text stringlengths 32 13.7k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|
I think this is Pauly Shore's best stuff, he played the part perfect. I really enjoyed this movie, Patrick Renna is really funny as Zack the annoying little brother. Son In Law is a good comedy worth your time, but the only thing I wish Tiffany Thiessen was the farm chick instead of the one they had. | 1 |
"A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die" is a quality spaghetti western with a solid cast and an interesting storyline. It is filmed beautifully, with a relatively high production value for a film in this genre.<br /><br />Alex Cord does a terrific job portraying Clay McCord, an outlaw who is suffering from increasingly debilitating seizures. He is seeking amnesty before his enemies close in on him, but is being too cocky for his own good when he asks for it. Robert Ryan delivers the best performance in the film as the governor of New Mexico. Mario Brega and Arthur Kennedy are also great here.<br /><br />This movie is very good, but it doesn't stand out to me as being one of the best spaghetti westerns out there. It's lacking too much in style to be in the same league as any of the great ones. It does have some cool spaghetti overtones, but overall it's a bit too much like an American western. This is especially evident in the music score, which is OK as movies go in general, but pretty dull by euro-western standards. The soundtrack kind of reminds me of the music from "The Unforgiven." Although there is an interesting story here, it is told in a manner which is a bit too conventional for my tastes. If a spaghetti western fan and a Hollywood western fan had to watch a movie together, this one would be the perfect compromise.<br /><br />All of this is not to say that anyone should avoid this film. I did enjoy watching it very much. As I said, it is a very well-done film and I recommend it to anyone who likes westerns, spaghetti or otherwise. | 1 |
Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll. | 0 |
I think this is a great version, I came on here before, to help me find which version I should use and I went to Jane Eyre 1983 and read a comment from users comment and then helped me to get this version. I do not regret picking this version and neither will you. I tried watching all the other versions and none matched up to it,There is nothing like the book,and TRUST ME if you are reading the book you want something that is going to match up with it. When you are looking for something real and moving after you have read the book it is hard because you want something that is going to match up with that. I would say God personally led me to this version. It points to true love for a humans. I would say God's love is greater.if there is anything better, I would like to see it. but so far there is none like it! | 1 |
In the opening scene of "Malta Story" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be "Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a "Jack Hawkins" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but "Malta Story" does not even qualify for the term "worthy" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live. | 0 |
Having just seen this, I find it hard to believe that it is not better known. This and the slightly-better-known, but almost-as-shamefully-neglected COME AND SEE (Klimov, 1986) must be two of the greatest war films. They are meaningful, powerful, incisive. THE ASCENT is also gifted with a sparingly-used, but brilliantly trenchant score by Schnittke. | 1 |
Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original "Lonesome Dove" than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between "Lonesome Dove" and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no "Lonesome Dove". In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to "Lonesome Dove", there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right. | 1 |
The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).<br /><br />The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.<br /><br />In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. | 1 |
Robert Forster, normally a very strong character actor, is lost at sea here cast as a New York family man seeking revenge on the thugs who murdered his son and attacked his wife in a home invasion. Scary subject matter exploited for cheapjack thrills in the "Death Wish" vein. It isn't difficult to scoff at these smarmy proceedings: the dialogue is full of howlers, the crime statistics are irrevocably dated, and the supporting characters are ridiculously over-written (particularly a despicable judge who allows an accused murderer to walk right out of the courtroom). Low-rent production is contemptible in its self-righteousness, especially as the violence in our cities has only increased. * from **** | 0 |
'It's supposed to have got good reviews' says the g/f. If so, I can't find them. She goes off to sleep and I endure. Michael Douglas as a good ol' boy - now there's a new one. Matt Dillon all screwed up. John Goodman losing his cool. Paul Reiser running around in BDSM leather. Oh it's a riot all right.<br /><br />The hitch is you're probably going to lose interest pretty soon on. Liv Tyler plays the femme fatale and critics complain she might not have the register for her part. But it's immaterial: this movie is not about character development. In fact I'd go so far as to say there's no character at all. What you're supposed to appreciate here is the plot.<br /><br />No one is 'bad' in this movie. Some people wonder why all these 'stars' - Reba's even in here for goodness sake - sign up for such a junky project. Odds are they thought it would be fun. Maybe they did have fun. Who knows? Hey - maybe they got paid good too.<br /><br />But you have to fork over money one way or another to see this turkey. And that's probably not a good idea. | 0 |
I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!<br /><br />I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.<br /><br />If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!<br /><br />The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.<br /><br />That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.<br /><br />If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.<br /><br />0/10 | 0 |
This is hands down the greatest stand up show ever. I've seen a lot of stand up shows ,been to a lot of stand up shows, and watch Bet's Comic View, but I have never seen anyone who could match the skills of Murphy on this show. The impressions are excellent, the skits are great, and the timing is perfect. You can even tell the crowd gets really into. When he did Raw a few years later it was also really good, but this is # 1 in my book. Also shows that at one time, particularly the early-to mid eighties, that Murphy was funny. My favorite parts of the show is when he is retelling the family barbecue and "Ice cream !!! Mooommmm!! The ice cream man is coming !!!!" Another great part is where his mom is like Clint Eastwood. | 1 |
Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race). | 0 |
Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best. | 1 |
Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie. | 0 |
It feels like swedish movies are trying to become more american and I just don´t get it. In this movie the performance of some of the actors is horrible and the script is nothing special. Don´t waste your time! | 0 |
I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.<br /><br />Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.<br /><br />The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.<br /><br />My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.<br /><br />The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie. | 0 |
I kid you not. Yes, "Who's That Girl" has the distinction for being one in a string of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than "Desperately Seeking Susan". In "Susan", Madonna's character is relegated to being second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in an 80s style. While it may seem "cheesy" today, this is actually one of Madonna's best and one of her most underrated films.<br /><br />Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a rainforest(???) on his roof. <br /><br />This movie parodies everything. Rich people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of leopard reminiscent of "Bringing Up Baby". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG.<br /><br />Madonna is the queen of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the notorious movies "Body of Evidence" and "Dangerous Game". <br /><br />Some people say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know, you might be surprised and like it! <br /><br />Interesting note: One of Madonna's friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band. | 1 |
