text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
This movie is the second worst film that I have ever seen (the first being Ghost Rider). There is absolutely no plot, climax, conflict, or any other major detail required in portraying a story. This 'film' is basically just another excuse for Toby Keith to show off his manly side and, the 'tough guy he really is'. I completely wasted my time watching this film. The best part would have to be the ending credits. If I were Ebert or Roper, I would have cut my thumbs off and thrown them at the producers. Whoever in their right mind gave Toby Keith the chance to act in a feature film, is obviously on the same mental level as him. In conclusion, do not waste your time watching this movie, it could quite possibly be the only thing you regret. | 0 |
Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".<br /><br />Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them? | 1 |
I saw this movie in the theater, and was thoroughly impressed by it. Then again, that was when Claire Danes was a good actress, not the foolish, arrogant, Hollywood-ized bitch she is today. Anyway, this film really struck me as one of the more raw, realistic, beautiful friendship films. How far would you really go for your best friend? I was moved to tears at the end, and still tear up when I watch it now (I own it). I remember as soon as I left the theater, I called my best friend and sobbed to her how much I loved her. This is a great film to watch with your best girlfriend. However be prepared for the almost certain conversation afterward where she turns to you and asks if you'd do something like that for her.... | 1 |
Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century. | 0 |
I'm not a movie maker but I do know it is hard to tell a story in seven minutes and draw your audience into the character. Horses on Mars does this and more. When you are watching a good movie you don't want it to end. This is how I felt watching this film. It is visually expansive and the microbe takes on such human qualities that you feel you are on the journey with him.<br /><br />Really looking forward to see what exciting adventures Mr. Anderson takes us on in the future. Well done. | 1 |
Not sure if I'm referring to those who labeled this a video nasty or to the director..."Devil Hunter" sure is one bizarre 'horror' movie.<br /><br />The plot is a loosey goosey combo of superior films like "Cannibal Ferox" and "Cut and Run." Chick gets kidnapped in the 'jungle' by a 'tribe' of 'savages.' The jungle looks more like a park somewhere in Mexico. The tribe is like a group of hippies who walk around in Party City-style Halloween costume renditions of tribal garb. And the savages range in race from white to Asian to black to hispanic. I suppose Franco just grabbed anyone who looked even slightly ethnic for this romp.<br /><br />To make matters worse, this film has ultra-minimal gore, no real scares and a lot of unnecessary penis. Not fun. I can find something to like in just about any sleazy Italian or Euro-trash film; this one just fell WAY short.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids. | 0 |
I rented this because I couldn't pass up the chance to see pre-Hollywood-fame Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones together, but it definitely wasn't worth it. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is for the novelty of seeing them before they made it big across the pond.<br /><br />Zeta Jones, who is usually fun to watch even if she isn't the greatest thesp in the world, is awful. Owen seems really uncomfortable to be in such a turkey, plus he wears a ridiculous, egregiously ill-fitting chin-length wig (at least I hope that's a wig and not his real hair). And the scene where he dances a country jig with Zeta Jones just makes you embarrassed for him. Joan Plowright walks around in a daze the whole movie -- she's probably wondering how she got herself into such a mess.<br /><br />The actress who plays Clive Owen's wife isn't terrible, but just about everyone else is. Oh, and the writing stinks too. | 0 |
I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films. | 1 |
This movie was disappointing for at least one of two reasons. The suspense created disappeared because of horrible acting or lack of direction from the director.. I don't know.. it was like a tasty bubble gum that seemed to run out of flavor yet you continue to chew on it because it once tasted great. Like most thrillers The Hitchhiker had promise yet failed to deliver when it had me bright eyed and ready to turn the volume down(I was watching the movie alone.. in the dark) This so called thriller simply came apart like it was made of Lego transforming into something else. It simply ran out of gas and left me staring at a made-for-TV-like style movie with one exception.. it was probably rated-R. | 0 |
I tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie. | 0 |
What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.<br /><br />What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.<br /><br />Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental. | 1 |
To watch this film from start to finish without bursting into laughter at some point requires almost an act of faith, as one has to keep saying to oneself, "it's old", "it's a classic", "be kind", not because the movie is so bad, but because at its best it's so good. This is one dated movie. It's also a classic, if a tarnished one. I'm not inclined to laugh at people anyway, on principle, and I get more than a little irritated when others do so. To make fun of The Informer to my mind is a little like giggling at an idiot savant when he dribbles his orange juice all over the tablecloth. Yes, one says to oneself, he is an idiot, and yet when he's on top of his game he is also a true savant. The same is true for The Informer, which is on occasion very dreadful indeed, and yet it boasts splendid photography, some fine acting, a wonderful score and a good, decent simple story. In the end, which I won't give away, politics, religion and psychology come together, in a church, in such a way as to make the scene seem corny and over the top, and yet so is life sometimes. Uneducated people of simple faith behave differently from us (presumably brilliant) modern folks, and the scene isn't so much unbelievable (I buy it, but I know the Irish) as embarrassing. Yet people do behave that way, they do say things like that. Not everyone is hip, and it may not even be desirable for everyone to be hip. Are people today so much superior to those of seventy or eighty years ago? And in what way? I don't think so. We're just different. Now go watch the movie. | 1 |
I nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.<br /><br />The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his "one true love", repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.<br /><br />In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a "three-second sexual intercourse session" with him in a back alley.<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm! <br /><br />All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.<br /><br />There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.<br /><br />None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.<br /><br />Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!<br /><br />I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an "independent film", movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to "use your imagination". <br /><br />For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.<br /><br />My Rating - 2 out of 10 | 0 |
Wow what an episode! After last week seeing Mellisa constantly making cameos about the friendship of Annie and Brandi I almost puked. But that was nothing until seeing Mellisa's tirade after being fired. Seeing her hobble around on her cast spewing out obscenities and screaming for someone to get her purse was absolutely the most hilarious thing ever on reality TV. She continued to scream at people off set to get her clothes "all of them" like someone else would wear one of her hideous outfits. Mellisa you are like 40 years old and you still throw temper tantrums? Then Joan starts calling Annie and Brandie every name in the book, and gets up and quits the show! Both Rivers are spoiled brats who were only left on the show this long to keep ratings up. Mellisa crying and refusing to do an exit interview, just proves to America what everyone thought, you are a spoiled baby. WAH WAH I can't get my way! I love how Annie told the cameras she could manipulate Mellisa to think her way, and then did exactly that. Mellisa is by far the smartest contestant and clearly deserves to win the whole game. | 1 |
This movie is a crappy and forgettable Sean Connery vehicle. The performances are generally crappy especially by Capshaw, Fishburne, and the usually solid Ed Harris. Connery seems miscast as a Harvard Academic. The movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. It is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. The movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. George Plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to Connery as they debate the death penalty. The violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery/thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. The scripting and direction are extremely poor. Connery's charisma and screen presence are the film's only virtue. Manipulative, Violent, and Ridiculous. 2/10 Avoid It. | 0 |
