And I liked it that way.<br /><br />So I've only seen this movie once and I believe it was a good decision not to watch it again. If I saw it today, I know I couldn't help but criticise MJ's acting, the plot (if there was one) and this and that. For me this is a childhood memory, so my feelings towards it are those of a child from 20 years ago.<br /><br />I see my adult self intervenes in my rating and gives it an 8 for the memories and wonderful music. For that little kid who watched it in awe 20 years ago though, this is definitely worthy of a 10. | 1 |
Julie Waters is outstanding and Adrian Pasdar a revelation in a very warm, very real, and extraordinarily entertaining look at the complications gender dysphoria and transvestism cause in a young executive's life. At the heart of this movie is the very real truth that you must accept yourself before you can hope for others to accept you. | 1 |
An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did. | 1 |
If you like me is going to see this in a film history class or something like that at your school, try to convince your teacher to see something else. believe me, anything is better than this movie. it is slow paced, confusing, boring, poorly constructed, gory, gringy, do I need to go on? It's message is good, but I have seen them been handled better in several other films. The acting isn't even any good. This movie is just even more awkward, as it start off as being funny (not intensional though)because of it's surreal story, than at the end, just becomes uncomfortable to watch.<br /><br />I honestly feel like 1 hour and 40 minutes of my life has been robbed. Why would anyone want to watch a girls describe a threesome for 10 minutes, than watch them drive through a traffic jam for 20 minutes, listen to a hippie who can make sheep appear, witness a sort of rape, than see the female lead role eat her husband.<br /><br />Honestly this movie deserves nothing but a 1/10. And if your not happy with my preview,seriously I'm an open minded guy and I like movies that protest through symbolism, but this movie was just awful. make any excuse you can, to avoid this film. | 0 |
This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.<br /><br />The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.<br /><br />Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'<br /><br />From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.<br /><br />The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.<br /><br />The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.<br /><br />Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption. | 0 |
<br /><br />This is the best mock documentary of a dog show that I have seen in a long time. A very long time. Well lets face it,ever. Isn't that part of the charm ? The idea of actually going to the trouble to make a movie mocking a documentary about an event that most people would find odd in the first place. Even if there were no big laughs, one would still be smirking at the thought. Any movie that attempts something new scores highly in my proverbial book. I loved the dogs too ! | 1 |
I found Darkness to be just too DARK. It had a kind of cool idea and some ambitious ideas, not bad action scenes and a few splashy moments to make you go UGH! BUT, it was underlit to the point of confusion. You don't really know what is always going on in the dark scenes and for a film that is shot on Super 8 Film, you already have all that nasty grain to deal with. As with Nathan Schiff movies, it's just too much. Director Leif Jonker seems to want to make an original film, but he lacks the know-how to do it. The camera is never pointed in the right place, lack of fundamentals such as how to shoot simple dialogue scenes and how to light a movie hurt as well. The actors are all pretty uneven and hammy. But despite these negatives, the music is good, the gore is plenty and ranges from silly putty to really good appliances. Is this a classic like it says? Is it worthy of the two discs worth of praise? NO. But it is a good first try. Now if these guys would stop patting themselves on the back about this movie (from what I understand here the only one they have ever finished) for a while and try again, they may do better. | 0 |
Look, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song. When I saw the film in 1976 it was playing at the Carnegie Hall Cinema, a place frequented by people who care a lot about film. From about the halfway point, people were simply flooding out of the theater. My girlfriend wouldn't let us leave, but by the end, the theater was virtually empty. I kept telling people as they left that "the good part is still to come." And it was. The good part was the screen at the end that said "fin." It was the only good part. I am still annoyed by this film 24 years later. It was pointless, stupid and derivative (Marienbad, part 2). See it only if you want to spend an endless two hours learning to distinguish between merely bad and simply awful. | 0 |
It's a short movie for such immense feelings. The last 20 or so minutes are among the most intense in the recent years of the industry. Huston (John) is dying and only love can make the difference. The actor's work in the long evening scene is absolutely marvellous. | 1 |
after seeing this film for the 3rd time now i think it is almost Adam's worst film PUNCH DRUNK LOVE IS POOR in comparison to this i must say at the end when Dickie gets thrown of the boat it is so funny (the hair is different to his and i like it when he flips everyone off. This film should only be brought if your a true Adam Sandler fan.<br /><br />the characters are poor in comparison to his funny films like the Waterboy, which has the same people in it (Peter Dante) who is one of the assassins trying to kill the Australian bird.<br /><br />this film lack depth and a decent story line and deserves to be in the bottom 100 | 1 |
