id int64 0 25k | interval listlengths 2 2 | len_words int64 6 2.21k | len_tokens int64 8 2.75k | text stringlengths 32 13k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8,644 | [
600,
700
] | 502 | 618 | George Sluizer's original version of The Vanishing aka The Man Who Wanted to Know offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbing sociopaths and one of the most memorable finales of all time (shamelessly stolen by Tarantino for Kill Bill Volume Two), but it has plenty more to offer than that. Playing around with chronology and inverting the usual clichés of standard 'lady vanishes' plots, it also offers superb characterisation and strong, underplayed but convincing performances.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I can only assume that when it came to the remake, Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered from this disastrous misstep.<br /><br />Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been over thought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying "Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.' But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame 'let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment best not go there
which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for this one. | 0 |
8,682 | [
600,
700
] | 532 | 632 | The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen "Bull" McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald "Shadow" Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.<br /><br />I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action cliché in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
8,703 | [
600,
700
] | 503 | 627 | This week's surprise screening at GV turned out to be the horror movie The Nun (La Monja). Seriously, I think that horror movies should try and come up with more imaginative titles, even though the story's about the character as described in the title. Who knows, soon we'll have spinoffs like The Monk, The Priest, and others belonging to various religious sects.<br /><br />The basic premise goes very simply, that a ghoul dressed up in a Nun garb (so that it can lay claim to the title) goes around killing ex-convent girls. There seemed to be some sort of conspiracy involved, as the daughter of one of the victims, Eva (played by an eye candy Icelandic Anita Briem), goes on to discover, with the help of a few good friends, like a rip off of I Know What You Did Last Summer (mentioned also, by the way).<br /><br />So as the body count increases, it's a race against time for our emotionally scarred (aren't they always?) heroine to uncover the truth and save the day. Delving into the sins of the mothers, the movie did the unthinkable, that with a dream sequence as the introduction. I hate dream sequences as it's a pretty cheap technique if not done correctly, and there are a couple of them in the movie.<br /><br />In part, the movie played at times like Ju-On gone wrong with the plenty of Dark Water references, and they could have retitled this Unholy Water, for the circumstances and plot points in the movie. However, there are plot holes abound, so don't be looking into the storyline too deeply. You'd come to expect the standard textbook twists towards the end about the sadistic nun, and sets which look like they can rival recent Thai horror movie Dorm.<br /><br />The acting's pretty forgettable, with the cast speaking in perfect heavily accented English. And since most of them are pleasing to the eye, the story must weave in a love scene in the middle of a witch-hunt. What gives? Hello, got hantu, still got mood ah? Then again, the ghoul is a pretty cheap animated/SFX which has a built in AI of popping up every now and then, in various fashion, just to elicit screams from timid audiences. The characters also break every unwritten rule in the Do-Nots in horror lore, so you know and expect their just desserts.<br /><br />Can you possibly enjoy this movie? Sure you can. Just ensure that you're watching it in a full house (should be easy, since local folks are suckers for anything remotely horrific), and laugh at those who are so jumpy they scream at every "frightening" scene. It's pretty fun, and adds to the atmosphere, besides what's going on the screen. Surround sound doesn't even come close.<br /><br />Think of it as watching an episode of Scooby Doo without the wisecracks, and it's a pity that the gory moments in the movie had to be censored for a PG rating. Those could possibly have been the best bits, now left rotting on the censor's floor board. | 0 |
8,723 | [
600,
700
] | 530 | 618 | Why is it that every time I mention this movie to somebody, I have to hear 10 minutes of praise about it. I have come to the conclusion that any movie that has a twist upon a twist is deemed "genius" by anyone who watches it. Is that really what film has become? Or is it that any time someone says "Wow, that is so cool" everybody has to agree with them and has no opinion of their own? How this movie has a 7.5 rating is a disgrace to the film industry in general. It has also become yet another movie that "needs" two sequels for it, so I am going to have to hear about this horrible franchise for quite a while longer.<br /><br />Now to the film and why it is so bad. The original concept of it is actually not that bad, as there has not been a good serial killer movie in a while. The writing for this film is horrible as well as the execution. OK, so its a low budget movie, but that should not change the story or writing. The actors could not be worse in their attempt to make us scared of this killer or just scared of this movie. So they go out and get a big name in Danny Glover, but his talents (whatever those are) are wasted because HIS CHARACTER IS WORTHLESS. Why was he even in this movie? What was his whole fight at the end turned out to be useless and misleading for what the audience believes is happening. This is of course the filmmakers intent, but couldn't there have been a better way to do this without making us watch all that garbage. And then the "big" twist comes (was this the third or fourth?) and the whole audience is shocked and walks out of the theater like this is some kind of masterpiece. Sure the movie gets people talking about the storyline and what not, but that was not the only flaw in this film. The direction was trying to be way too creative with what it was working with, and the flashback sequences were used merely as a shock effect.<br /><br />After watching this movie, even if you enjoyed it, go back and review the film and you will soon understand why it is not worthy of the praise it is receiving. For an amazing serial killer film check out Se7en if you have not done so. That is what this film wanted to be. I have gotten into more arguments about this film than probably any others and will continue to argue against it. Please do not support this franchise for not only your sake, but mine and everybody else's sake as well. Hollywood needs to find a good horror movie to make, rather than 1,000 remakes, sequels, and "shock" factor films (such as this). Oh yeah the saw 2 tag line sounds real promising: "Oh yes, there will be blood." Yaaayyyy!!!! Sweet!! blood, that must mean its good right? Give me a break. Sorry everybody who love this movie, but poor writing, flashy direction, and bad acting does not make a good movie. | 0 |
8,774 | [
600,
700
] | 490 | 603 | "Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.<br /><br />The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.<br /><br />The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.<br /><br />Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence | 0 |
8,797 | [
600,
700
] | 524 | 661 | MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous "Enter the Dragon" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the "Dr.No" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.<br /><br />The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel "Kill and Kill Again." Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+ | 0 |
8,846 | [
600,
700
] | 469 | 614 | Some years back, this film had been scheduled for broadcast on TCM UK as part of a Tod Browning retrospective but what they actually showed was the 1937 remake!; my brother had watched it (and, in hindsight, it followed the original pretty much scene-for-scene, even down to the set design) though no classic, he said it was a far more satisfying viewing experience than the incredibly creaky earlier version
<br /><br />This being the first collaboration between Browning and Bela Lugosi, I had high hopes for it but these were quashed when it became evident after the first reel of tedious conversation that the film's main concern was to appease the still-novel sound technique, and consequently the result is stagey and extremely static. The thriller plot isn't exactly exciting either; even less appetizing is the ostensible British-Indian setting (with the characters' affected accents and upper-class demeanor not to mention the over-use of corny idiosyncratic idioms such as "I say", "rather" and "now look here" rendering the whole risible more than anything else)! <br /><br />Apart from this, there are a few unintended howlers: Margaret Wycherly (as a fake medium) pleads with Police Inspector Lugosi (if anything, his undeniable screen presence is already evident) to give her some time to 'work out' who the culprit of the double-murder really is (the evidence points to her own daughter, played by Leila Hyams!) she hears a tapping and is deluded into thinking that the spirit world has genuinely made contact with her
but then Lugosi enters the room and, in his unmistakable accent, straight-facedly tells her "I knocked twice you didn't hear me!", at which my brother and I almost fell to the floor in convulsions of laughter!!; the editing is really sloppy, too: during one high-angle shot of the main set, a mike is seen being rapidly pulled up out of camera range and even worse are a couple of instances where a person walks off-screen, ostensibly into the next shot, to another part of the set
but each shot is held on the other actors for an absurdly long time, so that it appears to take forever for this person to walk just a few paces!! <br /><br />THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR marks the third non-horror Browning Talkie that I've watched even if both this and MIRACLES FOR SALE (1939) deal with murder and occultism and could, therefore, still be linked to the genre. Much has been said about the director's apparent slackening with the coming of Sound: however, flawed though they may be, the 4 straight horror films he did throughout the 30s are infinitely better than the rest which I've always found stylish and bizarre enough to suggest that Browning wasn't as much at sea during this period as has been suggested
| 0 |
8,913 | [
600,
700
] | 546 | 643 | This isn't exactly a complicated story. It's not a mystery, or a plot you have to spend time re watching because you missed an intrinsic part of the dialog. Claiming a movie has to be seen multiple times for you 'to get it' may apply to a very few films, however this isn't one of them. Those type of movies have substance and are so involving it's easy to miss an important portion of dialog, or a subtle nuance to plot details you may have overlooked. With Goya's Ghosts this doesn't apply. The main flaw in this movie is an absence of detail. It jumps from one character to the next, never giving enough substance to any one set of scenes to allow the involvement of those watching. Because of that you don't connect with any of the characters. You don't get to the point where you care. Either the main actor is gone just as the movie seems it's going to redeem itself, or their actions are despicable and you're not inclined to anyway. Goya's refusal to go very far to help Ines is a good example. His refusal to commit himself further mirrors the overall tone of his part. The only characters you may momentarily feel for are Ines, when she's being questioned and then tortured. After her rape by Lorenzo any focus on her character is pretty much gone. Following that the only other in depth involvement comes from the best scenes in the movie centered around Lorenzo's invitation to supper with Ines' family, and her fathers all out attempt to force Lorenzo into signing a bogus confession and getting his daughter back. Then just as things start to be developing again, they're gone from the movie. I've read a lot of the comments here about how the movie didn't know what it wanted to be, etc. I found that basically it succeeded in not being much of anything. From Lorenzo's return and the coincidental viewing of Ines' daughter by Goya, everything seemed nothing more than contrived. Without much of a storyline, no effort to really examine the turbulent times they lived in took place. The essence of who Goya was didn't materialize, other than his actions, or lack thereof, proving him to be more self-centered than anything else. As for his art, the movie seemed intent on examining a few of the paintings he did but again frittered away another opportunity in examining the reactions to this work rather than the work itself. To sum things up best, the movie had no cohesion, it grossly lacked the substance to delve into the historical environment it covered, and upon ending, left you feeling like what you'd just seen was a series of aborted attempts to engage the viewer by switching from one thing to the next without adequately engaging the viewer in any of them. You can't watch something like this several times expecting it to improve with added examination. There's just not enough to it to waste the time. It's not a case of your missing out on something, it would just be more proof that the ingredients needed to make this movie good, just aren't there. As for best film ever made? It's not even the best film I've watched today. | 0 |
8,980 | [
600,
700
] | 521 | 660 | Is there anything else on earth to be more enticing than to learn what expects our frail bodies after, um, death. Spanish director Ignacio Cerdà (a soul-mate of his German colleague Jörg Buttgereit) provides blow-by-blow answer to our curiosity and invites us to an exciting journey in the world of preparation tables, scalpels, surgical saws, human entrails and warped minds.<br /><br />Welcome to the autopsy room!<br /><br />I don't know which facets of the film, apart of its notorious reputation, may have helped it to acquire sufficiently high rating.<br /><br />Storywise it's fairly simple and straightforward - a day in the life (actually half an hour) of a troubled coroner (or, perhaps, assistant pathologist or whoever he is) that is fed up with his routine morbid duty and discharges his psychological tension in a non-traditional fashion, right at his workplace. I'm perplexed of what particular message the authors tried to deliver with this one-note plot. I suspect it may be somehow inspired by Udo Kier's character's quirky demeanor in Andy Warhol's Frankenstein.<br /><br />Artistic values of the film are also questionable. It's hard to evaluate the performance of the actors that don't squeeze a single word. Their emotions are concealed behind the medical masks. There's also not enough room for great camera-work - basically, the entire action unfolds mostly within four walls.<br /><br />Authenticity - effects and makeup are impressive and the setup looks very plausible, but only a handful of medical/forensic experts can judge how truthful and anatomically correct the dissection is carried out here (if anyone cares). Honestly, I used to think that the autopsy is done to examine the condition of particular organs and to ascertain the cause of death. Now I know that dead bodies are severed, raped and humiliated, intestines are ripped apart, brains are retrieved from the head, stuffed into abdomen and mixed with guts, then the body is stitched back and washed - nothing personal. And what are these poor lads expected to write in their deceitful autopsy reports afterward?<br /><br />Shock and disgust factor - it's much unlikely that an unsuspecting viewer would discover, to his horror, that the disc he was intended to watch with his wife and kids beside a Christmas tree turns out to be a graphic video manual on vivisection. This obscure item is barely available, sought by people well familiar with the subject and not easily offended. Hence it would be pointless to warn anyone to sabotage this film. They are well aware what exactly they are watching and what they want to see.<br /><br />Cerdà is really gifted and stylish director, which is clearly obvious from at least two other parts of his "trilogy" - preceding 'The Awakening', amazing black and white short, and 30-minute 'Genesis', visually stunning and moody piece with an off-beat and interesting concept. And I'm pretty sure that one day he will conquer the hearts of moviegoers with his new, more mainstream oriented, material. And sooner or later 'Aftermath' would become a rarity for the meticulous collectors of his "early" "warm-up" works.<br /><br />But in the meantime, I'm afraid, it may be recommended strictly for medical students or specialists that study mental disorders and sexual deviations. | 0 |