The Stooges are back and funnier than ever. "Brideless Groom" in my opinion was probably the best Shemp flick.<br /><br />Shemp has the opportunity to inherit $500,000(which was probably more than a million dollars compared to today) from his dead uncle. BUT! There is a catch. He has to marry someone that day by 6 o'clock. Shemp is a bachelor with not too many admirers, except for one high pitched aggressive annoying singing student of his. But he doesn't want her, he wants someone a little more on the Victoria's Secret model type of women. But obviously he has no choice since he's no Collin Ferrel himself. But when it is printed in the papers that he is to inherit all that money if married, his ex girlfriends are on the "I want my man back" attack! <br /><br />What a great stooge flick! This is up there with thewinners of all stooge flicks! <br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
It' just funny, watch it!!! <br /><br />OK they want 10 lines so there: This is a spoof of 50s/70s werewolf movies. Lots of satire, some political. Feels like an early Clouseau movie (probably due to Alan Arkin), but with less slap stick. If you like the Naked Guns movies you'll like this too (once again less slapstick in this one). <br /><br />Actually, the humor ranges from light sexual innuendo (unavoidable in a teen comedy), to really poignant socio-political satire. The transformation of the Moon High School from 50s to 70s is really funny. The sequence with the changing presidential portraits is brilliant! OK maybe not brilliant but still hilarious. There are tons of (histarical) cracks starting from the 50s cold war paranoia and the late 70s inflation.<br /><br />Anyway, just watch the movie if you get a chance! | 1 |
After watching the movie a few times, I found so many subtle touches and emotions within the dialogue. Jing Ke, the Assassin has become one of favorite movie characters of all time. This fine Chinese actor says more with his eyes and his economy of words and movements then any big screen American actor today. Qin, the Emperor, is brilliant as he leads the audience to believe the kindness in his heart, only to unleash the most cruel acts upon the people around him. The promises he makes with incredible passion and shattered with an evil fist. Gong Li, as in just about every movie I've ever seen her in, is simply fantastic. Her screen dominance is so graceful and emotionally charged.<br /><br />In case you couldn't tell, I loved this movie.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended! | 0 |
Superb silent version of the story of Francois Villon. Although remade in the thirties as IF I WERE KING, with Frank Lloyd directing, Preston Sturges scripting and Ronald Colman starring, this version is even better. Barrymore, with a cohort of comedians, plays the comic fool and the wine-depressed Villon with a verve that Colman could not match. The photography is startling in its beauty and innovation and the supporting cast, particularly Conrad Veidt in his American premiere, the incredibly beautiful Marceline Day, and the supporting comics, Slim Summerville and Hank Mann, steal every scene they are in.<br /><br />It is a shame that Barrymore did so few first-rate comedies. Among his sound films, only his lead in TWENTIETH CENTURY and his supporting role in MIDNIGHT can compare to this, and those stand up only because of his superb voice. In this silent movie, Barrymore must tell his tale without benefit of words, and he does so, alternately hilariously unrecognizable as the King of the Fools and tenderly as Villon in love. He even gets to leap around in the swashbuckling style of Fairbanks, most convincingly. He also lets his supporting cast have their share of glory, capering in this ensemble work like any talented comic of the era.<br /><br />Finally, a brief word about Alan Crosland, a director known today only for directing the first talking feature, THE JAZZ SINGER in the same year this was released. Crosland was a careful, innovative, delightfully original director, and it is a shame that more of his works are not known. Perhaps this movie, far more interesting as a movie than his best-known work, will be your introduction to his other talents. If so, you could do far worse. | 1 |
This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.<br /><br />I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.<br /><br />This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.<br /><br />That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement. | 0 |
Florence Vidor stars as the daughter of a strict bible toting father who throws her out of the house when gossip taints her name. In the big city, she finds the dying wife of her own brother (the two had secretly married) and raises their child on her own. Years later, she goes back home to confront her family.<br /><br />This old melodrama is heavily larded with fascinating feminist themes (circa 1921, but sounding remarkably modern). Some of it is laid on with a trowel (as the father, Theodore Roberts gives his eyebrows a real workout), but it's well put together dramatically and lovingly composed and shot by cinematographer Henry Sharp. | 1 |
On the 1998 summer blockbuster hit BASEketball (1998): "This is one of those movies that is usually seen on the big jumbo-tron screen in a sports bar during the day - when everyone is quite drunk. Unfortunately, I was sober when I saw this movie."<br /><br />So quoted the late Gene Siskel for this lame-brained, supposed yukfest that came out two weeks after the far superior "There's Something About Mary" in a one-upmanship game during July of 1998. "Mary" was a gross-out fest, but in addition to the many gags, it had a lot of heart, which is why it was the highest grossing comedy of that memorable summer.<br /><br />"BASEketball" tried to outdo Mary, but it fizzled in more ways that one. You take the creators of "South Park," Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who are fortunately not behind the movie but in front of the camera, the only member of ZAZ David Zucker helming the picture in desperate need of a paycheck, and the other two Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker clearly stayed out or probably warned him against the picture, a small bit by now 90 years young Ernest Borgnine, wasting his precious time in his distinguished career, dying on a hotdog and singing "I'm Too Sexy" as he videotapes his will, Jenny McCarthy, who has little screen time as Borgnine's not-too-weeping trophy widow young enough to be his granddaughter, a bigger female part by Yasmine Bleeth as a dedicated social worker whose charges are underprivileged youngsters, and the only interesting and meaningful player in this turkey, Robert Vaughn as a corrupt archrival, and pointless cameos by "Airplane!" alumni Kareem Abdul Jabaar and the late Robert Stack who seemed nostalgic for the 1980 masterpiece and it's much fresher humor created by the ZAZ family. What do all these people make up? A desperate cast and crew trying to replicate "Airplane!" humor and mixing it up with the crudity of "South Park," but failing in every way.<br /><br />To make this long 100-minute movie short, "BASEketball," a real game invented by David Zucker and his friends in his hometown of Milwaukee, is about two lazy losers (Parker and Stone) and their pint-sized mutual friend who invent baseball and basketball (hence the title) together on the driveway of one's house. After Borgnine dies, he bequeaths the ownership of his BASEketball team, the Milwaukee Beers to Parker and Stone. Sure enough, the game goes national, and archrivals Vaughn and McCarthy want to take away ownership of the Beers team from them. But Bleeth is in love with both men, particularly Parker, and one poor, sick charge in need of a liver transplant goes ga-ga over them. Those are the characters, not strongly developed.<br /><br />Now witless gags ensue. Blood, electroshock hair, egg-throwing and screaming are among them. Parker and Stone nearly kill the youngster in the hospital, but he pulls through the liver transplant. Borgnine sings and rubs ointment on his chest in the videotaped will. McCarthy, who seemed to get over Borgnine's death by choking on a frank right away, quickly massages Vaughn in the next scene. Cheerleaders dance in skimpy outfits. There is plenty of music on the soundtrack that is played for the hard of hearing. And David Zucker forces the parodies of "Riverdance" and "Titanic." Parody forcing is nothing new to ZAZ, post "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun" series.<br /><br />And like Siskel, I was sober as well, but I was also getting sleepy. This movie should be played over and over to coarse-mannered barroom patrons who enjoy it as they chug down beers, but will they remain alert and awake, or pass out during the unfunny parts? If they pass out, then they won't realize that they are luckily missing stupidity and absurdity. Hats off to them! | 0 |
Although in many ways I agree with the other reviewers comments. I find that the plot and idea are very good. Many of the supporting actors were very good. The fatal problem with this film is Ellen Pompeo. I am sure, I have never seen a less talented "actor" How this person has ever been in a film or on television, I cannot imagine. In my opinion she would be better as a greater at a Wal-Mart. To see a person with this low level of talent involved in paying roles, does beg the question...... "Who does she know"? I would very much like to see this film re-made with some talent. I do not fault the writer for the failure of this film to be worth the time to view it. | 0 |