A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten! | 0 |
The Man With a Golden Arm was one of a trio of great films around that same time that dealt with drug addiction. The other two were Monkey On My Back and A Hatful of Rain. But I think of the three this one is the best.<br /><br />Maybe if Otto Preminger had shot the thing in the real Chicago instead of those obvious studio sets the film might have been better yet. Who knows, maybe Preminger couldn't get enough money to pay for the location. It's the only flaw I find in the film.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra is a heroin addicted card dealer who was busted for covering for his boss Robert Strauss when the game was raided. He took the cure while in jail and wants a new life as a jazz drummer. But a whole lot of people are conspiring against him.<br /><br />First Bob Strauss who wants him back dealing, especially because a couple of heavyweight gamblers are in town. He uses a few underhanded methods to get Sinatra's services back. Secondly Darren McGavin is the local dope dealer who wants Sinatra good and hooked as a customer again. And finally Eleanor Parker his clinging wife who's working a con game to beat all, just to keep him around.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra got a nomination for Best Actor for this film, but lost to Ernest Borgnine in Marty. Sinatra might have won for this one if he hadn't won for From Here to Eternity in the Supporting Actor category a few years back and that Marty was such an acclaimed film in that year. His scenes going through withdrawal locked up in Kim Novak's apartment will leave you shaken.<br /><br />Eleanor Parker does not get enough credit for her role. She's really something as the crazy scheming wife who wants Sinatra tied to her no matter what the cost. If she had not been nominated that same year for Interrupted Melody, she might have been nominated for this. 1955 marked the high point of her career. <br /><br />Darren McGavin got his first real notice as the very serpentine drug peddler. His performance is guaranteed to make your flesh crawl.<br /><br />Elmer Bernstein contributed a great jazz score to accentuate the general dinginess of the bleak Chicago neighborhood the characters live in. Not a place you'd want to bring up your family. | 1 |
Somebody could probably make a great documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash-TV phenomenon. There are dozens of famously bad movies (e.g. "Manos: The Hands of Fate") that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary, witless waste of film.<br /><br />Seriously, why not a documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, that would begin to answer some of the real questions like: Who are these people? What happens to their lives after they appear on this show? How did the mayor of Cincinatti find himself here?<br /><br />One good line: During an "orientation" session for guests: "People, I can't emphasize this enough: NO WEAPONS!" | 0 |
One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.<br /><br />As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense! <br /><br />The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play! <br /><br />And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the "Shining" is funfair! <br /><br />NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun! | 0 |
Well, there's no real plot to speak of, it's just an excuse to show some scenes of extreme violence and gratuitous sex (which can sometimes be fun, too, but it's not in this case). What else can I say about this...? The action, when happening, is inventive and there's a cool scene where two characters are falling from a skyscraper (one that has to be several miles high), but overall there's not much to recommend "Kite". Watch it if you want, but you're not missing much if you skip this one... | 0 |
It's about jealousy, it's about racism, it's about manipulation, but the underlying message is love. Geoffrey Sax tried to pull off Shakespeare's Othello, by bringing it to modern day context. However, the actors were not convincing enough to pull this off. There were extra bodies to help put everything in to perspective, however, John Othello, played by Eamonn Walker, over reacted a lot in this film, causing for the down fall of Keeley Hawes, Dessie Brabant, eventually ending in Dessie's death. <br /><br />Ben Jago, played by Christopher Eccleston, was seen as the main character in the film. He didn't give enough evidence for Dessie to be cheating on Othello, with Michael Cass, played by Richard Coyle. Instead he just played a friend to all and gave one reason as to why she "was" cheating. In the play, it took a lot more convincing from Iago to make Othello even suspect anything. This change made the movie more about rage for the wrong reasons, than what the book was based off of. However, the movie did have a few good points. It turned the army scenes into more a racist group toward blacks, where Othello is the main chief of the police squad. These scenes are made believable by the raging crowds, and burning fires. You are able to sense the amount of racism in the movie, more so than you can in the book. This book plays up the modern day scenes by making it much easier to understand, than the Shakespearian times it was written in. In the play Iago (Jago) gets tortured at the end, but in the film he gets his satisfaction, and gets Othello's position. He never gets what he deserves and is never caught for telling the lie to Othello until it is too late. I saw this as a downfall in the movie, because I feel that the villain is granted his treasure of the promotion out of lying, and in the book, he is found out by Rodrigo. Overall, the movie could have done a better job based on the play than what it did. I feel that the director of the movie left out some of the most important parts of the play that were mentioned or there to make the play flow, or make it more of a tragedy. I would say that you should read the book first, in order to understand all of the events that happened in the movie, otherwise you may find yourself lost, and confused. | 0 |