The characters are cliched and predictable, with everyone being either snow-white pure or wholly evil. The acting is too stilted for it to be bad in an amusing, over-the-top way. It's doubly disappointing if you're a Bette Davis fan, because her character is not a typically fun Bette-Davis-type character; she just gets to frown pensively a lot.<br /><br />On the whole, neither my wife nor I found the movie to be interesting, moving or enjoyable at all. | 0 |
I have to say that some of the other reviews of this film I have read show very little understanding of it or the original TV series it stemmed from. Dad's Army was a sitcom and therefore had humour and so is bound to have put a smile on the face of the dire situation. However the series carried very many serious messages such as the episode 'Branded' about the bigotry and ignorance that was attached to conscientious objectors. The film was faithful to the series and was simply like an extended episode. So I'm afraid the reviewer who claimed that Columbia improved the humour was quite wrong and let's face it - the BBC sitcoms of this period beat anything that came out of America hands down. Also comments referring to propaganda were also way off the mark. The Homeguard were people considered unfit for frontline service who still wished to serve. They were very brave men who knew they were sentenced to death as soon as they signed up as Hitler announced that anyone who did so would be executed if and when Britain was invaded. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight as it is always good to actually speak and comment on what has been seen rather making it up as you go along I find. | 1 |
Having been raised in Canada, I saw this short many times mostly on the CBC. I have seen it numerous times, at many ages in my life, and each time the reactions are the same. It is a joyous bittersweet, beautifully animated film that tugs at your heart. I am sure I have it on some VHS tape somewhere digging around.<br /><br />Every kid growing up can relate to the situation, and wanting to fit in with your favourite idols. The scene and look on the kids face when his mom is filling out the Eatons catalogue and his jumping around the room is priceless. I haven't seen someone capture that carefree mood of youth on film as well as this little short has.<br /><br />Sure I am a Montreal habs fan, and that makes my appreciation for it more special. But in the end it is the nostalgic look and feel of pond hockey, and the memories of your family telling you that you should be greatful for what you get even if it isn't exactly what you wanted. And oh yeah, the animation is beautiful too ;)<br /><br />Rating 10 out of 10 | 1 |
This is a very good black comedy, with a great view on how different people have a different perception of the same situations. The three main characters each met a girl named Jewel, played by Liv Tyler, who is a different male fantasy for each of the three men. Each of the three men go through the same situations, but when they tell of them to other people, their perception of the situation is very different from what the other two say. That is a very good concept, probably not entirely original but it works very well in the movie. The plot is very good, very bizarre and extreme, which makes it a good black comedy. The acting is equally good, not one of the actors seemed out of place or out of their league. The comedy is very black, pitch black in some scenes, and a lot of people will definitely be offended by it, but fans of black comedy will probably enjoy it. Overall, this movie is not for everyone's taste, but most people who like black comedy will probably love it, as it is definitely one of the better black comedies. 7/10 | 1 |
SPOILERS<br /><br />I love the Simpsons, and I have seen every single episode that had ever come out. I must admit, season one is by far the most underrated season, and this is the most underrated episode in season one.The episode begins with the family playing a game of Scrabble to get Bart ready for an intelligence test he needs to take at school. He says the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play it, but he needs to. He spells out a word that angers Homer and he chases Bart around the house. The next day Mrs. Krabappel reassures the class that the test isn't part of their grade, just a test that would tell them what their future would be like. Bart can't answer one question. He thinks fast. He quickly switches test with Martin Prince, the smartest one in class. Later that day Marge and Homer are called to go to the Principal's office to discuss Bart's behavior. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the school psychologist comes and tells Skinner and Homer and Marge that Bart is a genius and should go to a special school for the gifted. Bart agrees to go since he wouldn't need to do any homework. The next day Homer drives Bart to the new school. He is introduced to everyone and everything. Unluckily, his day isn't very good. The smart students take his lunch smartly, he can't read any comic books, but he does anyway, and he is criticized by his fellow students. Luckily for Bart, he and Homer start to have a great time together, but Marge bought tickets to an opera. They go to the opera, and make fun of it. The next day he goes to his old school but is made fun of by his friends. They call him a point dexter. While at his new school, Bart is told to do a Chemistry Experiment. He does it wrong and blows up the school, leaving himself green. Bart is told by the psychologist to tell him why he did it. Instead, Bart tells him he wants to go undercover and go back to his old school to observe other kids. The psychologist is intrigued and he asks Bart to explain it on a piece of paper. He finds it too hard and instead writes a confession that he really isn't a genius. He gives it to the psychologist. All he cares about is that he spelled the word confession wrong. That night Homer bathes Bart and Bart tells him that he really isn't a genius and that he cheated on the test. Homer gets angry and chases Bart around the house as Lisa and Marge look at them casually.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very underrated season one episode.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from **** | 0 |
This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam. | 1 |
Rohinton Mistry's multi-layered novel seemed impossible to adapt for the screen but the resulting movie is filled with passion, emotion, humour and pathos. The story is somewhat slow-moving but there is always something on the screen to captivate the audience. The movie perfectly catches a particular time and place with pinpoint accuracy. All of the actors are Indian - few if any known to "western" audiences - but they are a joy to behold, especially the little girl who acts very convincingly. Don't be put off by the title and plot summary - this is a movie to be seen on the big screen. We have much to learn from it. | 1 |
B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.<br /><br />"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."<br /><br />"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."<br /><br />"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"<br /><br />Dr Price is the snake expert.<br /><br />Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area. | 0 |
Fantastically written, acted, and produced! Loved seeing this gleaming, talented cast -- every single one of them -- give a such great performance. This movie thoroughly warmed the cockles of my heart! Great storytelling!<br /><br />This is a great movie for Black History month. Full of an accurate portrayal of recent history and very real characters who weathered incredible pain -- with dignity and a belief in a better future. It is so easy to see how these diverse adults all affected this child and contributed to the fertile imagination that would eventually fuel the talent of his adulthood. The next time you're in the company of a listening and observing child, remember; show or he may be a writer-in-the-making! | 1 |