9,013 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 667 | Marked for Death (1990) spends more time on action sequences, than it does with focusing on its characters. After his first two impressive efforts, Above the Law (1988) and Hard to Kill (1989), this third Steven Seagal picture makes the idea clear: anyone who opposes him is meant to look like a fool; the bad guys are just there to make him look good.<br /><br />Seagal had been steadily building an audience that seemed a bit larger than those that follow the kick-'em-up antics of Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />In Marked for Death, Seagal tosses aside any pretense at style and heads full throttle into exploitation. This film contains loads of graphic violence, gore and nudity that seem to be there for no reason other than to please rowdy moviegoers, who are unable to distinguish between action pictures that tell a story and those that simply pour on the thrills without rhyme or reason. And he deserves some real blame for this lapse in taste as a producer of "Marked for Death."<br /><br />Seagal plays John Hatcher, a retired DEA agent who comes home to Chicago, where his family is being attacked by a Jamaican street gang, who attack his sister's house, and the film proves that it isn't squeamish when Hatcher's niece (Danielle Harris) is shot in the crossfire. Hatcher gets mad, and he decides to team up with his old friend, Max (Keith David), a school gym teacher, and Charles (Tom Wright), a Jamaican cop.<br /><br />Naturally, Hatcher declares war on the chief bad guy, a dread-locked Jamaican voodoo priest called Screwface (Basil Wallace), a nickname that apparently means "outrageous overacting." <br /><br />And it is almost unbelievable in the way Seagal picks off various members of the gang: he gouges one guy's eyeball, he breaks a guy's back, and he breaks numerous arms and limbs.<br /><br />All logic for this movie is thrown out the window- -through the glass, that is. Why aren't Hatcher and friends indicted for all the property damage they cause or the body count that piles up? And how did they get their cache of automatic weapons from Illinois to Jamaica by plane without being detected? <br /><br />Seagal has a Clint Eastwood stoicism about him that fans once seemed to enjoy, and despite the three different characters he's played in as many films, each dresses in Oriental black bathrobes, and wears a ponytail. One of the problems that I have with some of Seagal's movies is that the main characters never seem to be in serious jeopardy, and because he's the star, of course, no one can lay a glove on him, except for the bad guy.<br /><br />Seagal's heroes are all interchangeable, as are most of the plot lines and action sequences. Regardless of whether he's masquerading as a ship's cook, a fire fighter, or an L.A. cop wearing love beads, Seagal is always Seagal, which is exactly what his fans want. In fact, the sameness of these films is such that, if I wanted to, I could take an old review, change the names, and have a reasonably accurate take on the new movie. Not that I'd ever really do that... | 0 |
9,026 | [
600,
700
] | 509 | 641 | What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.<br /><br />'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of "Old Dusty" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.<br /><br />We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in "The Lucky Texan" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.<br /><br />The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.<br /><br />After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, "What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars. | 0 |
9,074 | [
600,
700
] | 525 | 661 | Oh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right. | 0 |
9,137 | [
600,
700
] | 473 | 610 | Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.<br /><br />Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.<br /><br />Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.<br /><br />Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.<br /><br />In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.<br /><br />There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from "On the Waterfront" -- "pistoleros", "you'll talk yourself right into the grave." The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.<br /><br />Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from "On the Waterfront," only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more "Italian", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.<br /><br />Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.<br /><br />And it all comes out like this. | 0 |
9,173 | [
600,
700
] | 534 | 646 | What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.<br /><br />I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.<br /><br />Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.<br /><br /> | 0 |
9,176 | [
600,
700
] | 461 | 633 | The trouble with this sort of lyrical film-making is that you either make a masterpiece, or a lemon: there's little middle ground. Putting it gently, this is not "Berlin - symphony of a city" or "Man with a Movie Camera". Unfortunately, it's not much to look at, either.<br /><br />The problem with this one is that it's glib and half-baked, as if Michael Moore had come on board. It doesn't really have anything to say, or rather, to show us with pictures and sounds. Koyanisqatsi uses images cumulatively to propound a thesis. This is just a patchwork in search of a point. (Though, quite inadvertently, the movie tells us more about the mind of Uncle Sam than it intends. There is something profoundly paradoxical about an anti-technology, anti-civilisation, anti-media movie that is so profoundly souped up with technology. 'Do as I say, and not as I do'. You just gotta love the Yanks, eh.) Tonally, there's something sour and misanthropic about this episode. Both the prior episodes had moments of lyricism and exhilaration; this time the tone is consistently glum. It simply doesn't work over this duration, as Gustav Mahler will tell you.<br /><br />Stylistically, Naqoyqatsi is a mess. The whizzy digital stuff is particularly misguided. It gives the whole thing a totally fussy, overprocessed look, and it also undermines the 'realist' nature of the analogue 'found footage'. (I mean, I pity the guys. Part of the joy of Koyanisqaatsi was that it was a homage to the use of optical film. But now optical film's an historical artifact, they have to 'take on board' the digital domain; but I don't think they bring it off. The digital stuff often looks like video links from CNN or BBC World.) And with the "found footage", well, the digital manipulation is often ugly, and usually just silly, and the false colour and solarisation kept me thinking of...<br /><br />...ahem...<br /><br />James Bond title sequences.<br /><br />Ahem. Odd as it may seem, there is also the possibility that the movie has been simply stolen by Yo Yo Ma's performance; it's about as unobtrusive as a Lawrence Olivier voice-over. The images would have to be jolly compelling to stack up against all that charisma.<br /><br />Philip Glass himself is on odd form; never expected him to knock off the Verdi requiem! (Made me laugh, which, of course, is not the desired response to any part of this movie). There's even one piece of music that sounds like Brahms. (?) Perhaps they've changed his pills.<br /><br />From our 'idle questions' department: is Geoffrey Reggio actually a Hopi Indian at all? Or did he just do a sweatlodge in Hollywood Hills? Oh, and are the various snippets bits of footage from earlier 'episodes' in the trilogy a commentary on the way these movies, too, are part of the global media slushy? | 0 |
9,233 | [
600,
700
] | 500 | 646 | Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote. <br /><br />I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.<br /><br />Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film. <br /><br />The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries "Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is "decorated" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.<br /><br />DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by. | 0 |
9,236 | [
600,
700
] | 482 | 658 | I have nothing at all against Paul Schrader. In fact, HARDCORE (1979) is one of my very favorite films. But some horror movie fans were in a premature uproar when his original version of the EXORCIST prequel (DOMINION; this one you're reading about right now, as it turns out) was scrapped by Warners, and when Renny Harlin was substituted to spruce things up and make a new version that was "more scary". In my opinion, some viewers were prejudiced and became automatically juiced up for hating Renny Harlin's take on the subject (EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING) before the first frame of film was ever even unspooled for them to judge. And I ought to know; because I myself went into the theatrical premiere of BEGINNING with stubborn arms folded, and prepared for the absolute worst, which I was sure had to come. Imagine my surprise when I found Harlin's BEGINNING to be much more serious than I ever could have conceived, with a good performance from Stellan Skarsgard as a young version of Father Merrin, who was struggling with his faith in God. It wasn't a great film by any means, but it was nowhere near the garbage I had prepared myself for, well in advance, sight unseen.<br /><br />Well, now I finally HAVE seen the true garbage version - and it's Paul Schrader's DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST. It was relentlessly talky, uninteresting, and insipid. Stellan Skarsgard's troubled priest was nowhere near as interesting as he had been for me in Harlin's film, and the actor himself not as good in the part. For all those who pointed out the obvious CGI effects in BEGINNING, guess what? They're here in DOMINION as well. Remember the silly ending in Harlin's rendition (which I'll also agree tainted the rest of that movie)? Well, you're going to find that this ending from Schrader isn't a hell of a lot less lame.<br /><br />Let me also say that I resent the nonsense that's been presented by those who appreciate this film better than Harlin's, by saying that we're "retards" or "cannot appreciate subtle film-making". As a person who despises Stephen Sommers' MTV-fashioned MUMMY of '99, and being a true fan of the very suggestive and discreet old horror films of the '30s and '40s, I can assure you this is not the case with me. At least there was "some" degree of terror and Exorcist-type goings on in Harlin's BEGINNING; this one here is just a real exercise in tedium and a great challenge even for the most certified of insomniacs. It's going to be quite interesting to hear horror fans try to convince themselves that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST was as good as they'd already made their minds up for it to be in advance; just as they were already pre-disposed to lambasting Harlin's BEGINNING the second they learned Paul Schrader's name was getting soaked with the White-Out. | 0 |
9,348 | [
600,
700
] | 523 | 695 | The lines in the title of this review are the first lines in this film's theme song, a wonderfully demented parody of the (in my opinion horrible) song "My favorite things" from "The Sound of Music". And this fun little detail isn't the only aspect that makes "The Body Shop" aka. "Doctor Gore" (1973) recommendable to my fellow Gore/Trash fans. The film, which was created almost entirely by J.G. Patterson Jr., who served as producer, writer, director and leading man as the eponymous Dr. Gore, is crap, no doubt, but it is also beyond doubt that it is amusing, and that everyone involved, probably Patterson especially, was aware that they were not exactly making a masterpiece.<br /><br />Dr. Brandon (Patterson) a famous but totally insane plastic surgeon, looses his beloved wife Anitra, a model, in an accident. Along with his hunchbacked assistant Greg (Roy Mehaffey), he henceforth kidnaps beautiful young women in order to build himself a new, perfect wife out of their body-parts...<br /><br />"Doctor Gore" is doubtlessly a film of the 'so bad it's good kind', but it is also has qualities beyond the usual ridiculous trashiness. Mad science has always been one of my absolute favorite Horror topics, and, as a matter of fact, it is also one of the coolest topics for ridiculous Gore Trash flicks. Obviously shot on a minimal budget, "Doctor Gore" pays some homage to the "Frankenstein" films, especially James Whale's masterpiece "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), and resembles the look of the early Troma / Herschell Gordon Lewis Gore flicks such as "Blood Feast" (1963) - only that this looks a lot cheaper and crappier. Obviously J.G. Patterson's motive was not merely to make a fun gore flick: Being a rather ugly, weird-looking fellow, his role of Dr. Brandon gave Patterson the opportunity to make out with a couple of hot, scarcely dressed young women (who would later end up as body-part donors in Dr. Brandon's laboratory).<br /><br />Most of the gore is actually pretty well-made regarding the obviously tiny budget. The dialogue includes some extremely hilarious lines ("Get that, it might be the door... and put a coat on so they don't see you're a hunchback."). Besides the aforementioned theme song, "Doctor Gore" also includes a wonderfully crappy appearance by a country band called 'Bill Hicks and the Rainbows' - my new favorite band, NOT. For the rest of the film, I kept wondering whether Bill Hicks and Roy Mehaffey, who plays the hunchbacked assistant, are twins or even the same person - the two look exactly the same, and having two unrelated obese, red-bearded guys looking this weird in one film would be a huge coincidence. Other than J.G. Patterson, most of the cast members never did any other films. This is the first film I've seen out of the few by Patterson. Sadly, the man died of cancer in 1975.<br /><br />Overall, "Doctor Gore" is a film that certainly isn't for everyone. As a matter of fact, it is total crap. But it is also amusing, and recommendable to my fellow fans of weirdness and cheap camp stuff. Dictionaries should show a screenshot from this film under 'trash flick'. | 0 |
9,410 | [
600,
700
] | 533 | 653 | Just finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessary<br /><br />This will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MM<br /><br />I will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola. | 0 |