The people who are bad-mouthing this film are those who don't understand film to begin with. These are the people who love movie blockbusters and adverse to any movie that doesn't star Leonardo DiCaprio. Wilder Napalm is a neat little film that may seem quirky and maybe even stupid at first, but what it lacks in plot, it more than makes up for in substance.<br /><br />One thing in particular about the movie that impressed me was it's use of music, which plays a large part. Those students of film music will notice how important music is in the movie, both in Vida and Wilder's life, and in the background. Wilder's theme, Vida's theme, and Wallace's theme are all heard in the opening sequence, and it is funny how some of the lyrics play out. For instance, in the scene where the men are singing "Duke of Earl", Vida is with Wilder when the men sing something like "She is my girl", and then she goes over to Wallace to give him something when the men sing the lyric "She will be my girl" cleverly showing the tension between the two brothers There are all sorts of little intricacies like this inside the movie, and while it may look like a flop on the outside, the real student of film will notice how good this movie really is. | 1 |
I saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' time. | 0 |
Louis Sachar's compelling children's classic is about as Disney as Freddy Krueger. It's got murder, racism, facial disfigurement and killer lizards.<br /><br />Tightly plotted, it's a multi-layered, interlinking story that spans history to reveal Stanley's own heritage and the secret behind the holes. It races from Latvia's lush greenness to the pock-marked Camp Green Lake (hint: there's no lake and no green).<br /><br />Disney's first success is re-creating the novel's environments so convincingly - the set design is superb and without gloss. The other plus is in the casting. Rising star Shia LaBeouf (Charlie's Angels 2, Project Greenlight) might not be the fat boy of the book, but his attitude is right and he's far from the usual clean-cut hero. The rest of the cast is filled out equally well, from Patricia Arquette as the Frontier school marm-turned-bank robber to Henry Winkler as Stanley's dad. The downside is the pop soundtrack - pure marketing department - and having the sentiment turned up to full volume at the end. | 1 |
The scenery is pretty and the dog is cute. Other than that, this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Jack Warden is pleasantly genial as usual, but the script is so awful that even he comes off badly. The plot makes no sense, the dialogue is dumb, and there are numerous smaller faults. But the dog is cute... | 0 |
This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply<br /><br />pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds<br /><br />through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even<br /><br />briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason. | 0 |
Harrison Ford plays Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck of the District of Columbia Police Department. He tries to get the bad guys, but doesn't do a very good job. When we meet up with him he's trying to catch a corrupt undercover officer. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a New Hampshire Senator, Kay Chandler, trying to get reelected. She's running against a candidate who has plenty of money. The last thing she needs is the death of her husband. She's a politician- she can't be bogged down by feelings.<br /><br />This story moves slowly and painfully. I was looking at my watch every five minutes wondering when it would be over! The story gets lost in details the director, Sydney Pollack, didn't need to put in. We don't want to know about Dutch's police investigations. They throw in some insight to politicians and the spin control' they do for campaigns. After seeing the movie I'm still wondering why they got involved romantically. Doesn't anybody mourn anymore? Don't you need more than two weeks to even consider going horizontal' with someone else?<br /><br />It was good to see actress, comedian, Chicago native and Second City Alumni Bonnie Hunt. Her role isn't necessarily comic relief, but she was the only one I wanted to see more of. Do yourself a favor, wait for it on video if you want to see it at all. | 0 |
This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10. | 0 |
I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the "making of" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh! | 0 |
yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show "some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers" .<br /><br />It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke. <br /><br />These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands? | 0 |
I found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us "inside the thinking" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just..."ends" in a snore. | 0 |
Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator. | 1 |