Well someone who enjoys traveling down the highway at 120kmph, eating McDonalds, and running the air conditioner twenty four seven, and watching Fox News non-stop, I found this documentary interesting. One thing I picked up, when they being they talk about North America, I assume this documentary was Fabrique Au Canadie. For the Canadian bashing I will leave that to Bill O'Reilly.<br /><br />The consequence of the depletion of oil will affect everyone, especially those who live in big countries of Australia, Canada and the United States. I am sure that Green Peace are cheering no more gas, means no more SUVs, without realizing people who live in the sub zero temperatures could starve to death. <br /><br />As someone who has studied economics, I know for a fact we are living in a world of finite resources. I will give the documentary props for trying to present a balanced point of view about the depletion of oil. However I am studying a degree in journalism, this documentary is full of loaded messages - Republican as warmongers. What the Democrats didn't send troops to Vietnam? <br /><br />If you are going to present a documentary about economics and resources, it is best to leave the political bashing to one side, because it could cause a potential audience member to totally shut down. Concentrate on the issue of finite resources. At the end of the day, it is best to open the minds of the mainstream, as it is no good preaching to the minuscule choir. <br /><br />I really do enjoy watching documentaries such as Fahrenheit 911, and End of Suburbia not for their political bias, because they do remind us the world isn't so safe. Sure I like to shop, and consumer junk food like there is no tomorrow, but if the world is going to end tomorrow I would rather die rich and consume the living beep out of it. <br /><br />For the potential documentary makers out there, just give the people facts, and let the viewers make up their own minds. If you are trying package your political views as a balanced documentary the people are going to smell a rat a mile away. | 1 |
I was surprised at how a movie could be both cheesy and excellent at the same time. The Frisbee flying saucer was naff beyond comprehension, especially when landing, yet the specially effects when the Krell attacked were awesome for a film that was made over half a century ago! Living in the middle east I saw shades of Islam creep in when JJ Adams suggested Alta should dress more modestly, and as an engineer, was amazed by the imagination used for the 'futuristic' gadgets, and gizmos dreamed up by the props department. All in all, an entertaining hour and a half, my first time seeing Walter Pidgeon and a chance to see Leslie Neilsen as a 'young' man | 1 |
Reading the other two comments, I had to wonder if I had seen the same movie!<br /><br />Perhaps life is drastically different in Australia, but, wow - call it sci-fi or fantasy, but people just don't act like this.<br /><br />I couldn't pass up this review without commenting on it myself.. it gets better after the first half hour, but I doubt most could make it that far..<br /><br />Yikes. | 0 |
Fantastic Chaplin movie with many memorable moments as Charlie joins the army to fight in WW 1.<br /><br />At first he goes to boot camp, where he has to learn how to handle his rifle and how to walk in line. That's a really funny scene as the tramp is not used to keeping his feet straight!<br /><br />Next thing you know he's in France in a trench. Hilarious scenes here include a starving Charlie eating the cheese of a mousetrap and reading a letter from home over someone's shoulder.<br /><br />When Charlie goes to sleep he finds his bunker all flooded and his roommate snoring. This is such a funny part! I can't really describe it, just watch the movie. When Charlie wakes up his legs feel numb so he tries to 'wake them up'. It had me rolling on the floor when it turns out his second leg still feels numb... while Charlie actually rubs his roommate's foot!<br /><br />The movie then turns a bit grim, as Charlie shoots a couple of Germans from his trench (although it's done in a very funny way) and him personating as a tree to get close to the enemy, saving a friend of his from a death squad.<br /><br />Last part is him getting a french girl in trouble by hiding in her house. He then has to save her and while doing so he captures the german kaiser as well. To do so he impersonates a german kolonel or something. I love it when Charlie is asked something in german and he's like nein nein nein. The soldier looks at him in a funny way so Charlie changes his mind: ja ja ja! The kaiser gets captured and Charlie is the hero... but then he wakes up again in bootcamp, it was just a sweet dream!<br /><br />Charlie did one of those 'dream-sequences' before (The Bank comes to mind) but who cares, this movie was so funny it had me laughing all the way. Chaplin also has something to say with this movie (as his later work became more of a social comment to several mishaps in the world) and is explained best in the last sentence of the movie: 'Peace on earth, good will to all mankind.'<br /><br />In short: a Charlie classic, very funny, timeless. 9/10. | 1 |
Grim instead of amusing, mean-spirited instead of playful, boring instead of interesting. It won't give you "the willies", but it just may gross you out or send you to sleep. And it will certainly make you wonder: "what were they thinking?" (*1/2) | 0 |
Emraan Hashmi post MURDER did some good roles in Bhatt films but other director just made use of his kissing and naughty image<br /><br />AKSAR is one of them and it came after AAA, JAWANI DIWANI in a row and I was already fed up of him and such roles <br /><br />The film has a nice twist at the start i felt like an Abbas Mustan film but then it turns into a routine film with sudden love, sudden jealousy and a bad climax<br /><br />Anant Mahadevan makes a terrible film Music is saving grace Camera-work is fabulous<br /><br />Emraan Hashmi just repeats his act of his earlier films and has 2 expressions throughout Dino looks stiff, talks as if he is practicing Hindi and does okay in some scenes Udita is expressionless and irritates | 0 |
I really loved this original screenplay and the different places it took me, emotionally, spiritually and just plain silly stuff. I didn't get caught up in "believability" in the screenplay or the actors and didn't even think about it until reading the reviews listed here in IMDb for the movie. Listening to Michael Parness talk at the Q & A about his idea of the film, wanting to see how crazy people, or "f'ed" up people, as he put it, fall in love is really interesting. I identified with not having a story book romance and liked seeing dysfunction at it's best. I like watching David Krumholtz in anything he does and have followed his career for a few years now. I believe this is some of his best work and say to anyone, just see this film to watch an amazing young actor. I agree that Guillermo Díaz really was a scene stealer, and what he did with his character is really a great acting lesson in commitment. I laughed and cried both in this movie and was disappointed that it didn't win any awards at the festival. I question why that didn't happen. I gave Max and Grace a ten because these interesting, unique, creative Indie films deserve an audience. Technically watching this film, it's really beautifully done the colors are amazing, and lastly, it's one of the best soundtracks I have heard in a film in awhile. | 1 |
Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.<br /><br />Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.<br /><br />The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty. | 0 |
Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.<br /><br />We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.<br /><br />Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.<br /><br />[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art. <br /><br />[DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.] <br /><br /> | 1 |
Farrah Fawcett gives an award nominated performance as an attempted rape victim who turns the tables on her attacker. This movie not only makes you examine your own morals, it proves that Fawcett can excel as a serious actress both as a victim and victor. | 1 |
The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?<br /><br />I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???<br /><br />I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3. <br /><br />Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor. | 0 |
I thought Besson's film managed to do without words what few films have been able to do with them; Capture true human emotions. The main character's struggles, triumphs, set backs, hopes and desires are all so honestly shown that you wonder if he is acting at all. The film has a low budget and is obviously made without the glitz and glamour afforded to most Hollywood productions but that minimalism is what allows this film to transcend the stereotypical Sci-Fi labeling and become a true drama. However calling this film solely a drama would take away from the fantastic post-apocalyptic plot. True this type of movie has been done been before but I think this one captures the joys and sorrows of that type of world possibly better than any other one does. | 1 |
First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that! | 0 |
This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.<br /><br />When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.<br /><br />If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch "Going Off Big Time" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" instead. | 0 |
LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE is one of Elvis' weirdest movies. Part slapstick, part fluff, part surreal and part strange. Elvis meets up with a very off-beat girl with an annoying voice. She looks like Jennifer Aniston. Story doesn't make much sense as is the case with most Elvis Presley movies, and there a bunch of odd characters galore. Not much music in this one, but what there is I liked, although none are memorable. Strange continuity. Elvis and Michelle Carey go into her beach house at night, but a few minutes later a delivery boy comes in and it's stark daylight!! What?? That's about the essence of the movie. What?? Oh, two good things about the movie: A) Elvis looks great and B) the dog steals the show. | 0 |