I can't get over how lazy the director is with this movie. Instead of setting up scenes in a creative way he relies on boring old zombie clichés.<br /><br />Where the two unarmed leads have to get down the college steps into the van he surrounds them with zombies yet neither of the leads is bitten. He can't be bothered to direct a decent fight scene so we see the leads shove their way down the steps.<br /><br />Sometimes the zombies limp about and at others they run like the wind. This is really convenient for the director because he can set up anything he likes without bothering with continuity in the behaviour of the zombies.<br /><br />With careful planning and a lot more inspiration this movie could have been so much better. | 0 |
This is a reunion, a team, and a great episode of Justice. From hesitation to resolution, Clark has made a important leap from a troubled teenager who was afraid of a controlled destiny, to a Superman who, like Green Arrow, sets aside his emotions to his few loved ones, ready to save the whole planet. This is not just a thrilling story about teamwork, loyalty, and friendship; this is also about deciding what's more important in life, a lesson for Clark. I do not want the series to end, but I hope the ensuing episodes will strictly stick to what Justice shows without any "rewind" pushes and put a good end here of Smallville---and a wonderful beginning of Superman.<br /><br />In this episode, however, we should have seen more contrast between Lex and the Team. Nine stars should give it enough credit. | 1 |
Arnold fans will holler in joy, fans of brainless action will holler in astonishment, and Catholics will just holler.<br /><br />Illogically written by Andrew W. Marlowe and ham-handedly directed by Peter Hyams, *End of Days* gets The Terminator out of his open-backed hospital gown (Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his heart operation), whilst blowing things up in Mysterious Ways and blaspheming Biblical verse to give Catholics something more to whine about.<br /><br />It is 1999 and doom-sayers the world over live in trepidation of their computers going fritz and losing their downloaded porn. Even as the technological stank of Y2K muttons the New York streets, ex-cop turned alcoholic security guard, Jericho Cane (Schwarzenegger, with the perfunctory "dead-wife-and-kid" back-story for Loose Cannon effect), must brave theological waters to save 20-year-old virgin Christine (Robin Tunney) from being conscripted as wait for it The Bride of Satan. Dun dah daaaarrrh! Stupidity ensues.<br /><br />For every anti-hero, there is his anti-Christ. Gabriel Byrne is the devil here and he's out to party like it's 1999, on a mission to impregnate Christine with the Anti-Christ between 11 pm and 12 midnight, December 31, 1999 ironically, in the hour that all porn will be lost thereby bringing about the End of Days. Being able to read minds, conjure hallucinations and employ limitless magic, it doesn't occur to Satan to expedite the impregnation process by appearing months in advance and courting Christine as a teen model and then closing the panty raid easily at the appointed time; instead, he appears on December 28th like a Keyser Soze Terminator and wonders why she doesn't welcome him with open thighs
(See above comment re: stupidity.) Here is a movie where nothing makes sense the moment it is uttered, let alone after contemplating its veracity or mythology. A priest (Rod Steiger) tells Jericho that '666' is really '999' upside down with a '1' in front of it. So wait - *Prince* is the Anti-Christ?<br /><br />Satan Soze pursues Jericho and Christine (J and C get it?) around town, at no point doing anything which would actually precipitate their capture. In one scene, Satan recreates Jericho's wife and child to tempt him into revealing where he hid Christine. But if he can see so deeply into Jericho's mind in recreating his family with enough nuance to inspire nostalgia, why can't he see where Jericho hid Christine not ten minutes ago? <br /><br />Satan can make an assassin talk without a tongue, yet he can't make that assassin unjam a semi-automatic weapon. And when Jericho shoots Satan at point blank range, Satan is courteous enough to open his shirt to reveal the wounds closing, so Jericho won't worry unduly about Satan's health - not sanitary to go about with open bullet wounds
Matter of fact, instead of simply possessing Jericho himself to get close to Christine and rape her, Satan expends so much unnecessary energy on side-projects (crucifying the tongue-less guy, blowing up Jericho's partner (Kevin Pollak) and then saving him, and then blowing him up again, ridiculously battling Jericho when he could snuff him out with the effort of thought) that we wonder whether a more efficient assassin/lover shouldn't be put on the case say, Antonio Banderas.<br /><br />What I find most precious about *End of Days* is Arnold's valiant attempts at The Method: "sad" means scrunching up his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "depressed" means raising a bottle to his lips and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "deathly scared" means widening his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent. There's definitely a pattern here, if we could only decipher it.<br /><br />In the end, the devil is dispatched not by the holy men whom Catholics pray to for deliverance from apocalypses such as these, but from the atheist Jericho. While the timid men of an impotent god exhort "faith" and quiver in their cells doing nothing about Satan actually walking amongst them, the Prince of Darkness is thwarted by a nullifidian with a big gun and a foreign accent. Which clearly says something that Catholics blindly refuse to hear: that even if the Devil were to exist, those who have been indoctrinated to unconditionally and irrationally fear him would be unable to conjure a belief in his downfall, let alone act towards it. Further, they might not truly WANT him defeated, for only through his contrary polarity does their god's existence become tenable.<br /><br />For it is written in the Book of Revelations: "And the Prince of Darkness shall descendeth upon the Earth without any solid game plan, and impregnate a virgin on a date which won't have any significance until the Gregorian Calendar of the 1500s adopts the day numbering which will put it in sync with the equinoxes and the Anno Domine syntax which will annoy sensible people for millennia, by which time, Christians will have forgotten Christ's actual birth date and appropriated the pagan Saturnalia festival in its stead. And the Prince shall effect a Revolution through tight purple pants and ambiguously-lesbian band members
" I can believe the people being drained of blood and crucified, and the alcoholic built like a Mr. Universe; I can believe that a giant, supernatural monster can't kill a guy armed only with a foreign accent; I can even believe that the devil needs to perform some hokey thirteenth century Celtic Druid ritual as foreplay - but what I cannot believe is the 20-year-old virgin in New York City in 1999.<br /><br />Especially around Prince... | 0 |
A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee. | 0 |
The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the "monster" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film. | 0 |
No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.<br /><br />I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.<br /><br />Not so Royal Flash.<br /><br />I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).<br /><br />What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).<br /><br />None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.<br /><br />Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.<br /><br />If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.<br /><br />A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.<br /><br />My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.<br /><br />If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films. | 0 |