Red Rock West is a perfect example of how good a film can be with practically no budget. All you need is a smart script, good actors and loads of atmosphere. RRW delivers all these and more.<br /><br />Nic Cage plays an ex-marine, injured in Lebanon, who is down to his last 5 dollars after being refused a job on an oilfield because of his bad knee. He roles into Red Rock and is mistaken by bartender Wayne (JT Walsh, not quite as his most menacing-but still evil) for a hit-man from Texas.<br /><br />He pays him to kill his wife and make it look like burglary. Only when he gets there, just to check her out. She offers him double to kill Wayne. Cage just wants to get the hell out of town with his free money and leave the sparring lovers be. But a series of mishaps and setbacks results in him yo-yoing in and out of Red Rock, back and forth. Eventually this leads to a run-in with Lyle from Dallas (a cheeky and somehow sympathetic Dennis Hopper), the REAL hit-man from Texas who offers to help without knowing he's making the plot more complicated.<br /><br />RRW never had a big release, thus most of it's audience discovered it on video or on cable TV showings. Viewing it in such a way might make it seem like a TV movie but it's bigger than that. The slick, slowly-timed direction, moody score and howling desert wind would have all made for a great movie in theatres but the best you can do these days is watch the DVD on a big HDTV.<br /><br />The only weak point of the movie I can think of is Lara Flynn Boyle's boring femme fatale with the nasty dyke-ish hairdo. I certainly wouldn't fall for her but if you assume that Nic Cage's character is in to militant lesbians then you'll accept it nonetheless. | 1 |
If you went to this movie to see some huge academy award presentation...oh well..but if you wanted to see a funny delightful adaptation of an old classic, you will love it..Jim Carey was incredible as usual. The story line was great, a few parts added like the history of the Grinch made it even better. Ron Howard never misses a beat..But although there were a few ADULT comments and cleavage added, this is supped to be a kids or family show. Try not to lose sight of that ..if you do you really wont enjoy the movie...and as for the comments about Ron Howard, try to direct a major motion picture and see how you do..its not easy as it looks ... | 1 |
I gave this film 2 stars only because Dominic Monaghan actually put effort through in his acting. Everything else about this film is extremely amateur. Everything associated with the direction of this film was very poorly executed. Not only should the director rethink what she is doing for a life career but maybe she should watch a few films. As Dominic Monaghan is a very credible actor, placing him in a film of this caliber makes him look awful. Whomever the "actor" was that played Jack's best friend should never have stepped in front of the camera. I didn't expect much from such a small film, but perhaps a little more time and effort should be put into the characters and their surroundings. Don't waste your time or money on this film (like I did) you will be sorely disappointed. | 0 |
I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.<br /><br />To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.<br /><br />In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this. | 0 |
If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.<br /><br />A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.<br /><br />Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.<br /><br />There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.<br /><br />There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.<br /><br />One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.<br /><br />We're a long, long way away from "For Whom the Bell Tolls" here.<br /><br />Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.<br /><br />As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh. | 0 |
An excellent example of "cowboy noir", as it's been called, in which unemployed Michael (Nicolas Cage) loses out on a job because he insists on being honest (he's got a bum leg). With really nothing else he can do, he decides that for once he's going to lie. When he walks into a bar, and the owner Wayne (the late, great J.T. Walsh) mistakes him for a hit-man whom Wayne has hired to do in his sexy young wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle in fine form), Michael plays along and accepts Waynes' money. *Then* he goes to Suzanne and informs her of her husbands' intentions, and accepts *her* money to get rid of Wayne! If that didn't complicate things enough, the real hit-man, "Lyle from Dallas" (Dennis Hopper, in a perfect role for him) shows up and Michael is in even more trouble than before.<br /><br />"Red Rock West" gets a lot out of the locations. Director John Dahl, who co-wrote the script with his brother Rick, was smart in realizing the potential of a story set in a truly isolated small town that may have seen better days and in which the residents could be involved in any manner of schemes. It's also an amusing idea of the kind of trouble an honest person could get into if they decided to abandon their principles and give in to any level of temptation. It's an appreciably dark and twist-laden story with an assortment of main characters that are if not corrupt, have at least been morally compromised like Michael. The lighting by cinematographer Marc Reshovsky is superb in its moodiness; even the climax set in a graveyard lends a nice morbid quality to the whole thing. Even if the writing isn't particularly "logical or credible", the film has a nice way of intriguing the viewer and just drawing them right in.