"Cry Freedom" is not just a movie. It is a historical account, heroic story, and insight into the cultural background of a major event in history. Not only does Denzel Washington do a terrific job of impersonating a motivating, determined hero, Steve Biko, but he delivers a message to the public about the horrors of South Arfrican Apartheid. The story of Biko, an influential leader, and his main "influencee", Donald Woods, is a heartbreaking one. But, the ultimate success of his life can go beyond the atrocities committed in South Africa. "Cry Freedom" manages to communicate to its audience the optimistic aspect of the seemingly disturbing plot. It is because of great films like this one, that the public can become educated on terrible events in history, great leaders who sought to end them, and how we can never allow them to happen in the future. Because of this importance, "Cry Freedom" is an amazing film that should be seen by all. | 1 |
This film is brilliant it has cute little dolphins in it and its a great storyline and it has elijah wood in it which makes it a great film too. his acting skills are very good and if you want a good soft family film. this is the one to watch. | 1 |
this film has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awful acting and if you can actually sit there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a 1 which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even worse at acting, every bit of the film is rubbish, i got this film on DVD without knowing what it was for the price of £1.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a complete waste of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are two things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it! | 0 |
Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.<br /><br />Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.<br /><br />With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.<br /><br />Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended. | 0 |
Interesting characters, lots of tension. As close to black and white without being black and white. I was turned off by how casually the supposedly sympathetic mainstream character, a quiet, near deaf secretary, was able to turn to crime to ruin colleagues, rough up people in her way and finally participate in a heist, and set up someone to be bumped off as a decoy to her own get-away. I'm a little put off by the trend for otherwise quality movies to portray criminals in a sympathetic way without addressing the injury they've done to others other than to portray their immediate opponents as jerks. In this film we never know who's money it really is they abscond with, or what happens to the innocent wife who the sympathetic deaf-secretary uses to set up the of the sleazy bar owner to take the fall for the missing loot. Too bad, the film could have been great. | 1 |
Will all of you please lay the hell off Todd Sheets!?! Let's give you $30,000 to make a movie and see what you come up with! The guy got 735 zombies and a regular cast to work for FREE! Sure the acting is laughable at times. Yes the make-up is not greatest you'll ever see. But it's not the worst either, if you want to see that, go watch Zombie Nation with it's raccoon zombies.<br /><br />This is pure, good old fashioned Guerilla Film-making! Todd is a consummate professional, and an all around nice guy. There are holes in the plot, yes. The plot does seem far-fetched. But what the hell, I still love this movie. I wish Todd Sheets would come out of hiding and do the remake of this that he was going to. If anyone has ever tried to make a movie, they know that just finishing it, is an achievement in and of itself. | 1 |
The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it. | 0 |
This film was enjoyable but for the wrong reasons. The co-ordination of the action sequences are laughable and make the film have some funny slap stick moments. Robert Ginty and Fred Williamson have a memorable scene together near the end, where Williamson says to Ginty, "you sure do get around buddy boy!". I did enjoy this film only for Ginty and Williamson, but not for the storyline that must have been written on the back of a napkin in four lines and the rest ad-libbed most likely. A film with over 30 parts only has a credit list for 10 or so. It seems odd that no one else has a credit in the film, maybe they had some insight into how the finished product would look. The one thing this film does have going for it is that it is quite violent, so that tripled with Fred Williamson and Robert Ginty make for a film worth seeing. | 1 |
This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks. | 1 |
i didn't hate this one. i just couldn't adapt to the story. it didn't really grab me. Michael Mann is a very good director but i have to disagree with his methods in this. i'm also a fan of Daniel Day Lewis. some projects he's been in are pretty rubbish but his acting is brilliant. my favourite Daniel Day Lewis films are There Will Be Blood and Gangs Of New York.<br /><br />there is one thing i loved about this and that was the musical score, it gave the film a lot of atmosphere. thats about all i liked in it though. this film has a high vote as well which is a bit random. i can see that a fair few people will like this but not enough to make the overall rating 7.8.<br /><br />i would give this film a miss if i was you but there is a lot of high votes for this so i guess you should watch it and make your own views on what you think. i didn't really like it............. 4/10.............j.d Seaton | 0 |
My dear Lord,what a movie! Let's talk about the "special effects" first. Don't get me wrong here, I am not one of those effect fanatics but I was truly thinking that superimposition was a practice of the long gone past, mainly the 60's. So for some time I thought they might have recorded this movie a long time ago and it took them forever to cut and release it. But as far as I know they did not have cell phones in the 60's...<br /><br />What I am looking for in movies is mainly a good story with a really good message. Acting is secondary, effects are secondary, I do not even mind a few little inconsistencies. However, in a movies like this bad acting, incredibility, etc. add up to make a bad movie even worse - that's what happened for me with the Celestine Prophecy.<br /><br />My wife said the book was actually really good and even though I am not into all that spiritual stuff I can somehow see that it can be brought across in a believable way - the movie failed to do so.<br /><br />There could be one single reason to watch this one though. If you really love cheesy movies it'll be the right one for you. If the IMDb stars were for cheesiness instead of quality I MUST have rated this movie ten stars.<br /><br />By the way, three stars are for the fact that there are worse movies out there, like "Critical Mass" (look up the comments on that one - hilarious). The Celestine Prophecy is at least entertaining to a certain degree. | 0 |
I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel! | 1 |
I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either. | 0 |
This show is painful to watch ...<br /><br />It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing "jobs", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a "clique" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.<br /><br />How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a "family" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family. | 0 |
I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be | 0 |
This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film. | 0 |
This is a great late night movie! What I mean by that is that I truly have enjoyed playing my $3.00 VHS copy (now I have a $6.99 DVD Copy!) many nights just before bedtime or if I have insomnia. There's just something about this movie that makes it fun to watch in repeated viewings. It could be the fun that Basil Rathbone has in "The Secret Weapon" wearing several disguises which fool the bad guys and Holmes's assistant Nigel Bruce (Watson) but not the housekeeper (Mary Gordon). It could be the espionage, code cracking and WW II theme. It could even be the light touch which the director uses to handle the threatening situations Holmes finds himself in while keeping the story moving. Whatever it is, "Secret Weapon" is simply a pleasant and enjoyable detective story which takes us back to a time when the Nazis were seeking world domination and does it with the bonus of the camaraderie between Watson and Holmes. Whether you agree with the patriotic speeches and noble "save the world" themes of this movie or not (I think they are right on!), I find that they only add to the flavor and fun of this fine old adventure film that holds up to repeated viewings. I rate it a pleasant 83/100 points. | 1 |
Wow what can I say it was a good movie, very different to all the boring remakes we see lately the only thing I would have liked to see a bit more of an ending like when Jane left her husband Im guessing she was going to Serena cause she fell for her,not just her but everything that she is,I so wish Producers would actually show that sort of ending instead of leaving to it your imagination sort of ending I really hate it when they do that. The aerial acts looked like fun but I guess you'd have to be light and muscly, I would like to see more movies like this one, maybe the could do a sort of sequel of Jane and Serena.If I were in Jane's shoes I would have went for the girl too she was attractive. | 1 |
Awful, waste of time. There is no camp or trash value in this one. Seen better amateur movies done by 10 to 12 years old kids in movie clubs.<br /><br />How on earth someone can spoil movie about vampires and lesbians? <br /><br />It's not a movie to put together a few vampire / sadomasochism enthusiast in a same room and just shoot it.<br /><br />Could not find anything good about the film. There was no plot, no real actors, no real special effects, no humor. A few overweight Goths touching each other cannot be called a sex scene. Nothing at all.<br /><br />Well, cemetery was nice but one should shot a vampire movie during dark. <br /><br />Purpose was probably good: make a trash movie in a spirit of Ed Wood. Problem is that one cannot make a bad movie intentionally. It takes talent and an effort to make a "real" movie. Ed Wood might have lacked money but he sure had effort. These guys lacked everything. Ed Wood was a genius compared to these guys. | 0 |