9,460 | [
600,
700
] | 474 | 619 | Go up to any film fan and ask them the title of the film which was directed by Robert Wise, with second-unit direction by Yakima Canutt and Sergio Leone, was designed by Ken Adam and scored by Max Steiner, starred Sir Stanley Baker, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Brigitte Bardot, was filmed in colour, scope and stereo, at Cinecitta in 1955, with a thousand extras - and they'll tell you to go away and stop being silly.<br /><br />They'll tell you that no such film EXISTS. That the names you've quoted NEVER worked together - they weren't even contemporaneous. And that you've just picked the names out of a movie publication at random and are attempting to befuddle them.<br /><br />At which point you can direct them to IMDb and show them the cast and crew of "Helen Of Troy". They'll be amazed! This lesser-known sword-and-sandal epic has ALL these names and more - Niall MacGinnis, Janette Scott and good old Harry Andrews.<br /><br />And it is certainly an oddity. After the war, 1,000 Italian extras cost about $25 a day and toga dramas were a staple of Italian cinema. The orgy scenes were shot twice - one with tops, the other without (you can guess which version Britain and America got). I believe even La Sophia is an extra in this one.<br /><br />Either way, the names STAGGER the mind. But it's really just a coincidence. All of said names were either just reaching the ends of their careers (Canutt, Steiner) or beginning them (everybody else).<br /><br />Only Robert Wise and Niall MacGinnis were in the middle of their careers.<br /><br />For the record, Leone was uncredited and learning his trade - Adam still had to invent the descending circle in the ceiling of sets (a trademark he'd go on to put into all the early Bonds) - Baker had yet to star in and help produce the likes of "Zulu" and "Robbery" - and go on to direct a Welsh TV company called Harlech - then die tragically young.<br /><br />While Harry Andrews would go on to become one of Britain's favourite character actors - Janette Scott (Thora Hird's daughter) would never make the really big time, but who can forget her in "Day Of The Triffids" (even though her bit was added later - for padding and a happy ending) or "Crack In The World"?<br /><br />Sir Cedric was theatre, but knew how to mug on film - and Bardot... was BARDOT, for gawdsake!<br /><br />But what were these stellar people DOING in this camp old nonsense? Don't ask me. The two main stars were no-name Italians - Helen had a moustache and Paris was pretty - while the Brits were only there for support.<br /><br />To summarise, I think you can just mark this one up as a major FLUKE. In stereo. To be honest, if I hadn't seen it - I wouldn't believe it EITHER! | 0 |
9,469 | [
600,
700
] | 582 | 689 | Oh man, this movie was toe-cringing bad. Bad look, awful story...the list of good things is shorter than the list of bad things about this movie.<br /><br />Yes sure it's supposed to be a comedy and all but something tells me that this movie was supposed to be the real deal. The movie most certainly does not start of as a comedy but more as an adventurous movie with fun elements put in it. You can especially tells they were serious with this by the acting, that was in a serious and non-comical way, with the exception of a couple of over-the-top sequences obviously. It seemed to be me that at first they tried to make a real and serious adventurous science-fiction movie, perhaps even a franchise but soon began to noticed how bad it all was and simply decided to insert some more and deliberately overdone comical sequence, to make the movie seem more like a comedy and prevent it from turning into a complete disastrous mess.<br /><br />The movie is a weird attempt to mix adventurous swashbuckling pirate movies with serious science-fiction action. The movie was obviously inspired by the "Star Wars" movies and its success. The movie isn't even too ashamed to copy entire sequences and even the way the story progresses, sets, characters and robots show similarities. They tried to hide this by putting in some obviously spoofing sequences but I'm not falling for it. So the movie is not even original on its own, despite its original concept. You can say that this movie is a poor man's "Spaceballs", without even really being fully a spoof.<br /><br />The movie is bad looking, with some video games special effects (in some sequences even literally), awful looking costumes (coat of mail and swords in outer space?). The sound is at times even laughable. Seems like they shot some sequences without sound and then forgot to add all of the required sounds later again in post-production. the mixing is also really bad. They tried to conceal this by putting the sound down to a minimum at times and by tuning up the Bruce Broughton musical score.<br /><br />At times the movie is so busy trying to make the movie look humorous that it totally forgets to tell the story. It makes the story of the movie seems extremely messy and poorly written, with an almost completely undeveloped main plot. It also doesn't help to make the movie really ever flow. Lots of thing don't get explained and some are even dropped after a while. The movie begins as a 'pirate' movie, who constantly are looking and steal water, since its scarcely and there is only one planet in the entire galaxy remaining with water on it (yeah right!). However this plot line gets soon abandoned, especially in the middle part of the movie, in which the movie seems to become a totally different one, with different motivations. It's just like the one weird and bad, silly sequence after the other, without really making a click. It also keeps the characters way too shallow and uninteresting to care about.<br /><br />Sad to see that actors like John Carradine, Anjelica Huston and a still young and unknown Ron Perlman were attached to this disastrous movie.<br /><br />OK I admit that I liked some of the moments, especially the ending when they go through the time-warp was original and fun but really, non of this all was enough to save the movie.<br /><br />I didn't even liked the movie in a campy kind of way.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
9,490 | [
600,
700
] | 506 | 656 | Mount Godwin-Austin (otherwise known as K2) is the world's second highest mountain, and if the evidence presented in this film is to be believed is the hardest mountain to climb successfully without getting yourself killed. "K2" is basically a buddy flick set in the breathtakingly dangerous world of mountaineering. While the outdoor photography takes in some truly awesome scenery, the characters standing in front of all those glorious landscapes are a crashing bore - and therein lies the fault with the whole film.<br /><br />Cocksure lawyer Taylor Brooks (Michael Biehn) and his quiet married friend Harold Jamieson (Matt Craven) spend their free time rock climbing. During one of their trips, they meet up with another bunch of climbers funded by wealthy mountain enthusiast Philip Claibourne (Raymond J. Barry). Claibourne's team are in training for a forthcoming shot at the infamous K2, a mountain that Taylor and Harold would both love to tackle but could never afford to do so. During their training run, however, two of Claibourne's team get themselves killed in an avalanche. Taylor and Harold put themselves forward as potential replacements. Despite initial reluctance, Claibourne gives them the nod of approval and the pair find themselves joining his team in the Himalayas. Harold's wife Cindy (Julia Nickson-Soul) is distraught that her husband is going to take on such a dangerous climb, especially since he has recently become a father. Tensions in the climbing team mount as Taylor repeatedly clashes with another member of the group, the equally brash and arrogant Dallas Woolf (Luca Bercovici). Meanwhile, Claibourne himself grows increasingly ill as altitude sickness takes its toll on his body. Will the guys reach the peak of K2, or is their quest destined to end in disappointment, or even death?<br /><br />"K2" spends an inordinately long time introducing its somewhat dislikeable characters. Biehn as a foul-mouthed, pushy, adventurous type is especially hard to like, as is Barry as the hard-nosed mountaineering millionaire. But on the other side of the coin, Craven is so dull that it becomes difficult to believe his wife could possibly give a damn about him going off to climb K2 - heck, she'd be better off if he never came back!! Rounding off the main characters is Bercovici, whose characterisation as Dallas Woolf is as campy and over-the-top as every other role he's ever played. The story itself is totally tame and disposable just a straightforward yarn about guys trying to reach the top of a mountain. There's a bit of male bonding thrown in, but the whole subplot about Harold and his wife amounts to nil, and the personality clashes between Taylor and Dallas ring totally false. "K2" scores its few merits solely from the stunning cinematography by Gabriel Berastain during the Himalayan sequences, the scale and awe of the mountains is quite nicely captured. I'm completely with critic Kim Newman on this one, who hilariously stated in Empire magazine: "On this evidence, climbing K2 can't be any harder than sitting through it!" Quite true, Kim, quite true! | 0 |
9,504 | [
600,
700
] | 522 | 666 | If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10 | 0 |
9,508 | [
600,
700
] | 475 | 601 | It goes without saying that a modicum of allowances has to be made when a true story is being adapted for the big screen. But if you shoot a fairy tale that has next to nothing to do with what actually happened - why call it Bugsy and make the audience believe this was a halfway true story? The Godfather trilogy processes many real characters and events, Once Upon A Time In America does it, too, but they don't claim to be telling true stories.<br /><br />* SPOILER*<br /><br />In the movie, Benny has this grand vision of a gambler's Eldorado; in real life Lansky had to argue him into going to Nevada. Benny deemed the notion of a counterpart to Monte Carlo idiotic, and he'd have preferred to continue his life as a playboy in L.A. Not until much later Benny warmed to the idea. But of course he's the hero of the movie, so naturally the idea had to be his.<br /><br />In the movie, Benny wants to use Count diFrasso to get close to Mussolini in order to assassinate him because he was Hitler's partner, and Hitler killed jews in gas chambers, after all. Obviously we're supposed to like Benny, so the screenwriters invented this nonsense. In real life, at that time nobody knew about the gas chambers, least of all Benny who was completely uninterested in politics. In fact he did use the countess' connection and he did visit Mussolini, but not to kill him, but to sell explosives to him. He even met Goebbels and Goering during his sojourn in Italy.<br /><br />The whole Greenberg subplot was nonsense. Greenberg didn't turn stool pigeon, he didn't seek refuge with Benny, Benny didn't kill him (that was up to Albert Tannenbaum)... at least they got the name right.<br /><br />I guess it was supposed to be very romantic to have Virginia return to Benny, offering him the money she had stolen. The movie even goes so far to tell us via text panels that she ruefully returned the money to Lansky after Benny's assassination. Let me just say, revisionism just doesn't get more impudent than this.<br /><br />This list is by no means exhaustive - there's the issue with Benny's family not living in L.A, the way Benny deals with Dragna and Adonis, the portrayal of Costello (a disagreeable corporate type), Lansky (a lovable teddy bear), Benny himself (an aging windbag who wouldn't have reached age 12 if he had regularly gone "bugsy" in situations like those in the movie, and what's more, who neither has the good looks nor the charisma of Benny Siegel) and many others. Apart from a few hard facts nothing's right in this flick.<br /><br />* SPOILERS END HERE*<br /><br />All in all, this is the one mafia movie that manages to be even more ridiculously bad than Harlem, NY. But honor where honor is due: This is a feat in itself. | 0 |
9,675 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 633 | Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.<br /><br />Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".<br /><br />If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.<br /><br />The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.<br /><br />The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.<br /><br />There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all. | 0 |
9,688 | [
600,
700
] | 517 | 623 | It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.<br /><br />Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.<br /><br />A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.<br /><br />I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.<br /><br />Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it. | 0 |
9,733 | [
600,
700
] | 473 | 648 | This is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.<br /><br />The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: "This (plastic peen) goes up your butt". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome. <br /><br />Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie. <br /><br />About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.<br /><br />Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.<br /><br />The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING "LADY BLOOD"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the "magic black man" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy. <br /><br />That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.<br /><br />-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr. | 0 |
9,742 | [
600,
700
] | 480 | 623 | "Stick Around" is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later "Ollie" character's treatment of "Stanley". It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.<br /><br />However, in "Stick Around", Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later "Ollie" titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.<br /><br />Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an "impossible" gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.<br /><br />The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.<br /><br />"Stick Around" is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 out of 10. | 0 |
9,748 | [
600,
700
] | 558 | 681 | The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.<br /><br />Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's "brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.<br /><br />As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4/10. | 0 |
9,753 | [
600,
700
] | 522 | 605 | If you have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, "Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!"<br /><br />The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people. <br /><br />I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.<br /><br />The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same. | 0 |
9,883 | [
600,
700
] | 505 | 676 | First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.<br /><br />Spoilers follow...<br /><br />The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.<br /><br />The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.<br /><br />True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.<br /><br />I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not. | 0 |
9,889 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 609 | The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...<br /><br />Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself! | 0 |
9,899 | [