<br /><br />Cage does a good job in the lead, but his co-stars have a grand old time sinking their teeth into their meaty and greed-motivated characters. Hopper, Boyle, and Walsh are all fun to watch in these parts. Timothy Carhart and Dan Shor are fine as Walshs' deputies (in one especially good twist, Walsh is also the local sheriff), and there's an entertaining cameo role for country & western star Dwight Yoakam, who also graces the film with an enjoyable end credits tune.<br /><br />It's quite a good little film worth checking out. It moves forward at an impressive pace, and if nothing else is certainly never boring.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie. <br /><br />The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention. <br /><br />The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.<br /><br />One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body. <br /><br />Overall... DON'T BOTHER | 0 |
Stifler, has finished running his naked mile and is now attending Beta House. Crazy stuff happens, people run around naked and nerds are made fun of and this series is dead in the water. The Naked Mile was a crap film, but I found it to be significantly better then Band Camp. It seems they've gone back to what didn't work for them and it shows that they don't care either. You can tell where the target audience is and they nailed it perfectly. Young teenage boys who like to see naked women, crude humour and beer drinking will love Beta House, everyone else can pretty much look away.<br /><br />Star Wars became a massive success that stunned audiences with it's ahead of its time special effects. Lord of the Rings created an entire world of mythical creatures and massive battles that dazzled the eye. The Matrix changed the way action and sci/fi films were made, specifically with the cutting edge special effects. With all the advancement in technology, we eagerly await the next big thing that will have our jaws dropped to the floor. Then comes American Pie: Beta House, which pushes the boundaries of what technology can do. When people have created spaceships, landscapes and creatures using CGI, Beta House decides to use this technology to create semen. Yes, the thing that creates life, the thing you see so many times in pornography films is created and time slows down to show us the white residue shoot across the room onto a teddy bear. Is this funny? Disgusting? Neither? Beta House shows more nudity then The Naked Mile, which is surprising considering the previous installments title. Does the film need it? Of course not, does it ever advance the plot, does it ever? Does it ever get a laugh? Does it ever get young boys aroused? Yes the women are beautiful, but if I am the one who thinks there is too much nudity then you might as well just have made a porno.<br /><br />The female who catches the affections of our main character is pretty and doesn't annoy the viewer, like previous girls have done in the series, but not once did I ever believe this character would ever do what she does. I'm pretty sure every action from the characters in this film are far from realistic. The American Pie series has fallen from a realm of reality into a fantasy world. None of the events in this film would ever happen, if they ever did then I need to attend this school IMMEDIATELY. Is this film suppose to make people feel like they are having a good time? Well it doesn't, we are watching them have a good time, by the end of the film we hate them for all the fun they are having.<br /><br />There is a "Deer Hunter" scene in the film, but to make it "funny" for today's audience they decided to substitute bullets wit horse semen. Are you laughing yet? Instead of shooting themselves with said semen in the head, or face, they place the gun in their mouths. Are you on the floor laughing yet? The first time we are introduced to Stifler's roommate, he's having sex with his girlfriend. Are you cheering at the nudity yet? The film at first seems like it will be about the boys trying to get into the frat house, but then it shifts to them already being in the frat house, but needing to perform certain tasks. Then it shifts to a competition between nerds and the boys. It goes a little "Revenge of the Nerds" on us for a bit and it seems out of place. I honestly do not know what these film is about because it goes all over the place.<br /><br />Most of the comedy seems forced for shock value. Even at the beginning with the Dad showing his son the list of people he has had sex with. The joke is in there somewhere, I think it might be the fact that his wife is not the last name on the list, or it could have been that one of his son's friend's mother was on the list. Either one, it doesn't work.<br /><br />I guess if you haven't guessed it yet, this film is not funny. Nor does it seem to be focused, the story is pathetic and the so called crude humour that the series has been known for doesn't shock. Skip this lame installment and any future ones as well. I do not know why I have seen all the entries in the series, but for some unknown reason they seem to have found their way to my eyes. | 0 |
My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members. While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own. Genuine and heart-warming.<br /><br />We saw this on video, at the end of a long day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and this one kept us both entertained right to the very end.<br /><br />Perhaps younger viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it is a true gem! See it! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.