In the 1980's patriotism, and in some cases flat out Jingoism, was pretty high. "Do we get to win this time" a line famous from Rambo: First Blood part II, could almost sum up how many people felt at that time. A longing for the style of films they grew up with, flat out balls to the wall "we're good, your bad...now let's blow something up, and go home" While Rambo, Rocky, and for the most part Top Gun seemed more geared towards attracting an older crowd Iron Eagle went straight for the kids. Canadian writer and director Sidney J. Furie brings out everything that you love and hate about that time period. The kick in the pants rock out 80's anthems (never say die, Road of the Gypsy, etc) to the over the top, and sometimes almost unbelievable action adventure. Iron Eagle succeeded for one reason...it was F.U.N - Fun. It's the type of movie you can turn on and sit back and enjoy every ridiculous totally 80's moment. You don't have to think about if it could really happen, or if the acting is truly believable, it's just fun...and that's all you can really ask for in this type of movie... | 1 |
This is one gripping movie, reminiscent of the MGM crime movies of the late 70's. Excellent cast, crisp editing and good acting keeps the pace of the movie developing rapidly,. One of the better crime movies of the decade. Kudos to the director & cast. | 1 |
I just saw this movie last night, and after reading all the reviews I expected a good, emotional sports film. What I got was something clichéd and boring. Yes, I thought it was boring. I saw the all-star getting hurt long before the game. I figured maybe they'd wait for him to collapse until, ya know, the game before the "big one" but I guess the first game is good enough.<br /><br />The parental relationships were also very clichéd, with the dominating drunk father (I will say McGraw impressed me, however), and the boy who wants to stay and help his (ailing?) mother.<br /><br />I especially liked the random girls (Melissa and Maria) who were in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and placed there simply to get the football boys some action off the field. I thought "ok, now how does this work into the plot again?" Maybe I missed the point, beyond "Well they play football in a town that loves it so the girls throw themselves at their feet" point.<br /><br />The sports action had some good points, but most of it was so rushed! I think the first game lasted longer than the montage of the entire playoffs! And I wasn't so sure about the continuity of the winding-down clock in the final game.<br /><br />I guess I could see this movie winning the ESPY for best sports film if it was the only one released. Honestly though, I found it to be a boring movie full of people sickeningly-obsessed with the pigskin. For a better football film, see Remember the Titans. | 0 |
Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous. | 0 |
I am not sure why I like Dolph Lundgren. I guess seeing him on screen makes me feel that anyone who works hard can succeed regardless of talent. That is a good feeling for all of us who lack talent. Some of the other reviews point out how dumb Detention is, but many neglect to point out the positives. <br /><br />Any movie where at least one annoying teenager gets killed can't be all bad. Why do so many movies that have a cast of teens always need to include the stereotypical teens? Aren't there any other kind of teens? Does every group of teens have one angry black guy? One genius nerd that nobody likes? One slutty girl who is very friendly and (in this movie) pregnant? One disturbed anti-social white kid from a broken home who everyone agrees is talented (but what is the talent?). And one laid-back black kid who is in tune with the Universe and so cool that all the other neurotic kids trust him. Then add a couple of generic expendable teens of any color. They don't say much but get shot at some point. <br /><br />Detention would have been better if the bad guys had gotten to blow up the school. Preferably with the writers inside. The dialogue is bad, and the plot is worse. When the bad guys (and girl) finally hijack a van full of drugs, then they sit inside the van making out. They drive the van to the school because they want to re-paint the van at the school's paint shop, but they never get around to re-painting the van. By the way, it would have been easier to just put all the drugs in another car or two cars or another van or a truck and drive away without repainting the Police Van. They also never move the drugs or sell them or do anything else with the big score. <br /><br />For some reason, they decide they have to kill the kids and the teacher (Dolph Lundgren) even though when the villains take over the school nobody is remotely aware of it because it is after school hours. The handful of people still in the school have nothing to do with painting vehicles, so why go after them? <br /><br />Anyhow, the best part of this movie is that the villains are all armed with numerous machine guns, and they keep finding the teens (including a guy in a wheel chair) and they keep shooting hundreds of bullets at the teens and usually miss. Towards the end of the movie there is some bloodshed. For every time someone gets shot, there must be at least three hundred bullets fired that miss. The stunts are pretty bad. <br /><br />I read one of the reviews that says that this movie had a budget of $10 Million, and I am amazed. When I saw the movie I figured maybe Lundgren had done it as some kind of charity work for some film school where he is the teacher. Like maybe this movie was their end of the year exam. It was a test to watch it, but I passed. | 0 |
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it. | 0 |
This show is up there with the best Comedys made in Australia as it makes fun of pretty much anything which is what lots of our public want. Some of the best bits in the show are the ad road test which tests out how an ad would do in real life. What is really great about the show is how original it is and the fact that it has people(the chasers)who love doing what they do and who would n't. This show has loads of bits in it that can crack up anybody like the ad road test which I've already mentioned, Mr ten Questions where he asks 10 questions really fast in front of famous celebrities like Hugh Jackman and the Beach boys, temporary ones like The Chasers Emmys and ones that have been there from the start like What have we learnt from Current affairs this week. Overall I rate thin show 98%. | 1 |
THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits. | 0 |
This was not a good movie!! Why do you people keep saying that? There is a nice little story going on and then some sexy girls and then BAM vampires!!! Why? Why are there vampires? Where did they come from? Also, what the hell?! There are all of these "super human" vampires but George Clooney and three other random guys dominate ALL of them. Quickly too. It's not like there was a long fight scene with lots of struggle. There was just three dudes from the bar killing these vampires like a fat man kills twinkies! The next thing you know, Clooney and the stupid girl are rescued by Cheech and leaves the family-less homeless in the middle of Mexico. End of story. Literally. Oh and the strip club was an Aztec temple which is funny because that would have to be southern Mexico not the border. Why are you people lying and telling people this is a good movie? Do not rent, buy or even watch this movie at a friend's house. You will wish you had that time of your life back. | 0 |
I must give How She Move a near-perfect rating because the content is truly great. As a previous reviewer commented, I have no idea how this film has found itself in IMDBs bottom 100 list! That's absolutely ridiculous! Other films--particular those that share the dance theme--can't hold a candle to this one in terms of its combination of top-notch, believable acting, and amazing dance routines.<br /><br />From start to finish the underlying story (this is not just about winning a competition) is very easy to delve into, and surprisingly realistic. None of the main characters in this are 2-dimensional by any means and, by the end of the film, it's very easy to feel emotionally invested in them. (And, even if you're not the crying type, you might get a little weepy-eyed before the credits roll.) <br /><br />I definitely recommend this film to dance-lovers and, even more so, to those who can appreciate a poignant and well-acted storyline. How She Move isn't perfect of course (what film is?), but it's definitely a cut above movies that use pretty faces to hide a half-baked plot and/or characters who lack substance. The actors and settings in this film make for a very realistic ride that is equally enthralling thanks to the amazing talent of the dancers! | 1 |
If John Waters had written and directed "House of 1000 Corpses" after being struck about the head repeatedly with a heavy object, the result would probably be something like "The Blood Shed." It's mildly entertaining for the first half hour, but then it slides into a sort of featureless glop of constant screaming and people doing things to each others genitalia with electric carving knives, cutlery and pliers. Susan Adriensen (Sno Cakes) is incredibly annoying and Terry West (Elvis Bullion) is almost as bad in whatever it is he's doing in front of the camera.<br /><br />Maybe the best thing about "The Blood Shed" is that it won't take most viewers very long to forget about it. | 0 |