I first watched this show hoping for a few laughs, good acting, and good plot. Sadly, I got none of those things.<br /><br />First off, this show is completely unrealistic. How can someone go to a boarding school that's super hip, awesome location, and barely any rules? Plus a sushi bar. A SUSHI BAR. No school has a sushi bar. And what's up with the huge, ultra cool, ultra hip dorm rooms? This doesn't happen in boarding schools! Everyone in this show seems to be perfect. Zoey, looks perfect, has the perfect friends, never has to do homework, and is super popular. Sounds more like a villain to me! I hate how they use so many cliques in this show, Example: Dana the skater chick. She is completely ignorant and wears "edgy" clothes. The jokes are old sooooo old too! I wouldn't watch this show if I were you, it's one of the most horrible shows I have ever watched and I hope it gets canceled soon! Rating: 1/10 | 0 |
I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!<br /><br />This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the main admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.<br /><br />The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.<br /><br />From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.<br /><br />There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that. | 0 |
With title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. Acting bad. Script bad. Director bad. Grammar bad.<br /><br />Movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. Movie make bad racial stereotype. Why come every movie with black hero have drug addict? Why come hero always have to dance to be success? Why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie? Why come letter "s" can't be in title?<br /><br />Hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper English.<br /><br />Do self favor and not go see. | 0 |
After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.<br /><br />Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.<br /><br />What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'<br /><br />I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.<br /><br />As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.<br /><br />As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.<br /><br />In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.<br /><br />Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic. | 1 |
It's like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back. | 0 |
I just got the DVD for Hardware Wars, in a shiny new package, looking irresistable. Stuck it in my DVD player to find a slew of extra fun stuff. The extra content on the DVD is even longer than the movie. For those of you that have (shame!) never seen Hardware Wars, it one fantastically silly Star Wars spoof (of Episode IV, of course). Household appliances (such as irons, toasters, vacuums, and a waffle maker) stand in for Ty-fighters, X-wings, R2D2, and the death star. Instead of Princess Leia, we have Princess Ann-Droid, complete with Cinnabon hairdo. You get the point, I'm sure. Mad silliness, and a fun ride for any Star Wars geek (like me!)<br /><br />Now, the DVD - wow! A director's commentary where he basically goes off on the movie, making fun of himself and the project throughout. An interview with Fosselius on Creature Features (remember that?!) and hilarious "director's cut" and "foreign version" of the movie (all jokes of course). Anyway, this is great. I loved Hardware Wars in the theater, and am so glad for having the DVD in my collection - wedged in between MST3K: the movie and Thumb Wars! | 1 |
Before I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. That story is one of the best romantic adventures ever written. The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there. So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.<br /><br />To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.<br /><br />There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises. There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.<br /><br />All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.<br /><br />Sink me! What a horrible movie!<br /><br /> | 0 |
I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in "the family". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as "The Rose". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to "the family". If only the script did justice to the actors. | 0 |
Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS! | 0 |
This movie attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , "is that all" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about it. | 0 |
This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy "K-9". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as "This House Possessed" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull. | 0 |
A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does "reconcile" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing "live" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie. | 1 |
This is one of those movies that has everything in it. I don't think I would get tired of seeing it. Hopefully more movies like this one will be made in the future. The casting was perfect in all respects. In a sense, the song sung by Engelbert Humperdink "I Never Got to Say Goodbye", is the song come to life. You will most definitely laugh and cry throughout the entire scenario for sure. I'm just surprised that I had never seen it before this past weekend. I think that it's positively worth seeing, and your heart will be glowing. It would be nice to cuddle up with your "honey"; sip a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy being in the presence of each other. There is so much heart and emotion at times you honestly don't know where to turn. You will know exactly how the character feels. True family expression is available all the way through. In fact, at times you'll even think you are part of that family or they a part of yours. See it! | 1 |
This was supposed to be set in the "Bible Belt" of Northern Ireland. Well, as someone who grew up there,and was a child in the era depicted in the film it just didn't ring true! The accents were all over the place - anything but County Antrim/Derry. The church didn't resemble any I have ever seen. "The Church of God" is a pentecostal denomination but the one in the film was certainly not pentecostal! The elderly minister at the beginning was dressed in the robes of the Church of Ireland (Anglican)- and no C.of I. would call itself "The Church of God". The minister was often addressed as "Reverend" - they may do that in some parts of the world but I never heard it when I lived in that area. Ministers were addressed as "Mr ......"<br /><br />This film was very badly researched and cast - fairly typical of Irish cinema - annoying! A film can have a great plot, but if it doesn't look authentic, it is rubbish. | 0 |
Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.<br /><br />When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is "wait a minute, you don't?" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. "The love story is too cheesy" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.<br /><br />And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.<br /><br />Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.<br /><br />I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.<br /><br />I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.<br /><br />I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.<br /><br />I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events. | 1 |