600,
700
] | 515 | 618 | Heftig og Begeistret (Intense and Enthusiastic) is a documentary-like story of a male choir up in Berlevåg in the very northern part of Norway, where the weather is cold and hostile, the days are dark during the winter and the towns are faced with young people moving to the more populated parts in the south of Norway, where the climate is warmer and there are more opportunities.<br /><br />The most beautiful part of this movie is the humans themselves. The people in the choir, who are aged from 30 to 95, all have unique, colorful lives and are very enjoyable beings. They are characterised by the harsh climate and the recession of the North and have adapted to the way of living required. Throughout the movie, we learn a bit about many people in the choir and we follow them through songs, some events in a church and on the harbour, and in the end, a trip to Murmansk.<br /><br />The outside environment filmed in the movie is very beautiful and characterised by the Norwegian nature. The scenography is also natural and taken directly from the choir and from the peoples lives that we meet. Thei r livingrooms, the bathroom, the kettle on the oven; there is nothing artificial about this movie, not the people, not the environment, not their music and not their feelings. Everything is as real as can be.<br /><br />It all loses out though when it comes to giving a story. It is very beautiful and real, but why do we see it? Is it because of the songs? Is it because of the nature? Or is it simply just to see a story about Berlevåg Mens-Choir, about their life and some of the trips they have. The message, if there is any, is that this small society copes with life through such social events like the choir. The choir have kept the people together for many many years.<br /><br />It is all nice, but being as popular as it has been, seen by almost 200.000 in Norway, there is something wrong. There is no beginning or end to it. Nobody gains or loses anything, nobody reveals any message or tries to convince the audience of that this is good or that life up there is great. Why was this movie made?<br /><br />I am sorry. It is a nice movie about good people, but compared to the average European, Scandinavian or Norwegian movie - this does not deserve a 9 out of 10. It is closer to 4 out of 10, and that is what I will give it.<br /><br />If you see this movie in a theater, you should expect the average age on the audience to be around 55-60. It has reported to be consistently high in all theaters. Maybe this is also the reason for it receiving such very high praise in the news and good grades also on the IMDB: It is a movie about elders, for elders. It is a movie of "I regret nothing in my life", and a story saying that living in a small town like Berlevåg, might be a nice life too. | 0 |
9,943 | [
600,
700
] | 538 | 680 | CRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on. | 0 |
10,070 | [
600,
700
] | 460 | 601 | Oh yeah, this one is definitely a strong contender to win the questionable award of "worst 80's slasher ever made". "The Prey" has got everything you usually want to avoid in a horror flick: a routine, derivative plot that you've seen a thousand times before (and better), insufferable characters and terrible performances, a complete lack of gore and suspense, fuzzy photography and unoriginal locations and most irritating of all the largest amount of pointless padding footage you've ever encountered in your life (and that's not an exaggeration but a guarantee!). Apart from the seemingly endless amount of National Geographic stock footage, which I'll expand upon later, this film is shameless enough to include a complete banjo interlude (!) and two occasions where characters tell dillydally jokes that aren't even remotely funny! The set-up is as rudimentary as it gets, with the intro showing images of a devastating forest fire with OTT voice-over human screams. Fast forward nearly forty years later, when an elderly couple out camping in that same area get axe-whacked by something that breathes heavily off-screen. This ought to be enough information for you to derive that someone survived the fire all these years ago and remained prowling around ever since. Enter three intolerable twenty something couples heading up to the danger zone with exclusively sex on their minds, unaware of course they are sitting ducks for the stalking and panting killer. "The Prey" is an irredeemable boring film. Apparently it was shot in 1978 already, but nobody wanted to distribute it up until 1984 and it isn't too hard to see why. In case you would filter out all the content that is actually relevant, this would only be a short movie with a running time of 30 minutes; possibly even less. There's an unimaginably large of nature and wildlife footage, sometimes of animals that I think don't even live in that type of area, and they seem to go on forever. The only thing missing, in fact, is the typical National Geographic narration providing educational information regarding the animals' habits. Animals in their own natural biotope are undeniably nice to look at, but not in a supposedly vile and cheesy 80's slasher movie, for crying out loud. The last fifteen minutes are finally somewhat worthwhile, with some potent killing sequences and fine make-up effects on the monster (who turns out to be Lurch from "The Addams Family" movies), but still silliness overrules the scene with the vultures is too stupid and the final shot is just laugh-out-loud retarded. As mentioned above, "The Prey" easily makes my own personal list of worst 80's slashers, alongside "Appointment with Fear", "Berserker", "Deadly Games", "Don't Go in the Woods", "Hollow Gate", "The Stay Awake" and "Curfew". | 0 |
10,105 | [
600,
700
] | 491 | 610 | I saw this film at the tender age of 18 with a group of friends. Its reputation had preceded it, and though all my friends were also of legal age, I alone had the courage to enter the video store and actually rent it. We gathered at a house where the parents had left town for the weekend. Though we sat in close proximity to each other, we did not speak or otherwise acknowledge each other's presence. As it turned out, the film both merited and did not merit the anticipatory shame we felt. It did not disappoint in terms of sheer gratuitous content, but it disappointed in every other way.<br /><br />Caligula attempts to transcend genres by combining a historical epic with a brazen porn flick. It fails miserably in its ambition, subjecting the audience to the worst of both worlds. The film's obvious selling point is its pornographic aspect, and it does indeed provide far more than its share of real, graphic sex. But in setting this sex in the context of Caligula's depraved reign, it dignifies the act even less than the average adult movie. Sex without context might at least be physically pleasurable for the consenting adults involved, but pleasure and perhaps even consent are largely absent from the world of Caligula. In it, sex at best serves as an idle pastime and at worst as an instrument of sadistic domination. In the present day, it is somewhat common to hear words like "sin" and "depravity" used facetiously to describe acts which are enjoyable yet considered taboo according to certain moral or religious perspectives. Caligula takes the viewer beyond the facetiousness by depicting true depravity and demonstrating that no joy or pleasure comes from it.<br /><br />The historical portions not only fail to meaningfully contextualize the sex, they fail to entertain, enlighten, intrigue, or interest the viewer in any way. They only provide lengthy stretches of unremitting tedium. Rarely has a film proved so boring. The sex, after the initial shock and astonishment fades, only contributes to the overall monotony of the picture.<br /><br />Rarely do discussions of this film involve its violence. While many films more violent than Caligula have been made, few can rival it in terms of the shock value of its violence. Apparenly, unrelenting barbarity as well as hyper-depraved sexuality characterized Caligula's emperorship. The violence is even less for the faint of heart than the sex.<br /><br />A review like this will likely generate as much curiosity as it quells. I understand why someone would want to see this film; after all, I myself succumbed to the same curiosity. I simply hope that my review, by plainly describing its lack of redeeming value, will at least give potential viewers the knowledge to make an informed decision about whether to see it or not. My high school criminal justice teacher described police work as "hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror." This statement perfectly describes Caligula. You have been warned. | 0 |
10,188 | [
600,
700
] | 563 | 682 | John Wayne is without a doubt one of the most popular and loved actors of all time. His career stretched over forty years, and within that time he starred in films such as "Angel and the Badman", "The Green Berets", "Sands of Iwo Jima", "Rio Bravo", "North to Alaska", and "The Undefeated".<br /><br />The film's listed above are hailed as some of his best, unlike this 1934 effort "Randy Rides Alone", which has been pretty much forgotten about as time's gone on, which is unsurprising, as it's nothing memorable apart from its very short running time of just 53 minutes.<br /><br />A young John Wayne plays Randy Bowers, who for reasons never really explained, arrives at a saloon in the middle of nowhere and finds that everyone inside has been killed. While looking around, a posse arrives and finds Randy there and they arrest him, accusing him of being a gang member and demand to know where the rest of his gang is. He is put in jail accused of the murders. Sally Rogers, whose uncle owned the saloon and was murdered, arrives at the jail to see Randy in order to clarify that he was one of the gang members ( She was hiding in a secret room when the shooting took place ). Sally doesn't believe that Randy is a killer, and doesn't recognise him, so while the sheriff is out, she slips him the keys and Randy escapes. While running away from the sheriff and his posse, Randy conveniently stumbles into the gang's hideout in a cave who were responsible for the murders. Randy sets out to clear his name, and also to bring the gang to justice.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" can be a fun film to watch, especially if you're a John Wayne fan. But at the same time it has far too many flaws that are impossible to ignore. The film is also extremely dated, as you would expect; we have the terrible camera shooting which makes everyone look like they are moving in super-fast motion, and the dialogue is terrible. The acting isn't great either, and Wayne's character is very wooden and he, along with the rest of the cast, look like wooden puppets who are being conducted by someone ( In this case it's by director Harry Fraser ). Harry Fraser is at the helm, and does a good enough job but the story is paper-thin. One can't help but feel that about ten minutes is missing from the start of the film as Randy just arrives out of nowhere at the saloon and is looking to meet someone. An explanation on why Randy was there is giving later on, which turns out to be something like he is a P.I who was sent to investigate the claims that someone is trying to take over the town. To be honest I didn't really pick it up, most of the time I was hoping for the movie to end.<br /><br />But that being said, I didn't find this film to be completely terrible. I enjoyed some of it and found it to be quite fun at times. But it really isn't a great film, and isn't really worth watching or tracking down.<br /><br />Overall, "Randy Rides Alone" is incredibly dated and is a tiresome Western with very few redeeming qualities. Can be fun but overall it isn't a great movie and is certainly one of Wayne's weaker outings. | 0 |
10,194 | [
600,
700
] | 547 | 661 | There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.<br /><br />Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.<br /><br />The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.<br /><br />The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, "Forever Evil," which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.<br /><br />A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended. | 0 |
10,227 | [
600,
700
] | 478 | 606 | When naïve young Eddie Hatch, a window dresser at Savory's Department Store, falls for a statue of Venus and gives her a chaste kiss, Venus steps off her pedestal and gives Eddie more than he bargained for. This creaking example of what Hollywood can do to a Broadway musical manages to emphasize the inane story and eliminate most of the first-rate songs. The purpose was to make a safe, popular movie without too much investment while capitalizing on Ava Gardner's upward mobility to super stardom. Robert Walker as Eddie gets lost in a thankless role. Eddie's not just naive, but dithering and hapless. Gardner is gorgeous, but the only things that give the movie any life are Olga San Juan as Eddie's loving but jealous girl friend, Tom Conway as the suave owner of Savory's and Eve Arden as Savory's long time, wise cracking secretary. It's a role Arden could play in her sleep, and she's good at it. <br /><br />The musical opened on Broadway in 1943 and made Mary Martin a big-time star. The only point of a musical, however, is to have music. Since One Touch of Venus was intended to be a social satire of sorts, Kurt Weill, composing, and Ogden Nash writing the lyrics, came up with a series of stylish, witty songs and one masterpiece. Without the satire, or the clever songs or Martin (or an equivalent showstopper), the movie becomes just a weak comedy fantasy where much of the comedy is predictable and the fantasy is worked to death. <br /><br />Not only did the producers of the movie toss out almost all the Weill/Nash songs, they brought in the movie's music director, Ann Ronell, to write new lyrics for one of the songs that survived, turning sharp observation into lovey-dovey romance. Ronell was no hack; she wrote Willow Weep for Me. Wonder what she thought about while she replaced or tweaked Ogden Nash's clever work. <br /><br />The one bright spot in the movie is that Weill/Nash masterpiece. "Speak Low" is as great a love song as anyone ever wrote. It's given one of those ultra-professional and lifeless treatments by Eileen Wilson dubbing Gardner. Dick Haymes contributes a chorus. <br /><br />As for Ann Ronell, she was one of the few women in Hollywood to become a major music director, as well as composer and lyric writer. Yours for a Song: The Women of Tin Pan Alley is a fascinating documentary of some of the women who made it in the business, including Ronell, Kay Swift, Dorothy Fields and Dana Suess. And for those who would like to hear what little of the Weill/Nash score was recorded by the original Broadway cast, you might be able to track down the CD, One Touch Of Venus (1943 Original Cast) / Lute Song (1946 Original Cast). The music is paired with Lute Song, another Broadway show that starred Martin. | 0 |
10,228 | [
600,
700
] | 505 | 605 | I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.<br /><br />One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood. <br /><br />Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.<br /><br />The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue. <br /><br />The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.<br /><br />Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.<br /><br />In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.<br /><br />Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it. | 0 |
10,345 | [
600,
700
] | 515 | 626 | Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original. | 0 |
10,361 | [
600,
700