Saving Grace is surely one of the leading contenders for the 'How to Ruin an Adequate Film in the Final Few Minutes' award. Naturally if you mix a quaint Cornish village - largely populated by retired genteel ladies - with a liberal dose of marijuana, a certain amount of silliness will ensue. However, the last seven minutes of the film descend into the totally ludicrous and is not even redeemed by being particularly funny. It is a real shame, because this comedy has the potential to be every bit as good as 1998's Waking Ned Devine, which also portrayed a picturesque small village and its oddball inhabitants trying to extract themselves from a tricky situation.<br /><br />The protagonist of Saving Grace is middle-aged, recently widowed Grace Trevethyn, whose husband's legacy of bad debts has forced her into an unconventional way of earning money. Helped by her gardener, Matthew, she turns her horticultural expertise to the lucrative cultivation of marijuana. Unfortunately, this leads her into confrontation with the local police, her husband's creditors and a French drug baron. . . . . . . . . . whom all turn up at her greenhouse simultaneously. The relationship and rapport between Grace and Matthew is well-portrayed, and Brenda Blethyn gets the viewer emotionally involved with her likeable character - you can really feel what she is going through.<br /><br />The casting of the minor roles is excellent, even if some of them are rather outlandishly eccentric. However, the transformation of Jacques the drug lord into Grace's romantic interest is highly implausible and does not fit the tone of the movie at all. And surely hydroponics is not such a revolution in the world of cannabis growing? Sadly the film swaps gentle humour for slapstick and ends up being as fake as the marijuana plants. | 0 |
I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable. | 0 |
While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist. | 1 |
This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to "dance out" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.<br /><br />There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.<br /><br />Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists. | 0 |
I usually try to be professional and constructive when I criticize movies, but my GOD!!! This was THE worst movie I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad everything! <br /><br />The plot follows a group of teen cliche's on their way to a rave (that takes place in broad daylight) at a remote island. However, when the group arrives, all they find is an empty dance floor and bloody clothes. Determined to find out what happened to the rest of the party-goers, the clan set's off on a mission through a zombie-infested forest. During this crusade, they are aided by a police chick and a sea captain that just happens to have the right number of weapons to give to each of the kids. They also meet up with Jonathan Cherry and some other survivors. Basically the rest of the movie is a collection of poorly directed action sequences including a far too long shootout outside of the "house of the dead." This fight came complete with cheesy Hollywood violence, redundant clips from the HOTD video game, and sloppy matrix-esque camera rotations. One of the character's even volunteers to sacrifice himself to save the others. Why? Not because he was noble and brave, but because part of his face got scarred by acid a zombie spat on him after he continued to beat the creature long after it had been disabled! I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?!?<br /><br />To sum it all up, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie unless you want to see for yourself just how terrible it is. The theater I was in was more dead than the zombies on the screen, and I'm sure the money I wasted seeing this piece of sh*t could easily cover the costs it took to make it. GRADE: F | 0 |
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser. | 0 |
This movie is pathetic not because it's poorly directed, acted, sung, danced, filmed, etc ... but because it's really difficult to ruin a movie using an ABBA soundtrack - yet, unfortunately, this is the only thing the movie succeeds in doing. The musical presentations in the movie, SouthPark, was much better than in Mama Mia. The director of Mama Mia is proof that you don't need talent to be a director - all you need are ABBA songs.<br /><br />Just to give a sample of the awfulness: An aging Meryl Streep is shot with close-ups in the harsh sunlight singing and just ruining the song with all the distracting wrinkles on her face. Why do that to one of the most talented Actresses out there? | 0 |
I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the "experts" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.<br /><br />So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???<br /><br />There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10 | 1 |
Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.<br /><br />Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved "innocent" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.<br /><br />Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.<br /><br />Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn. | 0 |
After five years in prison, Tony le Stéphanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest friends Jo (Carl Möhner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' Âge d' Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar (Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable ring to his mistress.<br /><br />"Du Rififi Chez les Hommes" is a magnificent film-noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility, supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of favorite movies ever. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Rififi" | 1 |
Its such a shame that an important film like this is virtually unknown.<br /><br />I don't think Alan Bates has done a better film than this.<br /><br />Its never shown on television. The only time I can recall it being shown on British TV was in the summer of 1998. I have it on tape but sadly the quality isn't great due to a dodgy aerial at the time...<br /><br />I remember wanting to see this film for some time before it appeared on TV. It was shown on Channel 4 in the early hours of the morning, thereby ensuring that it still remained unseen except for a very small audience.<br /><br />I was living in Bristol at the time and it was ironic that, when I finally saw the film, I realised that I had walked past the VERY house where it was filmed several times before!! The film treads a fine line; a married couple attempting to make light of their tragic predicament of coping with their severely mentally handicapped daughter by laughing about it and even involving the child in their jokes.<br /><br />The direction and the acting are so superb that the film is always compassionate and moving and is never in danger of lapsing into bad taste.<br /><br />A couple of years ago I saw a clip of the filmed theatre production with Eddie Izzard in the role of Bri and Victoria Hamilton playing Sheila.<br /><br />It showed Izzard improvising and larking about and Hamilton jokingly telling the audience to ignore him when he's being like this.<br /><br />I maybe taking this out of context as I only saw a brief clip but having read the play and seen the film this is clearly such a delicate subject that such an approach is both insensitive and disrespectful.<br /><br />Izzard was praised for his performance but I felt uncomfortable with what I saw.<br /><br />It is perhaps surprising that such a successful play failed to find an audience when it was finally filmed.<br /><br />This is one of the best British films of the 70s and hopefully it will be released on DVD one day. | 1 |
Loosely based on the James J Corbett biography "The Roar Of The Crowd", Gentleman Jim is a wonderfully breezy picture that perfectly encapsulates not only the rise of the pugilistic prancer that was Corbett, but also the wind of change as regards the sport of boxing circa the 1890s.<br /><br />The story follows Corbett {a perfectly casted Errol Flynn} from his humble beginnings as a bank teller in San Fransico, thru to a chance fight with an ex boxing champion that eventually leads to him fighting the fearsome heavyweight champion of the world, John L Sullivan {beefcake personified delightfully by Ward Bond}. Not all the fights are in the ring tho, and it's all the spin off vignettes in Corbett's life that makes this a grand entertaining picture. There are class issues to overcome here {perfectly played out as fellow club members pay to have him knocked down a peg or two}, and Corbett has to not only fight to get respect from his so called peers, but he must also overcome his ego as it grows as briskly as his reputation does. Along with the quite wonderful Corbett family, and all their stoic humorous support, Corbett's journey is as enthralling as it is joyous, yet as brash and as bold as he is, he is a very likable character, and it's a character that befits the tagged moniker he got of Gentleman Jim.<br /><br />The film never sags for one moment, and it's a testament to director Raoul Walsh that although we are eagerly awaiting the final fight, the outer ring goings on are keeping us firmly entertained, not even the love interest sub plot hurts this picture {thank you Alexis Smith}. The fight sequences stand up really well, and they perfectly show just how Corbett became the champ he was, his brand of dancing rings round slugger fighters is now firmly placed in boxing history. As the final reel rolls we all come down to earth as an after fight meeting between Sullivan and Corbett puts all the brutality into context, and it's here where humility and humbleness becomes the outright winner, and as far as this viewer goes..............it will do for me to be sure to be sure, 9/10 for a truly wonderful picture. | 1 |