Fires on the plain directed by Kon Ichikawa and written by Shohei Ooka and Natto Wada is a World War two movie which is finally not showing the allies fighting the axis powers, but the Japanese fighting and struggling for their lives on the Philippines. The main characters name is Tamura , played by Eiji Funakoshi, and he is a soldier leaving his regiment because of him being sick. All he has on him is a hand grenade, his gun and some potatoes. Like this, he is trying to make his way to the hospital in order to get a doctor and a cure for his disease. But since the hospital turned him away and gets destroyed, he begins a long walk. Throughout the whole movie, Tamura remains a bit cowardish, but very civil, when the other soldiers become more like animals by using their basic instincts for survival Tamura is still remaining human and would not degrade. A scene which has influenced me a lot to think positively and different about this war movie is, when Tamura comes into a Phillipino village which is completely deserted. There, he fights a dog and finds a lot of corpses of Japanese soldiers stacked up in front of a church. This makes Tamura think and even more scared than he already is. That shows that the soldier is not a brave killing machine, but a servant to higher beings and human most importantly. After he turns away from the corpses, two Phillipinos (a couple or brother and sister : very close relationship) return to the village in order to get their stash of salt back. The main character of the movie wants to be friendly at first, although he walked up to them with his gun, but shoots the woman once she starts screaming. Her brother/boyfriend/husband then runs away in fear and after a moment Tamura follows him and shoots wildly at the fleeing Filipino. He does not hit him. After Tamura picks up the bag of salt , something very precious , he drops his gun into a river. This gesture is very important in order to understand Kon Ichikawa's/Shohei Ooka's profiling of Tamura and the war. Comparing this movie to other World War 2 movies, it is not typical at all. Of course all movies have suffering heroes, but their heroes are more heroic than Tamura. He expresses everything that is human: he is getting manipulated , he is weak , he gets scared , he has hope. This is typical for Japanese World War two movies and for Japanese society. Since World War two is not a discussed theme in Japanese society, Japanese are likely to put Japanese in the second World War in the role of the victim. This victimisation is also very visual in this movie. One of the examples is Tamura, another one the piled up bodies of Japanese soldiers in front of the church and another important one is, when the Japanese soldiers are trying to cross a street and the Americans are already waiting there for them and shooting all of the Japanese soldiers which have worse equipment and are fed worse and have no health equipment or anything alike. In my personal conclusion I have to say that it is worth seeing this film in order to finally see a movie from the other side than usual. It also has no nationalistic propaganda which could've been easily built in. Once you have watched the movie fully, you will be able to see the horrors of the second World War to its total extent. | 1 |
Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.<br /><br />First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.<br /><br />It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.<br /><br />Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;) | 0 |
Thanks to silly horror movies like "Troll" and the indescribably atrocious cult-favorite "Troll 2", it has become practically impossible to take movies with kobolds, gnomes and various other types of little green hobgoblins seriously these days. Only just recently I watched the 70's made-for-TV movie "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", which is basically a quite terrifying and serious-toned film about domestic little goblin monsters, and yet I still couldn't help thinking back about the laugh-inducing potato headed critters dressed in garbage bags that were running amok in "Troll 2". Same thing happened to me now. As much as I tried going into "Inhabited" with a clear mindset, unconsciously I kept comparing the supposedly creepy and menacing garden fairies with the badly sculptured goblins of Nilbog! Still, even without all the prejudices, "Inhabited" is a remotely entertaining albeit unmemorable straight-to-video horror flick. It's a cheesy, soft and politically correct pastiche of family drama and Northern Europe mythology. The annoying and murderous little creatures in this movie aren't your plain average goblins; they are "The Huldre": wicked little Norwegian demons that live underground and attempt to chase happy families out of their houses through influencing the youngest children. This overcomes the Russell family as they move into their ramshackle dream house in a remote little town. The cherubic blond daughter of MILF-actress Megan Gallagher starts to behave strangely whenever she hangs out in the cute play house in the back of the garden. She claims her friends are fairies, and even though the sinister handyman also warns for strange occurrences in the past, Gina's parents simply think the girl has troubles adjusting to her new neighborhood. When she keeps rattling about fairies, they arrange an appointment with the acclaimed psychologist Dr. Werner whilst "The Huldre" are slowly coming out of their botanical shelter. Not much special to mention here. The pace is acceptable and the attempts to build up suspense are pretty cute. You understand this is a family-friendly horror movie, so no bloody murder sequences are graphically being shown here. Heck, even the cadaver of the family's pet cat is kept off-screen. This is the umpteenth nonsensical horror movie in which Malcolm McDowell pops up and he practically always depicts an unreliable, greedy and self-centered authority figure. | 0 |
Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country. | 0 |
I picked this one up on a whim from the library, and was very pleasantly surprised. Lots of tight, expressionistic camera work, an equally tight script, and two superb actors all meld together to make one very fine piece of film. Not for the reptilian multiplex brain, but rather the true aficionado of cinema. If Hollywood ever does get its grimy hands on it, I'm sure it will ruin it. A choice treat all the way around. Other posters here have more than amply sung its praises, so I needn't bother duplicating their paeans; just take their advice, and mine, and don't miss this gem. Call it what you like; I call it two hours of entertainment well-spent. Read my lips: don't miss it. | 1 |
i watched the longer version and could not take my eyes off the screen. 219 minutes passed and yet it seemed like only an hour had gone by. the characters were very believable and entertaining, and the photography was excellent. the story pulled me in and held my attention. i will definitely watch this again and again. this true story telling at it's best... not Hollywoods usual cheap thrills and skin deep glitz. i've seen a quite a lot of reviews on this movie. most seem to pan the film or give it faint praise. basically, it's a great film that received unfairly harsh reviews. watch it for yourself with an open mind. if you like westerns, historic period pieces, albeit historically inaccurate you'll enjoy the movie. Superb!!! 10/10 | 1 |
As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said. | 1 |
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.<br /><br />And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?<br /><br />As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.<br /><br />I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.<br /><br />Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.<br /><br /> | 0 |
We watched this movie in my chemistry class, so obviously it had educational value. I thought the film did a really good job of intertwining the subjects of the science, moral issues and personal experiences of the manhattan project, but wasn't exactly focused on strong acting. I would recommend this movie for the scientifically inclined or those interested in the moral issues behind Fat Man and Little Boy, but if the subject of nuclear bombs bores you, don't see it. | 1 |
I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. | 1 |
Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.<br /><br />I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.<br /><br />O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.<br /><br />Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.<br /><br />Well, needless to say, I liked it. | 1 |
It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.<br /><br />The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.<br /><br />All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.<br /><br />3.5/10 | 0 |
I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?<br /><br />I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on??? | 0 |