] | 466 | 626 | I have yet to watch STARCRASH (1979) - that notoriously cheesy Italian take on STAR WARS (1977) - but it can't be much worse than this misbegotten piece of junk which, suffice it to say, makes Mel Brooks' so-so SPACEBALLS (1987) look like a veritable work of art! In fact, the main reason why GALAXINA is remembered at all nowadays is because of the tragic fate which befell its leading lady - Playboy centerfold Dorothy Stratten who was killed by her insanely jealous estranged husband - before the film had even had its official premiere! <br /><br />Although Statten (who subsequently had two biopics made about her wherein she was portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Mariel Hemingway) plays the title role, for the first half of the film she is reduced to being propped up in a chair ostensibly driving a spaceship on a 27-year journey to some planet or other; in fact, Galaxina is an all-purpose android who also serves the wacky crew their snacks, gets them all hot under the collar and even goes scouting for the Blue Star (cue choral music) once they land! Having said that, Statten certainly looks luminous in her white attire and, even if her role hardly demands much exertion of any acting talent she might possess, it's not exactly demeaning either.<br /><br />Still, it's ironic that for a film which bears her name, she is overshadowed by the campy and would-be zany antics of her fellow crew members, especially the annoying Captain Cornelius Butt (which gives you the idea of the level of comedy on display here), a long-eared, wing-sporting colored guy, a pot-smoking, proverb-quoting old Chinaman and, best of all (relatively speaking) a foul-mouthed, rock-eating, hairy alien creature they hold prisoner. The villain of the piece is a metal-clad non-entity who does, however, have the best laugh in the film when, upon hearing the choral music following his every mention of the Blue Star, exclaims, "What is this s**t?" There is little point in listing the sci-fi classics which are mauled by this stinker in its ludicrous attempts at spoofing the genre since they are not only lame but obvious; incredibly enough, a chest-busting but ultimately benign alien is apparently played by diminutive Hollywood veteran, Angelo Rossitto!<br /><br />For what it's worth, then, the scenes shot on the planet they visit (which looks more like a Western set than a planetary landscape) have a yellowish, sun-like hue and its inhabitants are 'human gourmets' (delicacies on their menu include Skin and Tonic, Scotsman on the Rocks, Thigh Pies, Baked Alaskan, etc), not to mention a motorcycle gang who serve their own particular deity (the Harley Davidson) and when our heroes escape on the back of it, they dare not shoot at them for fear of hitting their "Lord". God(awful) indeed... | 0 |
10,364 | [
600,
700
] | 488 | 626 | This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.<br /><br />And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.<br /><br />Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.<br /><br />Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.<br /><br />The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.<br /><br />The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.<br /><br />Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.<br /><br />MadKaugh | 0 |
10,401 | [
600,
700
] | 474 | 617 | Construction workers disrupt the Native American burial ground of a large, hulking skeletal monster which disintegrates it's victims with it's touch, breath, or bone sword! The head honcho over the resort project, Krantz(Jim Storm)orders his construction crew to keep their skeletal findings secret for much would halt the continuing development if the nearby Katona tribe caught wind that remains were being dug up and disturbed. An aging Bruce Boxleitner, likable as always, stars as half-breed Sheriff Evans trying to keep peace between the Katonas and Krantz's crew. The peace was strained, at best, but with that skeletal monster running rampant making it's victims vanish without a trace, soon Krantz wants answers to why members of his crew are missing..Evans begins losing citizens as well. Evans is warned by Katona Chief Storm Cloud(Michael Horse)that an ancient demon, the Bone Eater, has been loosened and can only be stopped with a sacred war axe(..the axe was removed by a worker who found it's remains with the weapon lunged inside)now in the back seat of his daughter Kelly's(Clara Bryant, who wears tight jeans and shirts to reveal how daddy's girl has grown into quite a striking lady)boyfriend's truck. Evans must somehow defeat the demon if the killing will stop..and this must occur before the Eclipse or it's power will become too strong for anyone to vanquish.<br /><br />A solid cast, floundering in an embarrassing horror outing. The CGI, isn't very good, although the monster could've been quite threatening if done with a better budget. It rides a horse made from dust chasing after it's prey, for Petesake! Some cameo appearances include BUCK ROGERS Gil Gerard as Evan's deputy Big Jim, STAR TREK's Walter Koenig as a coroner, & HOUSE's William Katt, as a Country Doctor attending to the wounds of Evan's deputy. None of these cameos last longer than one minute or so..sad, really. Adoni Maropis, impresses in an underwritten role as a brooding Katona, Johnny Black Hawk, who wishes to use the Bone Eater to drive the white man off his tribe's land. Jennifer Lee Wiggins portrays Kaya, a tasty dish of a Katona female whose against Black Hawk's hatred for the white man and wishes for Evans to follow his Indian blood regarding putting an end to the Bone Eating monster. This might be worth sitting through if just to see Boxleitner dressed in war paint and Indian garb. I felt for the actor, to be honest, as Bruce tries to keep a straight-face in such a terrible movie. In yet another over-worked and tiresome cliché, Bruce's sheriff has an estranged relationship with his daughter, whose 17, hot, and wanting to date the "bad boy"..although this winds up being an underwritten sub-plot as is most of the plot concerning the killing skeleton and many of the poorly developed characters. | 0 |
10,433 | [
600,
700
] | 555 | 673 | After seeing the DVD release of the Blues Brothers, and their mention of "Wired" on Belushi's bio, my boyfriend and I were hungry for more information on John Belushi. I had heard of "Wired" but didn't know too much about it and found it way in the back of the local rental store. I understand that Dan Akroyd was really p***ed over this movie and I thought it was because it didn't portray them in a good light. But that had nothing to do with it.<br /><br />The movie starts out okay, until they wheel in John's body to the morgue. When he wakes up on the autopsy table, and decides to run for it, then begins the utter tastelessness of this movie. John is subjected to viewing his life and all of the turmoil he created with "Angel," a Puerto Rican cab driver with a wicked sense of humor -- subjecting him to criticism and attempting to try to get him to cross over.<br /><br />The two actors who portray John and Dan look nothing even remotely close to the real actors, (let alone anyone else related for that matter, i.e., Lorne Michaels,) making it difficult to really try to concentrate on them and how they were in real life... but that is the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />I believe this was supposed to be an "artsy" film -- John constantly being tormented by drugs (i.e., the powdered soap in the bathroom being cocaine,) in such a way that was also difficult to follow. The flashbacks are choppy, also making it difficult to understand.<br /><br />Probably the most tasteless scene was when John is (literally,) forced to undergo his autopsy and is in pain while they remove his heart to weigh it, saying that it was abnormally large due to drug use, obesity, yeah, we get the point without the grotesque portrayal.<br /><br />There are very few other actors we know of in the movie, (where's Carrie Fisher for instance? They were incredibly close. And Jim Belushi would have been a great person to show,) it looks VERY cheaply made, (we felt it looked as if the graphics were from the early 80s or late 70s,) it felt as if it was filmed in about a week and all in all, didn't show the side to John at all. I felt I knew a little bit more about him from watching episodes of Saturday Night Live.<br /><br />On one last note, Bob Woodward comes across narcissistic by placing himself in the movie, arguing with John about writing his life story. For someone who was supposed to be very highbrow, concerning the bust on Nixon, his calibur of person could match any writer in the National Enquirer, and therefore losing my interest in any of his work from this point forward.<br /><br />SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you want to see more on John, watch his movies, see clips of Dan Akroyd talking about him or hope someone has the taste to make another movie on John that goes along the lines of "Man on the Moon," which is ultimately what we were expecting. I guess this was a "moral" kind of movie -- you know, don't do drugs, but I guess the creators of this film didn't understand that his death made a number of people (like Carrie Fisher,) stop doing drugs altogether for that reason. | 0 |
10,472 | [
600,
700
] | 499 | 624 | A girl named Isobel becomes possessed by a demon. The local priest (who formerly dated Isobel's sister) must try to save her, but the bigger problems are with the family's suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter.<br /><br />This film is directed by Ethan Wiley, the writer of "House" and the writer/director of "House II". I loved the first film and liked the second one even better, so you would think this would be a winner. Alas, this one looks like it was thrown together by first-year film students. Dawson Leery could have done better. I have thought about blaming new writer Ellary Eddy, especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"?), but Wiley should have been able to do his magic.<br /><br />Also, you'd like to think veteran horror stars Jeffrey Combs and James Russo would help this film. Russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up, and Combs has a great role as a sheriff... for the five minutes he's on screen (but I love the mustache). So, no help here.<br /><br />After seeing "The Exorcist", all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default, no? And the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. No head-spinning or paranormal activity at all. Just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. All the "demonic" stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. As another reviewer wrote, "you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild." That sadly sums up the extent of the "evil" in this movie.<br /><br />If you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off-camera, this is the movie for you. But, if you don't mind my saying so, you have a horrible taste in film if this is what you're seeking.<br /><br />The plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who didn't, but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have, but denies it). And then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist, but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in God. What was all the Bible-quoting you were doing five minutes ago?<br /><br />A horrible exorcism movie. Horribler examples of what Combs and Russo are capable of. And such a sad display of directing after the "House" series of films became classic. I would like to pretend Wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal, uninspired film. The power of Christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin. | 0 |
10,483 | [
600,
700
] | 474 | 605 | While this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.<br /><br />Amongst the many inconsistencies: <br /><br />* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests. <br /><br />* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures. <br /><br />* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer. <br /><br />* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says "I see you know Psalm 65" - she corrects him "that's Psalm 67" - they're both wrong. <br /><br />* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway. <br /><br />* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.<br /><br />I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).<br /><br />On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.<br /><br />I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.<br /><br />Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke. | 0 |
10,500 | [
600,
700
] | 511 | 685 | Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS for
the third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.<br /><br />Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.<br /><br />Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.<br /><br />What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.<br /><br />1.5/5 stars | 0 |
10,501 | [
600,
700
] | 531 | 644 | I picked this movie up because it sounded like a pretty decent flick, and I've always been a fan of Foreign films. However, for someone who likes movies, I was surprised at how much I hate, hate, HATED this movie.<br /><br />Although it does aim to expose the lives of young, lowerclass men in Lima, and to an extent it does succeeed, the characters are hopelessly shallow and the audience winds up having absolutely no feelings whatsoever for them.<br /><br />Although the story chiefly revolves around M, he rarely ever speaks, and his dialouge is, at best, amazingly dry and dull.<br /><br />*** Warning: Some small spoilers ***<br /><br />Basically, the story revolves around a young man named M who has been searching for jobs, but without success (He does gain employment twice, but quits because they're "not for him", when you're poor, the last option you have is to be picky). Some amount of time is spent with his friends, who's idea of "fun" is to rape a little 14 year old, steal crappy tires off a piece of shit car for a dime sack of weed, and several other slightly retarded activities.<br /><br />M's friend comesup with a plan to make $25,000 a piece and move to the US by running Cocaine to Miami. When the drug lord gives them a job, we're treated to an extremely lame scene of the three friends buying clothes at the mall with some music playing in the background. We see them trying different clothes on like little girls given $200 to shop, get there hair cut, and then strutting off looking like slick gangsters (one character, Carlos, will from this point on wear sunglasses ALWAYS... even at night).The day before they leave, the leader of the group leaves to speak with the drug lord, leaving M and his friend to be dumb. They party up, take several samples of the drugs they're suppose to run, and break into thier old school, acting like animals and smashing everything in sight.<br /><br />The movie ends when M tries calling his girlfriend, who hangs up on him. The friends then proceed to set the pay phone on fire, which brings out a bunch of kids and some old man with gun. M and Carlos' friend in charge of the drug run shows up on his motorcycle and wants them to leave with him now. Then he takes off by himself, and gets shot by that old man. The police show up and arrest M and his friends (but not the man who shot the guy) and cover thier dead friend up with newspapers as music plays and it fades to credits.<br /><br />**** End Spoiler ****<br /><br />I even watched this movie a second time, hoping to see some subtle, redeeming factor for it, but I did not. A complete waste of 102 minutes. Although I must give it credit for being straightforward and not shying away from disturbing elements, the casting, acting, and overall direction still leaves much, much, much to be desired.<br /><br />IMHO, if you're interested in a movie that explores the issues this one was suppose to, go rent City of God (Cidade de Deus) instead. Avoid this trash at all costs! You have been warned!! | 0 |