Was this supposed to be funny? This is one of those films that just doesn't work. The first one, Bruce Almighty with Jim Carey, had some very funny moments. This one had none.<br /><br />Steve Carrell, who was brilliant in Bruce Almighty, fails to deliver here. His performance is very ordinary and he can't carry it off like Carey did.<br /><br />The one good thing about this is I only paid $1.95 to rent it. It's a movie for children...very young children who have only seen about 4 films or so in their short lives.<br /><br />It's interesting to note that where Jim Carey stars in a film and they make a sequel without him that it's usually a huge turkey. Anyone remember Son of Mask? (IMDB Worst 100 films of all time) Avoid this one movie lovers. | 0 |
I should say right away that I checked the spoilers box only because I'm giving this comment the amount of thought proportional to what this mess of a movie deserves, and don't want to be held responsible for some plot point incidentally slipping out.<br /><br />This comment will take the form of a tirade for the simple reason that I am still under the influence of this movie, having just watched it, and the unique effect this has renders one incapable of the sort of forethought and paragraph structure required for coherent, reasoned criticism. That is not a compliment. It isn't the narcotic effect of a truly hypnotic or thought provoking movie. The feelings it stirs up combine like some uncomfortable emotional Voltron, composed of a confusing mix of some form of rage, the vague desire to take a shower, the rudderless, sinking feeling of true betrayal one gets when they realize they have given 109 minutes of their lives into the hands of someone who would not only squander it, but do so in such a pompous, artless way. And I probably wouldn't have done anything super productive with that 109 minutes anyway! But even if I'd spent it on something trivial, like a power block of masturbation and online poker, I would have felt more fulfilled when all was said and done.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are myriad, and in better times I'd articulate exactly what they were in a semi-adult fashion. But in keeping with what this movie deserves, I think I'll most likely stick to the realm of masturbation jokes and cartoon references.<br /><br />The most irritating and terminal flaw is that while watching this movie one is keenly aware that the makers and participants think they are making a much smarter movie than they are. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge one could pick up in a one semester survey of Western art history at a community college or trade school, the art-jargon is piled on thick and from all directions, with much of it supplied by talk between our hero, the tortured detective Stan (Willem Dafoe, who I will forgive for this movie due to him being Willem Dafoe) and his accented antique dealer buddy Blair (Peter Stormare, taking a break from playing a sociopath for whom murder comes easy by playing a 2-dimensional plot device in a movie about a sociopath for whom murder comes easy). And talk they do. In fact, we are dropped into this story at a crime scene that may indicate the reemergence of a serial killer Stan thinks he killed years earlier, so all the back story is established partially through unclear flashback, but primarily through stilted conversations between Stan and his dealer, or Stan and his colleague, the unforgivably irritating Carl (Scott Speedman). And although I differentiate the character Carl (Scott Speedman) from the actor who plays him by using parentheses, I must admit that very early on in the film I despised this character so much that I actually found myself sincerely wishing harm on the actor portraying him (Scott Speedman). Not anything too fancy. Not death or paralysis, necessarily.. But maybe herpes? Or maybe a stage light could fall on him and crush his arm? This is a dangerous digression, but I'm not editing it out because I want to leave anyone reading this who's thinking about paying to see this train wreck of a movie with a clear impression of the horrible wishes and feelings it stirs in even the most peaceful man.<br /><br />Well, I'm sort of running out of steam here.. over the course of writing this the sick feelings this movie brought up in a me have subsided, my head has cleared a bit. Realizing now that I'm still investing time in something related to this piece of sh!t is startlingly similar to waking up after a night of suicidally heavy drinking next to the heaving form of a still slumbering 200 pound college girl. Your first urge is a desperate desire to flee. This is natural. | 0 |
i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different. | 1 |
I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended," "This movie is not Shakespeare," etc. Guess what? Neither was "Road Trip"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. "Whipped" tries to be "Swingers" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word "extremely" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second. <br /><br />"Whipped" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive. | 0 |
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment. | 0 |
First off, I knew nothing about 'Mazes and Monster' before I watched it. I had no knowledge of the Role-playing controversy behind it or the fact that it was a Made-For-TV movie. When I looked at the cover (the updated DVD one) I seriously thought it would be another Fantasy adventure like 'Legend', with Tom Hank as the nerdy hero from 1980s earth entering a mythical world to save a princess from an evil maze filled with monsters. Sounds exciting, right? That is what the cover suggests to you at first glance. I was given this movie as a gift, obviously under the same premise because my aunt knows I'm into action movies with a medieval myth theme. And it has Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. So I popped this movie in, expecting a feel good movie with Tom Hanks in a 80s special effects world that would be good for a laugh.<br /><br />No! None of this happens. Now before I continue I will confess, I am a nerd but I have no interest in Role-playing games. That is all this movie is about so my interest in the content is lukewarm at best. And M&M (copyright infringement?) is not even a feel good role-playing based movie with lovable geeks that uses their imagination to enter a world of awesomeness. No! This is an Anti-Role-playing movie that must have been made by some Religious folk (the same people who also think Barney is the work of Satan.) I understand, Satan is a crafty fellow but I don't think he is desperate enough for soul to lull RPG lovers into worship him. This movie is THEE anti-gamer movie. This is what I get from this movie: it hates RPGs and not only does it make fun of the people engaging in Role-playing but it makes poor Tom Hanks a mental patient.<br /><br />Tom had an excuse to talk to a volleyball in 'Castaway', poor guy was alone but Tom somehow made his insanity fun and you literally saw the Volleyball as a lovable character through Tom's good acting. I wish I watched that movie instead of this. In this movie, Tom is attacked by a make believe dragon creature (it looks like a poorly made mascot for a RPG team) and has a split personality that is creepy at best. Tom's acting only exceeds to make you feel bad for his character and nothing else. I get that the poor guy lost his brother and is not right in the head because of it so the movie does win points for being intentionally tragic. I am not one for films that exploit mental illness and the ending to 'M&M' made me feel like cr*p. Luckily I watched 'Hudson Hawk' afterwards and got a good laugh before my soul was crushed any further. Yah, 'HH' surpasses 'M&M' by . . . a LOT! This is not one of Tom's better films. In fact it is thee most depressing movie I've ever seen him in (Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is not this depressing). I walked in hoping to watch a feel good movie and I ended up feeling the exact opposite. If you want to watch a sad (both emotionally and visually) movie then by all means watch this. If this movie is to convey a message, it is this: "Don't play RPGs if you are Cuckoo for Coco-Puffs." | 0 |
the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! | 0 |
I knew this film was supposed to be so bad it was funny, so I went into it with that expectation. I just found it to be so bad it was murderously boring. The whiny theme song is funny for about 10 seconds, until you realize there is nothing clever about it except its intentionally irritating quality. Seeing things get splattered with tomatoes gets old in about 30 seconds. There is just nothing clever or funny about the film except for the premise. It could sustain a 3-4 minute comedy sketch maybe, but this is just not a feature film by any stretch of the imagination. | 0 |
I viewed the movie together with a homophobic friend, my wife and her female friend. So I had views from all kinds of directions. Mainly, the film made me laugh, the sexual tension was not really there and the only noticeable actors were Tudor Chirila and Maria Popistasu. Yes, I do think she played her role well, even if the script was not appropriate. There were good Romanian actors around, they just didn't have complex roles. I applaud Puya's entering the movie business. I don't know why, but I think he's a good guy, I just hope he'll be a good actor.<br /><br />The wife loved the movie, though, and I think there might have been chords being played and to which I had no ear for. If the film tried to present uncommon sexual behaviors and their consequences in todays Romania, then it failed miserably. There were no consequences. Just imagine that the girls are actually a boy and a girl, and the same story becomes just a boring, uninteresting plot.<br /><br />I have no idea why it got all those BAFTA awards. In my book, it should have gotten the "Better luck next time" award. (bafta=good luck in Romanian). | 1 |