I'm a big fan of Thomas Harris,I read all his novels at least 5 times and Hannibal's the book I really love the most.Therefore the movie was my biggest disappointment and I really don't get it why some folks here give it a nine or even a ten.Either their demands are very low or they haven't read the book or both.Even if I hadn't read the book I'd still consider the movie as absolute average and I'd give it a five. The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.Why was Margot Verger, a very important character, totally omitted? Why was Barney shown as a dumb ignorant whose only ambition is to earn money? And most of all, why was the psychological process Starling went through in the end,caused by the drugs Lecter applied to her,descended? Not to speak about the fact that the ending was omitted,too,and totally changed? Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's "snow of yesterday". Ridley Scott did some incredibly good movies but with this one he doesn't live up to his name. Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel. I'm so sorry but I really can't recommend it to anyone. | 0 |
Most families will recognise similarities between their own family and that created through brilliant acting by Natalie Portman and Susan Sarandon. Natalie creates an on screen image that justifies her as one of the best actresses in America and one worthy of a Golden Globe Nomination. The control of her emotions are so in tact that at any point in the movie she can tap into them and release an unforgettable scene. Susan is also amazing in this movie as yet again she chose a role that is so different to any other and carries it through with true professionalism.<br /><br />Any Natalie fan would've seen the film based on her past successes, but you should also see it for the emotions that are released during the film. It is a truly humbling experience. | 1 |
When THE MAGIC OF LASSIE opened at Radio City Music Hall, I was foolish enough to believe it would be as heart-warming as some of the first Lassie films were. Not.<br /><br />The story was abysmal, the songs by the Sherman brothers were way below their usual level, the characters were uninspired and JAMES STEWART and MICKEY ROONEY had both seen much better days.<br /><br />Then too, I was interested in seeing what ALICE FAYE's contribution would be like, since she'd been absent from the screen for so many years and was always so fetching in her earlier roles at Fox. Alice too, was letdown by the foolish script and the unflattering photography. Another disappointment.<br /><br />Nothing original here, nothing even remotely interesting for an adult to enjoy--and clearly, no magic present for anyone. You can skip this one without missing a thing. | 0 |
<br /><br />The main question I pose concerning this film is, how do you film a cole porter musical and only use 3 of his 15 songs! merman and lahr played the lead roles on broadway, here they are replaced by the weaker red skelton and lucille ball. plot changes abound and the fun is lost.<br /><br />SKIP IT. | 0 |
Return of the Jedi is certainly the most action packed of the series, and is a fine conclusion to the Star Wars Saga. With Han Solo imprisoned by Jabba the Hut and the Empire building a new Death Star, the rebel alliance is facing an uphill struggle against the dark side, and only our favourite heroes can pull it off.<br /><br />The Opening sequence, set on Tatooine, we see Jabba's palace, a pit of slavery and scum, and new home to Han Solo, as Luke and the gang prepare for his rescue, and with Luke's Jedi powers, they have the edge.<br /><br />We also witness a tremendous triple battle at the end. Han, Leia and Chewy battle it out on Endor, desperate to deactivate the shields protecting the Death Star. The Rebel Fleet led by Lando, battle with the Imperial Fleet while they wait for the shields to go down, and Luke has a final showdown with Darth Vader. An Epic end to a Classic Saga, and it's only just of the pace of the first two.<br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.<br /><br />Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.<br /><br />The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.<br /><br />The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.<br /><br />There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has. | 0 |
This is on my TV right now... but only long enough for me to finish panning it in this comment. The previous comment let me know that this movie will not get any better, no matter how much I hope and pray. I will concur this movie is a colossal waste of my time, and would be of your time...it is not going to get any better! I can't believe this screenwriter is doing Atlas Shrugged! I hope he has improved a million-fold! I see some other credits on his resume that have had good reviews, but I'm still not convinced. If you are familiar with his work, please post something here, because I really want to see Atlas Shrugged, and would hate it if this guy turned it into the garbage that this movie turned out to be. | 0 |
One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from **** | 0 |
I have never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.<br /><br />I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.<br /><br />Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.<br /><br />I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0/10 and thats generous. | 0 |
The movie is a really well made one, which is great and looking and passionately directed. You can tell that every shot is thought over and executed to perfection. For the lovers of cinema this is especially a great watch and they especially should be able to appreciate the beauty of it and the passion for cinema that is being put into it.<br /><br />It's hard to place this movie under one label. It's not really a drama, it's not really a thriller and it's not really a comedy. Instead its more a movie with its own style, that does things its own way. It doesn't necessarily follow the rules of cinema and features many different elements from many different genres combined.<br /><br />But just like the movie its main character, the movie gets sort of slow and boring in parts. The artistic style of directing tries to conceal that the story is actually a quite simple one and it's more as if the movie relied solely on its style and overall atmosphere created by the movie. It doesn't make the movie horrible or anything but it just prevents it from being a true absolute must-see. In parts the movie also feels as if it's trying to be too poetic and tries to let the images speak too much for itself. It just feels a bit overdone in parts, though for most part of the movie it still works out beautifully.<br /><br />It features some great camera-work and some unique storytelling, which makes this an original as well as a great film to watch.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.<br /><br />Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making..... | 1 |
I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of "adult" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.<br /><br />Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.<br /><br />This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television. | 1 |
All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. "The Wolf Man", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.<br /><br />As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.<br /><br />Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.<br /><br />Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
What is your freaking problem? Do you have nothing better to do than sit on your fat asses and blog about about how you find something in bad taste? Here's an idea:Go outside. That's right: Walk outside your mom's basement that you've been living in for 13 years and GO OUTSIDE. "But I can't leave! Star Trek is on in 30 minutes and I still haven't married that avatar on World Of Warcraft!" Oh my God, in that case, stay inside! Alright, I might have gone overboard there. I mean, Star Trek is okay but I don't really watch it that much anymore. Either way, do you really have to write crap about Mind of Mencia. It's A GOOD SHOW. Maybe you're just venting your anger because that girl dumped you on World of Warcraft. Or you're constipated. Try putting fiber in your diet. | 1 |