10,540 | [
600,
700
] | 520 | 649 | Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making "Superhero Movie" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.<br /><br />You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.<br /><br />After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.<br /><br />Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.<br /><br />But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.<br /><br />featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.<br /><br />Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.<br /><br />My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain. | 0 |
10,633 | [
600,
700
] | 541 | 638 | ---------SPOILER ALERT----------------------------<br /><br />This was the worst of the series, it is horror disguised as political satire and it is as subtle as a sledge hammer, not very scary and not very insightful. Did Micheal Moore have anything to do with this piece of Garbage.?<br /><br />I'm really sick of Hollywood using entertainment as a political campaign against George Bush and constantly repeating the same talking points over and over again. This movie wants to be DeathDream, but unlike that movie which subtly poignantly tackled the problems soldiers who came back from Vietnam by clever making the main character come back as a blood craving zombie and slowly built on this theme: it was a true horror film that was also good social commentary, because it didn't get sanctimonious, exploitave and preachy.<br /><br />I guess Joe Dante, thought this was trying to make a horror film to scare Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians and me being the last in that list found this film to be totally ridiculous, manipulative and exploitave all at the same time and I don't mean the good type of exploitative, that you often find in the " drive-in" type movies, I mean exploitative in the most sickening and vile manner: using the deaths of our soldiers as a manipulative political statement disguised as a horror film. <br /><br />This film assumes that all the soldiers who died in Iraq, would vote against a conservative president if they would come back to life as zombies, which is a flawed premise, because as I recall for the most part and going by George Romero's rules; zombies are mindless, flesh eating creatures, operating on pure impulse and even though the zombie Andy, in DeathDream could talk, he couldn't really hold a conversation and he was driven by his addiction to human blood. Okay, zombies are mindless creatures driven by impulse and not intellect and obviously they are dead, so why would dead people be allowed to vote in the first place? My interpretation of this film is that the only war a liberal democrat could win is by having mindless, dead people vote for him, I guess they meant to say the people that vote for presidents like George Bush are the mindless zombies, while the real mindless zombies, are actually the ones making the intellectually sounds decisions. Yeah, whatever. Dawn of the Dead tackled this idea much better, but user the idea of mindless consumerism. This film isn't Dawn of the Dead by any stretched of the imagination.<br /><br />The film addresses the issue while the soldiers are alive that a majority of them voted for a Bush like president, but after they die they would vote for a liberal anti-war democrat after they are zombies, who are normally considered brain dead creatures and laughably has them destruct after they vote.<br /><br />If you are gonna make a zombie movie Mr. Dante and invoke George Romero's name in it, you better have mindless zombies that like ripping people apart and eating their intestines, not zombies that vote. I also like how the zombies just go "evil" conservatives who support the war.<br /><br />If you want a good movie with social commentary skip this poorly made, preachy piece of junk and watch DeathDream instead.<br /><br />The worst of the Master of Horror Series hands down. | 0 |
10,715 | [
600,
700
] | 463 | 606 | I do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.<br /><br />Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.<br /><br />First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya with clichéd dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.<br /><br />The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.<br /><br />I was thinking throughout the movie what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now
(Stars 4.5 out of 10) | 0 |
10,726 | [
600,
700
] | 523 | 691 | The Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline<br /><br />Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant/John Merchant/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead<br /><br />Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.<br /><br />Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.<br /><br />The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines("Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you") and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.<br /><br />The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.<br /><br />The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.<br /><br />Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.<br /><br />Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* of ***** | 0 |
10,754 | [
600,
700
] | 539 | 693 | Quentin Tarantino once said that to succeed in the film industry you had to make your own Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. Writer/actor/director Larry Bishop seems to have taken that advice a little too literally with Hell Ride and concocted a messy homage that borrows much too heavily in its visuals, music, camera-work, and time-altering storytelling. But to properly mimic a Tarantino film, one has to have a knack for constructing creative conversations; unfortunately Hell Ride's primary derailing element is its atrocious ramblings and vulgar monologues that only work to disgust and confuse the audience while simultaneously invoking pity for the actors just for being involved.<br /><br />The anti-hero protagonist biker gang, The Victors, consists of several weathered vigilantes who bring their own brand of bloodthirsty justice to the lawless roads. The leader, Pistolero (Larry Bishop), is hell-bent on revenge and putting out fires. The Gent (Michael Madsen) just tries to balance his chaotic, psychotic symphony of life with putting lead into anyone who crosses his boss, and Comanche (Eric Balfour) follows with a fierce loyalty and a mysterious past.<br /><br />On the villainous front, Deuce (David Carradine) is the mastermind who orchestrates from afar, though not quite far enough, and Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) spits venom and lewd explanations for his tattoos while toting a harpoon gun and a general disdain for life. While these characters might sound interesting on paper, once they're forced to rant horrendously ill-conceived dialogue all traces of cool disappear faster than the funding should for Bishop's next film.<br /><br />While Hell Ride is riddled with imperfections and missed opportunities, the main facet of its undoing lies in the poorly devised conversations. And because Bishop's main influences are the talky films of Tarantino, there are a lot of them. The first twenty minutes of the movie are nearly unintelligible and would probably make as much sense muted. By the time Pistolero's main squeeze is introduced and certain phrases are overused to the point of nausea, you'll pray for both death and the ability to turn the sound off. Even Dennis Hopper has trouble remaining cool while spouting off such goofy dialogue.<br /><br />Have you ever repeated a word or phrase to yourself so many times that it just doesn't sound right or even make sense anymore? Bishop starts there and then keeps the madness going until you envy the characters on screen getting their heads cut off. And when the dialogue finally takes a break, we're treated to interspersed shots of nude female oil wrestling and throats being slashed. I'm not sure what effect Bishop hoped to attain, but I doubt he found it.<br /><br />Hell Ride wants to pay homage to Quentin Tarantino films, Robert Rodriguez films, and every movie that idolizes the violent and devil-may-care attitudes of bikers. But while its intentions may be noble, the horrendously cringe-worthy dialogue and the hyper-stylized timeline-mangling editing prevents the audience from becoming invested with the generic tough-guy characters. By the time we figure out the mystery behind the characters' motives (and it may be awhile before you even realize there's a mystery to be solved), it's just too hard to care anymore. And while everyone on screen is clearly having fun, they've entirely neglected to translate any of that entertainment to the audience.<br /><br />- Joel Massie | 0 |
10,807 | [
600,
700
] | 465 | 606 | How unfortunate, yet also fortunate, that two films about pot-holing -The Cave and The Descent - should arrive at much the same time. Sadly for The Descent its release in the UK on 7th of July coincided with the very day of the London underground tube/metro terrorist atrocity that killed almost 60 and injured hundreds - not a particularly good night/weekend to pop out to the cinema, especially to see a scary-as-sheesh film about likable women being trapped in a deep, dark, claustrophobic underground caving system. The two movies have virtually the same elements - a half dozen or so characters, lost in a previously unexplored caving system, with no-one outside aware they are trapped down there. Lots of water, caverns, danger... then ultimately some vicious human-like or human-derived creatures determined to prey upon them. Where the two are so different is that The Cave is unreal, entirely unbelievable, more Alien-esquire sci-fi fantasy adventure than horror, or drama. The comparatively minuscule-budgeted British film (filmed in southern England though set in the Appalachians) is five-pair-of-pants terrifying, a heart-stopping shocker so stomach turning that people walk out of screenings early in shock. It knocks off the girls in any old order - you genuinely have no idea what to expect next - surely not her! The Descent is also lit in naturalistic manner, making it all the more scary, unlike the laughably lit Cave which resembles a giant magical Christmas Santa's grotto, with cathedral-sized room after room dazzling in gloriously blue light from... who knows where, while the cavers torches are employed exclusively in artistically lighting up the granite-jawed heroes (each more puppet-like than any Team America / Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds creation). Fantastic amounts of equipment are carried too, yet despite this the impossibly deep-voiced actors clearly forgot to pack any sense of impending danger, drama, or anything worthy of a horror film - it's strictly PG rated. And in this instance the actors peg out in exactly the order that everyone expects them to - i quickly wrote a list after being introduced to each character, only getting Piper Perabo out of sequence. The Cave script is entirely by-numbers, unlike Shakespeare a room full of chimpanzees would eventually write it in under a week... Take a typical exchange between the 'good buddy' white and black leads that goes; "how many times have we been in this situation before bud?" - "too many" (replies Morris Chesnut). I swear, you could hear my suburban London audience gasp at the obviousness. The scariest thing about The Cave is that at the end there's a clear opening for 'the sequel' - 'The Cave 2: Overground' or whatever. Be afraid, be very afraid... Or instead catch The Descent and be truly afraid, very very very afraid. RR | 0 |
10,822 | [
600,
700
] | 526 | 657 | OK, I read the director's comment about this movie (featured as the 'frontmost comment'), and I have to admit that I can identify with his position.<br /><br />Micheal, I hope your career recovered from this particular setback and you went on to other, better things. I've seen this movie in the MST3K form. Even with all the chopped continuity and snotty remarks being tossed out by the robots, I saw a potentially decent movie with an ambitious set of ideas trying to struggle out from under the limited budget and limited actors available to it. And this is one of those films ("Mitchell" is another) where the MST3K crew took a lot of cheap shots at the lead character even when she actually deserved better. You know they had some unfair fun at the actress' expense because it made for a livelier episode.<br /><br />IMO, the fact that the movie actually tried to be ABOUT something, and had a few decent, effective moments here and there, should keep it out of the 'Bottom 100' ("Tangents/Time Chasers" is another movie with a plot and a heart that doesn't deserve to be there either).<br /><br />But it is still not a very good movie. I don't blame the writer/lead actress for being who she is. It's just that her acting and writing skills needed a few more years to mature before she could pull off a vanity project such as this or carry a feature film. The writing and characterization is amateurish and slapdash, and the dialog is often barely up to ABC Afterschool Special standards. The cast sincerely gives it their best effort, and the acting in general is definitely head-and-shoulders above abortions like "Future War" or "Space Mutiny", but there aren't any really professional level performances here, with the exception of 'Big Joe' Estevez, who is hammy but suitably intense. I never saw the full original cut, but MST's sampling of "Soultaker" was representative enough to make these facts plain.<br /><br />Oh, and the film has Robert Z'Dar in it. That is, IMO, a real 'Kiss Of Death' for any movie that hopes to be taken seriously. Yes, he's big and scary looking in his role, but I just hate the guy as an actor. (In real life, I wish him well and hope he is financially comfortable).<br /><br />There were little things I liked about the film. For instance, the camaraderie between the male lead and his dead buddy added some warmth and humor to the movie and made it a lot more watchable. The idea of an elevator in the hospital that opened its doors to the Afterlife was an inspired way to invoke some spooky vibes without springing for special effects, and I respected whoever worked that into the script in attempt to keep the budget manageable. It didn't really work, but it might have with just a little more tweaking.<br /><br />So anyway, Mr. Rissi, better luck with your other projects - your involvement with this misfire wouldn't keep me from watching something else you did if the 'buzz' was good. And Ms. Miller has nothing to be ashamed of - she was young and ambitious, and the movie wasn't THAT bad. | 0 |
10,925 | [
600,
700
] | 491 | 615 | This movie was awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.<br /><br />The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.<br /><br />Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.<br /><br />To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.<br /><br />That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical "is he going to kill himself?" scenes.<br /><br />*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.<br /><br />Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.<br /><br />Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh. | 0 |
10,975 | [
600,
700