Since the characters begin with "Unknown" identities, they not identified by name, so you start with handsome James Caviezel waking up in a warehouse. He finds out the place is locked up tight. Don't ask - the windows are made with security glass, and it's impossible to get out. Four other awakening men make it a quintet - Mr. Caviezel in his "Jean Jacket", Barry Pepper in a "Ranger Shirt", Greg Kinnear with a "Broken Nose", Joe Pantoliano as a chair "Bound Man", and Jeremy Sisto shot and "Handcuffed Man". Oh, Man
<br /><br />These five men have collective amnesia. They think that three of them are kidnappers, and two are victims - but, they don't know who is which or which is who. The forgetfulness is due to a pipe leak. Don't ask - it happens. Meanwhile, on the outside, lead lawman David Selby (as Parker) sends his cops to solve the kidnapping while one of the men's wives, Bridget Moynahan (as Eliza Coles), frantically waits. But, criminal element's gang leader, Peter Stormare in "Snakeskin Boots", is also on his way to the scene.<br /><br />Like the DVD synopsis says, "As secrets are revealed and clues unraveled, (the five men) must race against time to figure out who is good and who is evil in order to stay alive." This story reads a lot better than it looks on film, unfortunately. When the secrets are finally revealed, and memories become clear, there is no longer much interest in what has happened. Simply, director Simon Brand has a great premise with Matthew Waynee's idea, but they encumber light investment in the characters holding the short end of the stick.<br /><br />**** Unknown (11/1/06) Simon Brand ~ James Caviezel, Barry Pepper, Greg Kinnear, David Selby | 0 |
This was one of those films I would always come across (be it on TV or cheap DVD), but never struck me to give it a shot as I thought I wasn't missing out on much. It was on one night and I thought oh well
why not. A good decision too, as I would kick myself for taking so long to get around to it. For me it left me impressed, as it's up there with Burt Reynold's best features ('Deliverance', 'White Lightning' and 'Boogie Nights') and streams back to those 70s/80s gritty, hardboiled urban crime thrillers that weren't afraid to be forebodingly obscure and go out of their way to set-up characters, pack-it with realistically brutal force and effectively incorporate the local locations (Atlanta being the case here) to the fold with grounded photography. In certain shades it kind of reminded me of 'Dirty Harry', but that's loosely. However it's saucily honed blues score with its simmering kicks, funky shifts and unhinged sounds, very much had me thinking of Lalo Schifrin's pulsating score he orchestrated for 'Dirty Harry'. The music soundtrack on the other hand is hit or miss.<br /><br />Sgt. Tom Sharky was an Atlantic narcotic agent before a slip-out during a bust saw him demoted to vice work. Along with his new squad they come across a prostitution ring, which catches their interest due to fact it's owned by one hard-to-track and to convict crime lord. What they dig up involves a prominent government figure and a call-girl which can give them some important names, but they must get to her before she's made a target.<br /><br />Burt Reynold's acts, but also directs in an unyieldingly firm and muscular fashion which would suit his laconically hard-nosed performance and Gerald Di Pego's thematically hard-bitten and taut screenplay (that was adapted from William Diehl's novel). Well he does show some sort of heart/insightful thoughts amongst that armor within the scenes involving the fetchingly able British actress Rachel Ward, be it the stake-out scenes when he's watching her from another building (and slowly becoming infatuated by her) to when they finally come together, but these latter interactions mid-way through do slow up the momentum but give it noir like strokes. The performances are fairly spot on with Reynold's formulating a great rapport with exceptional actors Charles Durning, Earl Holliman, Brian Keith, Richard Libertini and Bernie Casey. The scathing profanity and witty dialogues between these guys were a blast. As for the corrupt villains, Vittorio Gassman builds imposing strength and power, but it's Henry Silva (who seems born for these roles) icily cunning and unstoppable turn that makes the show. Where his appearance seems to outline things to come and help them fall into place. Plus his adrenaline-filled and violent cat and mouse climax with Sharky and his team is brilliantly done.<br /><br />The exciting action passages might be quick and dry, but remain lethally violent like an immensely teeth-grinding interrogation sequence. Some handy, old fashion filming techniques add to the suspense. The intriguing material keeps it quite tactical being character derived, but when we think its smooth sailing it offers up a blunt surprise or two along with some intensely brunt confrontations. | 1 |
The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway. | 0 |
Ever since I've been allowed to play Goldeneye once again, it's been impossible to get my mind off it. I'm surprised I could have gone without it. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest games of all time. I have never played any other shooting games, but I know that this one rules above all. Most people blame it for too much violence, but I find that ridiculous. There may be a few graphic antics, but there's far worse out there.<br /><br />Most importantly, it's fun. With an awesome arsenal of weapons such as the RC-P90 and the classic Golden Gun, you'll go through several challenging levels from the movie, completing crucial objectives and fending off swarms of guards. There are tons of awesome cheats to get and even two secret levels that you will only earn if you have the true skill. Goldeneye is also one of the greatest multiplayer games ever as well. You can choose several characters from the movie, classic villains from old 007 movies (Baron Samedi, Oddjob, May Day, and Jaws), and guards in the game. Chances are you and your partner(s) will be laughing so hard as you blow each other away that you'll look like Bart and Lisa Simpson watching an episode of the Itchy and Scratchy show. <br /><br />So if you don't have the game, don't rent it: Just buy it. It's too good to be true. For cool Goldeneye stuff, check out Detstar.com's Goldeneye website. Every James Bond lover will dig this game big time. | 1 |
A cheesy "B" crime thriller of the early '50, the story is droll, the characters wooden, Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane are the only two sexpots that make it an eye-catcher, but one short shot, only a few frames long, shows an "el" train crossing the river on the State Street bridge, of the 6000 series Pullman-built cars painted in their original 1950 paint scheme, as they were delivered when new in 1950. For traction fans like me, that one short take makes the picture worthwhile. I think films like this one, Ulmer's DETOUR, D.O.A. with Edmund O'Brien,THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, and others of the film noir genre, (big city crime dramas) make it interesting if for nothing other than the fact that I know Chicago and San Francisco intimately and recognize most of the street locations. Other wise it's a really droll boring film! | 0 |
John Singleton's finest film, before blockbuster wannabees like the Shaft remake, this is a thought-provoking movie with overall great acting and superb balance between the stories 3 main characters, each with identifiable youngster problems.<br /><br />What I liked about it most is that it also covers the problem of selfpity among young blacks, a problem mostly ignored by the media and other films who mostly focus on social-economical problems and racism by whites. This movie shows that blacks can be equally ignorant and racist.<br /><br />The masterful thing about this film is that it deals with so many topics without getting shallow. It's not just about racism, but about how hard it can be to adopt to a new world (college), date rape, discovering sexuality and isolation. Omar Epps, Michael Rapaport and Kristy Swanson each deliver fine performances, and the supporting cast is equally interesting with Jennifer Connelly as a lez (yay) and with Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes as college bums causing little riots.<br /><br />The only negative is the caricature of a professor by Laurence Fishburne ("Peppermint?"). Surely, plenty of professors are nutty. But they're not as flat. The skinheads are also a bit of a caricature, but I guess they are like that too in real life.<br /><br />Overall a great underrated piece of filmwork, if you liked American History X you'll love this one.<br /><br />8,5 out of 10 | 1 |
Julia Stiles is a talented young actress, who with guidance from a reputable agent has a lot of potential. Obviously, the person who guided her into this travesty is not someone who cares anything about her career. I sat in the theater surrounded by teenagers who left in droves to find another movie to sneak into wondering who thought this movie would appeal to anyone. It was poorly written, the casting director could only have put 1 or 2 minutes of effort into the characters and the director obviously didn't care. | 0 |
Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4 | 0 |
Boring, ridicules and stupid "Submerged" is a waste of time. The shootouts were a joke, real people do not just stand out in the open with out any cover, hoping to get shot first! So many things wrong or bad, not worth the effort to list, except one major flaw. At 500 mph for 20 minutes = about 166 miles west of L.A. and the water is 100ft deep??? Even at that, none of the people would have survived the decompression from being subjected to 100ft of water pressure for more then 20 hours when they were brought up. Just a awful. | 0 |
The movie had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular "foreign" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the "woman of his dreams" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting movie. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.