Due to this show getting cut early I never realized why until I recently read the story behind the series. I felt this show never got its dues as one of the greatest shows, this show is iconic in nature and deserves the movie it was always intended to have if not with the original A team cast at least with the cast incorporated into the story line or a lengthy cameo, perhaps at the end commemorate it to the late Col. Hanibal Smith(Preppard). This cast gave so much to bring happiness to us growing up they deserve one last heave ho the fact that the series ended openly because they slashed the series is reason enough. This crew and cast made us realize as children the essence of being one of the good guys especially seeing how screwed up the world is today, I think a milder version like the original should be put into motion I have already read the previews and I know these are not the plans but if anything a straight to DVD movie, I sure would buy it. I really do not get how crappy shows get series finales but this great show which still runs regularly today and probably gets watched more than some of the current garbage shows of today don't we will always remember the Incredible Hulk series, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and the A team because those kind of shows carry through time, I am almost positive these knew ones you see about detectives will not even be remembered in 10 years so why not bring back something and show the people what staying power is all about and how these old shows really are all about. | 1 |
He glorified himself as a great supporting actor in `Glory', he proved he was no `Malcolm in the Middle' mediocre actor in `Malcolm X', he showed his brotherly love for acting in `Philadelphia', he pulled a slam dunk in `He Got Game', he pulled no punches and rocked us like a hurricane in `The Hurricane', he provided us effective thespian education in `Training Day', and now he has demonstrated that he could also direct! Denzel Washington's directorial debut `Antwone Fisher' is the most moving film of the year. This tearjerker `fish'er story is in no relation to the debacle that happened to the Miami Dolphins in the 4th quarter against the New England Patriots in the last game of the 2002 season. Unlike that Dolphin tragedy, `Antwone Fisher' possesses an emotional joyous conclusion. The movie is based on a true story about a young naval officer who has an anger management problem due to the abhorrent he suffered as a foster child. Denzel plays the naval psychologist who helps Antwone overcome his rage and convinces him to find his natural mother. Derek Luke's debut performance as Antwone is the best admirable acting I have seen by a novice actor in some time now. I actually saw some of the detailed eccentricities in Luke's acting as I have seen in Washington's past performances. It was like if Washington was telling Luke- ` la la la Luke I am your acting father'. Ok! I will lay off the Star Wars jokes before my readers send me to a galaxy far far away. Speaking of the great Denzel, his work as the psychologist was masterful. But what can you expect from the acting `Master D' himself. `Antwone Fisher' was written by no other than Antwone Fisher himself. The emotional pathos he inserted in his storylife's screenplay was of `fisher king' material. I hail to the chief `Mr. Washington' in catching the right bait in `Antwone Fisher'. ***** Excellent | 1 |
You may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace. | 0 |
It seems more than passing strange that such utter dreck as "Dukes of Hazzard" and "The Hills Have Eyes" (the new version) can find DVD distributors while older - and far superior works such as this film - are nowhere to be found. With all the on-going debate about the morality (or lack thereof) of warfare, and interest in espionage (consider the multiple Jack Ryan, Bourne, XXX, and "Mission: Impossible" productions, this would seem to be an obvious choice for release on DVD. True, it LOOKS like a 1968 motion picture because it IS a 1968 motion picture. But style consideration aside, this is still a production that actually has something valuable to say, and has plenty of plots twists to keep an audience entertained. If nothing else, will SOMEBODY please consider getting the soundtrack onto some kind of CD, whether it be a compilation with other Morricone music or as a stand-alone. I don't know if industry people bother to read what we fans have to say about their products, but if you are reading this and other comments, please take us seriously. We are paying for your lavish homes with our hard-earned dollars spent on tickets, DVDs and CDs - give us what we want! All that said, if you are reading this and have not seen this film, lobby for it's release so you may see what those of us who have seen it are talking about. You will not be disappointed. | 1 |
This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their "acting". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic "make-up": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines "my first own make-up" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name "Lovecraft" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name "Necronomicon", which was wrongly translated as "Book of Light". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado. | 0 |
"One of Hung's better early efforts. The humor is dead-on in parts as Hung tries to imitate Lee's moves and facial expressions, and also in a bit where Hung pokes fun at Jackie Chan's Drunken Master. The action is also pretty good, especially when Hung takes on a trio on martial arts experts at the end. It's not the greatest film, but pretty good for '70's kung fu, especially if you're a fan of Hung and/or Lee. Be warned, though: most video versions of the movie have pretty shoddy quality. There is also a character in blackface which some people might find offensive.<br /><br />Sammo Hung is a rural swine-herder who moves to Hong Kong to fight off some bad guys. Sammo turns on his dead-on Bruce Lee impersonation when fighting! <br /><br />This film is often billed as a parody of Bruce Lee's "Enter The Dragon", but it's not exactly that... Sammo is a rural swine herder--obsessed with Bruce Lee--who moves to Hong Kong to help his relatives run a small open-air restaurant. Once situated at the new job, he is forced to defend the eatery from local gangsters looking for protection money. When Sammo switches into fighting mode, he switches on his Bruce Lee impersonation, which must be seen to be believed! This film is pretty sloppy, in many of the fight scenes Sammo battles against people who are obviously actors rather than martial artists, and there's one character who's supposed to be black who is played by an Asian man in heavy (and preposterous) makeup. But what this film lacks in budget and accuracy, it more than makes up for in atmosphere and energy. Highly recommended for a good mood." | 1 |
This movie makes a statement about Joseph Smith, what he stood for, and what the LDS church believes. With all the current media coverage of a certain fugitive people have confused the LDS church with the FLDS church and criminal fugitive Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is Not associated with the LDS church yet media groups internationally have asked for comments about Jeffs from The LDS church. Jeffs is not mentioned in the movie at all but I think that it is ironic that this movie with all it's points about Joseph also point away from the fews of the FLDS church and their leader at this time in the media world. This is a movie about Joseph Smith and a great one at that. Some of the most obvious differences between Jeffs and Joseph is portrayed in Joseph's humanity, acceptance and love. Jeffs views and opinions differ greatly from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church and it is seen in this movie. Jeffs thinks of the "Negro" as devils. Joseph Smith knew they were children of god and gave up his wife's favorite horse to a African American (former slave) to buy his son's freedom. Joseph is shown doing housework for his wife Emma and is criticized by a member until Joseph tells him that a man may lose his wife in the next life if she chooses not to stay with her husband and that doing chores is a way to help and cherish your wife. Jeffs brought one of his polygamist wives to her knees in front of a class full of students by grabbing her braid and twisting it painfully till she came to her knees. Lastly Joseph participated with law enforcement and sought aid from the government at all times. Jeffs thumbs his nose at government and flees at all times.<br /><br />I loved this movie and if you don't know much about Joseph Smith and what the LDS church believes, then this is the movie to see. And if you had confused the LDS Church with the FLDS church then you really need to get your act together. We are not much different from anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, the Sanctity of marriage and the family, as well a patriotic to our homeland and country. We are all different as well just like you can find different protestants, Presbyterians, methodist, baptist and Catholics. What's important is our message and what we stand for. This movie trys to portray that but there is so much of Joseph's life that can't be covered in a mere 2 hour movie. This was a really great show. | 1 |