] | 521 | 658 | Cujo is a giant, lovable, gentle and affectionate St. Bernard owned by the Camber family, during the opening sequence Cujo chases a rabbit over fields and through a local wood somewhere in Castle Rock, Maine. The rabbit disappears into a burrow and Cujo sticks his head into the entrance hole. The rabbit vanishes from Cujo's sight, angry Cujo starts to bark and in doing so inadvertently wakes up and annoy a colony of bats, one of which bites him on the nose. Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace-Stone as Dee Wallace) is having an affair with Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone, Dee Wallace's real life husband) which her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh Kelly) who works in advertising, discovers. Obviously their relationship becomes strained. Happily oblivious to all of this is their young son Tad (Danny Pintauro). Joe Camber (Ed Lauter) fixes cars for a living out of his barn on his farmhouse. Joe is planning a guys weekend with one of his friends Gary Pervier (Mills Watson) when his wife Charity (Kaiulani Lee) wins $5,000 on the lottery and decides to take their young boy Brett (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) with her on a trip to see her parents. Arriving at Gary's house to pick him up Joe finds him dead on the floor, he goes into the kitchen to call for help and his dog Cujo who is now rabid attacks and kills him. Donna and Tad drive to the Camber's farmhouse to try and get her car repaired. The place is deserted except for Cujo who is now completely rabid, foaming at the mouth, his fur stained red with blood and maddened by pain. Cujo attacks the car to try and get at Donna and Tad, luckily for them the windows hold firm, at least for the time being anyway. Donna tries to start the car but it has completely broken down, they are both trapped with nothing but the hope that someone will come and rescue them. Cujo lies in wait, ready to attack and kill anyone who crosses his path. Directed by Lewis Teague I thought the film was a bit slow for my tastes. The first half plods along, the second half builds up a head of steam but I still felt it was a little underwhelming and unexciting. The acting is fine by everyone involved, I've no complaints there. Technically the film is OK, photography, music, special effects, editing and it's generally well made. The big problem is the script by Don Carlos Dunaway and Lauren Currier and in particular it's first half, most of which appears to be padding to stretch the run time out. Clocking in at just under the 90 minute mark it felt longer. It's also a little predictable as well. Cujo as a monster never really scared me either, I just don't find slobbering overweight St. Bernards scary I guess. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think I'd be in a hurry to see it again. Average, not too bad if you can find a copy going cheap or catch it on T.V. for free. | 0 |
11,073 | [
600,
700
] | 596 | 687 | If I could give this excuse for a film a 0 or negative rating I would. I was stupid enough to pick this DVD up in the shop, read the blurb and think, that sounds quite good, I'll spend £10 and buy it. all I got at the end of it was a £10 coaster. Absolutely awful, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea why anyone has given this more than 2 stars because I can't think of one good thing to say about it. <br /><br />The plot is basically, 7 people go into an unexplored cave, one of them is a reporter. no-one else knows they are there. When they get in the cave, they can't get out and they get killed off one by one by a monster. There turns out to be no reason for the reporter. One of the characters has some past demons where his ex girlfriend drowns in a cave 2 years ago... there seems to be no relevance or reason for that either, just a rubbish attempt at character building I assume? Anyway, The monster turns out to be a guy that wandered into the cave as a normal little kid and has lived in there all his life. This for no reason makes him superhuman, able to glow, see in the dark, take bullets, breathe underwater, be in 2 places at once and have insane strength (able to move boulders, carry grown men as dead weight, etc). <br /><br />In the end scene there are 2 women left alive, they wake up naked, just covered in some bit of rug or something. They then find a picture of a kid. The Monster then bursts in the door, wrapped in a carpet with some sort of animal skull over his head (says in the directors commentary it was a crow's skull, if so that would be the frekin biggest crow I have seen in my life) and quite literally goes "Raaahhh" like a kiddie on Halloween. I was watching it with my boyfriend and at that point he literally burst out laughing. The guy then sees a picture of himself as a kid and has a flashback to him sitting under a tree with his face all burnt and then getting up and wandering into the cave. That is the extent of the back story to why he mutilates people and it leaves you feeling a bit cheated for a story. The monster then kills one of the women and brutally rapes the other one, cut to end credits. I know the rape scene was designed to be shocking, but as a woman it just made me feel quite ill and was the thing that affected me the most in the whole film. He could have killed her and cut her into pieces and ate her and it would have been less horrific than the rape scene.<br /><br />There are so many things that are left unanswered at the end. Aside from all this, the scenes where there was minutes at a time of just black and nothing else was annoying and the constant nauseating camera angles where it's all upside down and you can't see what's going on wound me up so much at one point I almost turned it off. An absolutely terrible film. You might as well get the money you were going to spend on it and set fire to it, it would be money better spent, as like some clever person posting above me said, once you've watched it, you can't un watch it. | 0 |
11,084 | [
600,
700
] | 540 | 611 | Audio:<br /><br />Seriously I've never seen a movie with worse audio. There are scenes where people are walking through the grass, and you can hardly hear them over their footsteps. They must be miking their feet. <br /><br />You know how in some movies they forget a line, so they have to dub it in on a shot of the back of someone's head. Here the editors were not that clever. There is actually a scene where Shannon Tweed's character says her line without moving her lips at all!<br /><br />I'm pretty sure for their background sound they played effects loops live while shooting, because in a lot of scenes the sound effects will either be different or be absent whenever the camera changes angles.<br /><br />I could write a lot more on how bad the audio is in this movie.<br /><br />Other Nuggets:<br /><br />In this movie they probably consider the opening credits to be special effects because they seemed so challenging to produce. The main title and the first few names in the opening credits are in white text over a white sky, and they wobble as if they were carefully hand painted on each frame.<br /><br />The reuse of extras in this movie is incredible. There are about 15 rebels in the cast, and yet in any given battle thirty or more of them will be killed. If only the film were high enough quality to distinguish which ones were dying over and over.<br /><br />It's also interesting to note that the rebels are usually killed by explosions that are always between 30 and 200 feet away. There is one scene one scene when some of the rebels are running out of their huts in the rebel base, and one huts shakes as the rebel exits the door. It makes you wonder if the hut will last long enough to encounter the inevitable explosion.<br /><br />There is a blue helicopter that looks as menacing as a pair of running shorts, but somehow is equipped with an infinite supply of missiles. When they show the missiles being shot out of the helicopter's missile bays, the often shoot of in unpredictable directions very closely resembling large bottle rockets. They still manage to hit their targets with ease, which as noted above is always a very safe distance away from the rebels they kill. Note the recycled footage of the pilot pressing the LIVE button to fire the missiles (because it's printed vertically, the first few times we saw it, we read it as the "EVIL" button).<br /><br />Notice how the grenade launcher they use, produces identical explosions to those that are created by the helicopter missiles. It's also fun in many scenes how the actor in the foreground is shooting in a completely different direction than the group of enemy soldiers that he is killing. And frequently, characters shoot a disproportionate number of bullets to the soldiers who are killed (like when a short burst fire kills a large group of enemies).<br /><br />Yes this movie is very very very bad. The plot was thought out almost as well as a 5 year old's soccer game, and the editing is the worst I've ever seen. But honestly, sometimes it's fun spend 90 minutes laughing at a group of adults who sincerely took part in such a terrible movie. | 0 |
11,159 | [
600,
700
] | 550 | 663 | I have just given a 10 for Thieves Highway, I mention this for two reasons one to prove I'm not a git who only gives bad reviews but 2 because the theme of the film has the same thread namely the falling in love with a woman of the night.<br /><br />We all know pretty Woman is a chick flick but you can't avoid them all, they'll eventually get you. Pretty Woman for me does two things, two terrible horrible ghastly things, firstly it portrays prostitution as a career more akin to that of a dancer, you know with absolutely great friends, leg warmers lots of giggling, borrowing each others make up. You see in the reality of Pretty Woman the prostitute and this is a street walker Prostitute we're talking about here, has a great life, she's healthy happy with only the occasional whimper to explain her predicament. My feeling is this 'happy Hooker' type protagonist is a lot more palatable than an even nearly realistic character, which for me begs the question if you make a movie about a type of person but are too chicken scared to adorn that player with the characteristics familiar to that role then why do it? If I make a film about a chef but don't want him to cook or talk about food or wear a white hat then why make a film about a chef in the first place? By bailing out and turning the hooker into a respectable dancer type the story misses the point completely and consequently never indulges in any of the moral or social questions that it could have, what a cop out, really really lame. <br /><br />Secondly, 'Pretty Woman' insults romance itself, Edward Lewis played by Richard Gere has no clue how to seduce or romance this 'lady' that is without his plastic friend, yep don't leave home without it, especially if you are a moron in a suit who has no imagination. 8 out of 10 of his romantic moments involve splashing cash in one way or another, even when he first meets her it's the Lotus Esprit turbo that does all the work, necklaces here diamonds there limos over there, money money money, where's the charm? where's the charisma, don't mention that attempt at the piano please.<br /><br />Girls who like this film will also be girls who like shopping more than most. Guys who like this film will not even have realized that old Eddy has less charm than a calculator, as they probably don't either so it wont have registered. More importantly anyone who likes this film will hate 'Thieves Highway' a wonderful story of which part is based on the same subject.<br /><br />I'll finish on a song:<br /><br />Pretty woman hangin round the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to treat Pretty woman, I don't believe you You're not the truth No one could spend as much as you Mercy<br /><br />Pretty woman, wont you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, and you look lovely as can be do you lack imagination just like me<br /><br />Pretty woman, shop a while Pretty woman, talk a while Pretty woman, sell your smile to me Pretty woman, yeah, yeah, yeah Pretty woman, look my way Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me..and I'll pay you..I'll treat you right | 0 |
11,208 | [
600,
700
] | 517 | 641 | Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.<br /><br />Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.<br /><br />And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.<br /><br />The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.<br /><br />For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.<br /><br />It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.<br /><br />When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.<br /><br />Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.<br /><br />So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.<br /><br />It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.<br /><br />My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements. | 0 |
11,219 | [
600,
700
] | 550 | 631 | There are so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.<br /><br />The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.<br /><br />A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.<br /><br />Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.<br /><br />Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.<br /><br />Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.<br /><br />Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid times. | 0 |
11,274 | [
600,
700
] | 493 | 641 | "Ghost Son" is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. "Ghost Son" is a bit of his comeback film, alongside "The Torturer", and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. "Ghost Son" is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clichéd. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby" (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture
). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment "Ghost Son" is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch "Demons", "Macabre" or "Blade in the Dark". | 0 |
11,353 | [
600,
700
] | 516 | 647 | A typical old b&w film. The dialogues are sometimes good, but too often - especially in the second half - they get naive, sometimes awfully naive, occasionally close to the point where they are unintentionally comical. The first third, with its background information on Ladd's Gatsby shown with a series of interesting flashbacks, is the best part of the movie. But once Gatsby moves into his new villa and makes his moves on Betty Field, the film gets overly melodramatic. The ending is yet another cop-out ending; I don't know whether the novel itself contains this dumb, clichéd ending or whether the movie's producer made some changes to it, but I've always considered car-accidents to be a poor way to add drama to the conclusion of a story. I've seen this plot-device a million times (or if it's not a car, then it's a fall from a horse); the writer doesn't know how to end the story but he knows that he wants it to be dramatic, so he adds in a car-accident. Lame. And to make things worse, the accident is outrageously coincidental and preposterous, both plot-wise and time-wise; plot-wise because Field's husband's mistress (Winters) gets killed by Field, and the fact that Winters sort of rushes out from the gas-station into the street as though she'd never noticed in the years that she had lived in it that there was a dangerous road right across her house - and, of course, at the very moment that she comes out she sees Ladd's car and mistakes it for Field's husband's car and then shouts "Over here! I'm here! Run me over and make the ending tragic that way!"; time-wise because Ladd and Field get involved in an accident at the very day when they are preparing to tell Field's husband about their affair. Basically, there is just too much forced and artificial irony in this accident. It also doesn't exactly help this movie how Winters's husband, Da Silva, goes on a revenge mission to kill the guy who ran over his wife; he basically does this by walking around like a zombie, going from car to car looking for scratches, and acting very badly indeed. Both Da Silva's acting and his character's behaviour throughout the film are awful and confusing, respectively.<br /><br />Scott Fitzgerald was upset on a couple of occasions how his novels were adapted for the screen by Hollywood's screenwriters, and - although he was dead long before this movie was done - he might have been right to complain, judging by this film's naive script. Or, maybe his novels are even sillier and more naive than this film, and were actually improved upon by the screen adaptations. Or, the films are pretty much like the novels. I could, of course, read this particular novel to find out, but I just can't be bothered. Fitzgerald's name doesn't exactly inspire me to read any of his books (and I don't mean the way his name sounds.) He was certainly no Heller, Clavell, or Twain. More like Hemingway a lot of noise about nothing. | 0 |