OK, if I was in the rental store and someone asked me if the movie was worth the three bucks for the rental, I'd have to say no. The plot was implausible. I've come to the conclusion that Keanu Reeves can not act. He can, at times, be painful to watch (though my wife thinks he's cute). Dan Aykroyd (who is usually great) was even a little disappointing as the crooked cop. On the plus side, the plot (because it is far-fetched) is unpredictable. Cameron Diaz was good. | 0 |
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off. | 0 |
Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.<br /><br />Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.<br /><br />Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.<br /><br />The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.<br /><br />"Sex Is Comedy" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style. | 1 |
This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one. | 1 |
Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively "uplifting" ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.<br /><br />Brought back memories of "Ordinary People", but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations. | 1 |
MINOR SPOILER<br /><br />Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10. | 1 |
How can this movie be described? Oh yeah I've got it wretched!!!<br /><br />I'm not big on chop socky, but this is just plain garbage. Anyone who would waste their money to pay to see it, is just too sad for words. | 0 |
I don't understand why more people have not commented on this, other than the fact that perhaps not very many have seen it. It's an amazing cast of characters, one after another after another, all done by the guy who wrote the play. If you don't like filmed plays, you may not like this (after all, plays usually don't look good on TV), but it's a one-man show that will have you paying attention throughout. Highly recommended. | 1 |
A stunningly harrowing account of two soldiers plight in WWII. Set against a freezing backdrop of, not only the fight against the Nazis and traitors in Belorussia, but the harsh natural elements, this film tells a tale of two soldiers of polarized morals, one who survives, but finds it somewhat impossible to deal with his own circumstances, and one who dies, having done all that can be done in the face of intimidation and everything possible to break one's spirit, in fact, the "ascendant" of the title. A film that should be seen by all, particularly for the phenomenal performances of the main characters, and shuddering set pieces (the incarceration and hanging scenes, in particular. An absolute must see. | 1 |
The biggest problem that the TV program Key West faced was that it was advertised wrong. If you saw the ads you would think it was a jiggle how, and be sorely disappointed. It was a vastly more complex show than that. <br /><br />I happened to be in Key West just before Hurricane Andrew hit, and I think I actually found myself having a drink or two with some of the cast in Rum Runners. Of course, that was before the show hit. I did see the sailboat that was in the opening go by a few times, and chatted with the guy who you see hacking up coconuts in the opening too. HE was a real local. Yes, I'd love to see this on DVD. | 1 |
This movie came and went in the theaters. Due to the nature of it you can see why it wasn't well received. It was unfairly panned because of its subject matter more than the actual film itself. Higher Learning is not spectacular but it was good film that tried to talk about a feared subject in America: racism.<br /><br />Plot/Story: Higher Learning is mostly centered around Malik(played by Omar Epps), a naive track star who is has to deal with not being fast enough, and a stern professor(played by Laurence Fishburne). He befriends Fudge(Ice Cube) as well as a gorgeous lady named Deja(Tyra Banks). Later on they end up having to deal with some skinheads on campus. Remy(play by Michael Rapaport) is confused kid who ends up befriending some local skinheads on campus. Once they impose their views on him, he becomes as racist as they are.<br /><br />Opinion: Higher Learning is not without its flaws: Character development is scarce, okay performances by Omar Epps, Tyra Banks and the leader of the skinheads(whose name I forgot), Busta Rhymes doesn't fit in this movie at all. Plus women turning gay after being abused by men was cliché' before this film so you know I didn't like that part of the film with Kristy Swanson. Other than that, this movie wasn't half bad. Laurence Fishburne was good as Professor Phipps(even though I could do without the accent), Fudge was Ice Cube's best performance and Michael Rapaport was good as the confused Remy. All in all it was one of John Singleton's best movies and is one is one of the reasons I frown on the rubbish he puts out now. Cinema needs more movies like Higher Learning, Mississippi Burning and American History X and less movies like Baby Boy, 2 Fast 2 Furious and a very pointless remake of Shaft. | 1 |
A surprisingly complex and well crafted study of "The First" serial killer in the USSR. Set in the days of perestroika this intense piece is brought to full life with the performances of Stephen Reah and Donald Sutherland.<br /><br />This examination of Cicatillo as a killer is well rounded and by hinting at some of his behaviors while out right showing others there is a subtlety that is compelling without being overtly graphic. Not for the weak of heart however as it's subject matter is often disturbing but necessary to it's full development of the main participants in this fact based story.<br /><br />HBO has furnished us with an excellent film in an unusual manner. Congrats to the director and editor of this great piece. It is in my Top 10 Must see list. | 1 |
I loved this exiting republic serial! The story was one of the best I have ever seen! Even tough, the picture quality was not of the best, but OK. The fencing in this serial is also a bit bad, but not terrible. They only should have practised some more. As I said the story is GREAT! You're just sitting there and waiting to find out who Don Del Oro is! The theme music is excellent! It's the same guy who maid the music for Walt Disney's version of Zorro, who maid the Fightin Legion music. Costumes and buildings are very good. Zorro is really cool and so are the legioners! I highly recommend this serial. Buy it! <br /><br />I love that Reed Hadley plays Zorro! He is funny, smart and brave! Mark: 6. | 1 |
John Carpenter's brilliantly suspenseful flick is a great fusion of Sci-Fi and horror, adopting the classic body-swap theme and taking it to the extreme. A remake of the Howard Hawks produced 1951 original, Carpenter keeps the Cold-War themes of paranoia and trust as a backdrop of alien takeover and impending doom amidst madness and the isolation of the Antarctic setting. Carpenter's direction as always is excellent as his camera glides through the lonely world of the characters whose inhabitable environment is about to be corrupted by the primordial fear of body takeover. But here and much like the work of David Cronenberg, Carpenter doesn't hold back on the incident, as through some fantastic special effects we are witness to some insane moments of surreal gore. However, he never loses touch with the human side of the story, as in the face of everything shocking happening in front of us, we are left with perceived notions of trust and suspicion.<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud. | 0 |
Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant. | 0 |
In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.<br /><br />But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.<br /><br />It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.<br /><br />The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof? | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.