11,378 | [
600,
700
] | 503 | 655 | A previous IMDb reviewer has stated that 'Rafter Romance' is a 'rip-off' (that's the other reviewer's term) of a German musical called 'Me By Day, You By Night'. Apparently that reviewer is unaware that *both* of these films have borrowed their premise from 'Box and Cox', an English play written by John Maddison Morton in 1847. This play deals with two tradesmen who rent the same room from an unscrupulous landlady, each man believing himself the sole tenant. Because the two men have different work schedules, the ruse is not discovered straight away. This play was once so popular in Britain that 'to Box and Cox it' became a common term for an arrangement in which two people willingly shared accommodations meant for only one person.<br /><br />The innovation of 'Rafter Romance' (and its predecessor) is that the two tenants are now a man and a woman, who inevitably develop a romance. As is usual in these cornball movies, the guy and the gal detest each other until they fall into each other's arms. Hoo boy.<br /><br />The landlord in this film is played by George Sidney, a character actor who specialised in playing Jewish stereotypes that were meant to be sympathetic. George Sidney was never as annoying as the odious Harry Green (the Jewish equivalent of Stepin Fetchit) but Sidney's depictions of Jewish characters are still exaggerated and embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />The single most notable thing about 'Rafter Romance' is that, to my knowledge, this is the earliest Hollywood film to make reference to Hitler and the rise of Nazism. At one point in this movie, landlord Eckbaum (Sidney) discovers his teenage son Julius engaged in chalking swastikas on the walls. Eckbaum and his son are clearly meant to be Jewish. Admittedly, nobody in Hollywood in 1933 had any real idea of what Hitler was planning for the Jews in Europe ... still, it's surprising to see a film depicting a Jewish teenager who thinks that swastikas are a joke. His father is, quite properly, angered by this display of the Nazi symbol.<br /><br />A very shameful aspect of Hollywood history is the documented fact that all of the major Hollywood studios continued to do business with the Third Reich as late as 1939. Hollywood's leading ladies were medically documented as 'Aryan' so that their films could be distributed in Nazi Germany and Austria. For the same reason, Hollywood's leading men were documented as 'Aryan and uncircumcised'. Except for Darryl Zanuck at Twentieth Century-Fox, all the Hollywood studio executives who colluded in this policy were Jewish ... but clearly had no objection to doing business with Hitler. I'm surprised that 'Rafter Romance' contains a scene depicting swastikas unfavourably, as this sequence would have rendered the film Verboten in Germany and Austria. (Maybe the scene was cut out for German release: it isn't crucial to the movie's plot.) Apart from this, the movie contains nothing notable. Robert Benchley does his usual unfunny befuddled characterisation: I've never understood the appeal of this man. I'll rate 'Rafter Romance' 4 out of 10. | 0 |
11,379 | [
600,
700
] | 437 | 605 | When watching this movie, with it's deterministic cause and effect, wall-to-wall clichés and hackneyed sentiment, can anyone be so naive as to think that this is actually how Barrie's life played out? You watch it in a posture of disagreement. Hollywood biopics aren't based on the individual lives anymore, they're just rewrites of previously successful biopics. If Hollywood made a movie about your life it would be filled with such perfect synchronization that you'd barely recognize your own story. Any personal complexity would be obliterated by some all-explaining, simplistic backstory. Your story would resemble "Rocky" because it's the only life-arc Hollywood knows how to produce anymore. We couldn't leave the audience pondering anything left open-ended as they exit. This movie doesn't trust an audience to figure things out without being led to them. I perceived the captain hook/mother reference eons before the movie literalized it for me. I could see the 25 kids twist coming for days.<br /><br />This is a completely average movie. Not horrible but not great. Hence it's likely to be showered with a few Oscars next year. There's nothing the Academy likes better than congratulating itself for finally noticing patterns put in place over the previous thirty years.<br /><br />From the New Yorker article "Lost Boys" by ANTHONY LANE: <br /><br />"Arthur Llewelyn Davies, also adored his boys, and it may be unfair of "Finding Neverland" to omit him, for streamlining purposes, from the scene; by the time that Johnny Depp meets Kate Winslet, she is already a widow, whereas Arthur was very much alive when Barrie first entered the consciousnessand, little by little, the homeof the Llewellyn Davies family.<br /><br />"Finding Neverland" is a weepie. From the moment that Barrie met George and Jack, and started to ponder the means by which they might be rendered immortal, the story is sad, but the reality is even more dismal: 1907Arthur Llewellyn Davies dies from cancer of the jaw. 1910Sylvia dies of lung cancer. The five boys are orphaned; Barrie is made their guardian. 1915George is killed in the First World War, fighting with his regiment in Flanders. 1921Michael, an undergraduate at Oxford, is drowned while swimming with a friend. The two bodies, when recovered, are found clinging together.<br /><br />On April 5, 1960, Peter Llewellyn Davies, by then an esteemed publisher, threw himself under a subway train in London. We should not presume to read a mind in torment, but we may note in passing that, if he had lived another month, he would have reached the centenary of Barrie's birth and thus, one imagines, a fresh flurry of interest in "Peter Pan""that terrible masterpiece," in the words of Peter Llewellyn Davies. | 0 |
11,395 | [
600,
700
] | 521 | 646 | 'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end. <br /><br />Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie? <br /><br />Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate "wallpaper movie"!<br /><br />Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of "love, tragedy and redemption". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a "remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities..." Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.<br /><br />I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 3/10 | 0 |
11,430 | [
600,
700
] | 507 | 634 | The Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.<br /><br />Clark Gregg plays Hank/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.<br /><br />And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.<br /><br />And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more "Where Is My Mind" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!<br /><br />I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read. | 0 |
11,519 | [
600,
700
] | 521 | 622 | This odd little film starts out with the story of Bruno (Alex Linz) in a catholic school who has no friends and gets beat up everyday. He likes to wear dresses and his obese mother Angela who is a dressmaker doesn't think their is anything wrong with what her son likes. Angela complains to Mother Superior (Kathy Bates) but gets ignored and as the two of them walk back to they're car they are harassed by the other kids and are pelted with eggs. Bruno's father Dino (Gary Sinise) is divorced from Angela and is totally disgusted by his son being a sissy and practically disowns him. Bruno meets a new student at school named Shawniqua (Kiami Davael) who is a free spirit and dresses like Annie Oakley with cap pistols. Angela has a heart attack and Bruno's grandmother steps in to take care of him when Dino refuses.<br /><br />The film starts out with a very hard and unsympathetic look at all the characters involved. Angela has a great deal to do with Bruno wearing dresses as she practically encourages him. Dino was told when he was a young boy by his mother that he was a sissy because he liked opera and now he refuses to help Bruno when he needs it. The catholic school that Bruno attends is very unruly and all the kids run rampant and even call Shawniqua the "N" word. Once Shirley MacLaine steps in the film shifts and becomes more family oriented (So to speak). ****SPOILER ALERT**** The ending after the spelling bee is incredibly contrived and "feel good". Hugs and cheers for Bruno as reporters follow him and take his picture for their papers. All the while Shirley MacLaine is acting like the "tough old broad" who snaps at everyone. There is one thing about MacLaine's character in the film that no one has mention in these comments and it has to do with the masculine nature of her. I think the character of Helen might be a lesbian! She's very tough and strong and at one point in the film she shares a shot of whiskey with Bruno and smokes a cigar at the same time. I don't remember anyone in the film mentioning who her husband was or if she was ever married at all! This is why I think her character might be gay. Lots of other good actors appear in the film as well. Joey Lauren Adams, Jennifer Tilly, Brett Butler, Gwen Verdon and Lainie Kazan all should have taken a better look at the script before they signed on. I guess when they heard that MacLaine was directing that it would be an honor to be part of it. Very difficult to feel any remorse or understanding towards any of the characters and the subject matter is probably impossible for most to relate to. The actors are not bad but what exactly was MacLaine aiming for? Tolerance towards a young boy who wants to wear dresses and freedom of expression? We get that in the first 10 minutes, the rest of the time I was trying not to cringe. | 0 |
11,560 | [
600,
700
] | 489 | 625 | The big problem I had with this movie was that Lombard's character is, as another user put it, "unnecessarily cruel". Lombard plays the role of Ann Krausheimer Smith, who believes she is married to David Smith, played well by the sharply dressed yet appropriately bumbling Robert Montgomery. The movie has some funny moments, especially when Montgomery's character goes to great lengths to try to get his "wife" back. Understandably, she is upset because the marriage is technically not legal, but she only finds out three years into it.<br /><br />Lombard's character seems quite cold to her "husband's" sincere attempts to woo her back. While not being highly adept in that effort, Montgomery is nevertheless visibly loving, and yet Lombard is as cool as a pillar of ice. There are almost no clues suggesting any sort of reconciliation between the warring couple for much of the movie, and it is hard to see any sort of comedy- even dark comedy- in that aspect. To some extent, the movie almost suggests a sadistic undertone, with Lombard's character getting a "kick" out of her husband's feeble efforts. While one might consider this another 'Battle of the Sexes' type of movie, the reality is that it is a highly lopsided battle, if that: Montgomery's character, while certainly flawed, is not flawed enough to make it a typical exemplar of the masculine chauvinist/misogynist (an excellent example of that is Michael Douglas in 'War of the Roses'). In fact, the character is largely effeminate, as revealed by not only the sharp dress of Montgomery (which probably owes largely to the perennially sharply dressed actor himself), but also to his discomfort in attempting-but failing- to play the role of a womanizing bachelor. His only major flaw is his vanity, but that fault does not balance out with his partner's excessive cruelty. And there is no suggestion that she is trying to instill any jealousy out of subconscious love. This is what makes it so cruel, and sad. Montgomery's character simply looks weak. In reality, no wife would want a man so weak unless she "wears the pants" in the marriage. But then again, a woman who wears the pants in a marriage would never seek to be so cruel because she has already affirmed that role early on. Hence, the whole theme seems weird. This movie is neither a champion of feminism (Lombard's character does show some signs of the sort of independent-oriented woman of the 60s, but that idea is soon quashed and the character falls back into the 1940s), nor an even-sided battle of the sexes (as Montgomery's character is truly a cipher of masculinity and therefore a lost cause).<br /><br />This movie is, on the surface, a slapstick, but beneath that veneer it is really much darker, with sadistic undertones. All of which makes its resolution appear, well, odd. (Maybe that oddity was the whole point?). In any case, slapstick this movie is not. | 0 |
11,564 | [
600,
700
] | 537 | 683 | Perhaps the wildest outlier in Alfred Hitchcock's career is this straight-out comedy vehicle by the director, pairing Carole Lombard with Robert Montgomery as a couple who discover a mistake has invalidated their marriage. Where do they really stand with each other?<br /><br />Contrary to what others say, there IS an element of suspense here: The idea that these two miserable people might escape each other, free to inflict their awfulness on some other, undeserving mate.<br /><br />It's funny reading comments here about how miserable Lombard's Ann Smith plays out in this film, because Montgomery's role is as much of a heel. He manhandles Ann, snaps at witnesses, short-shrifts clients - just the kind of lawyer who gives his profession a bad name. Ann is overbearing, too, of course, the kind of wife who holds her husband hostage from work for six days over a petty squabble, bringing up things like what he did in Paris when he was 20 and hadn't even met her yet. "I forgave you that!" she says, as if it was big of her.<br /><br />For David, a revoked marriage is an opportunity to have a little illicit pleasure with his "mistress" before tying the knot for good. For Ann, it's an attempt at premarital sex that must be repelled with a bottle of champagne to the head, followed by expulsion from their apartment and her life.<br /><br />The acorn doesn't seem to fall far from the tree, as Ann's mother is scandalized into apoplexy when she learns what David tried to pull: "Oh my poor baby! Thank Heaven your father is dead!"<br /><br />That's a rare good line in this laughless, unlikeable comedy.<br /><br />You can call this an example of the "remarriage comedy", in which the bonds of matrimony are challenged in order to be reaffirmed. You can also call this an example of what Roger Ebert calls the "idiot plot", in which the storyline depends on the main characters acting like idiots. Hitchcock seems to have a laugh at uptight American morality, but can't really do much more with it than a jokeless scene where an older couple is scandalized by the sound of loud plumbing.<br /><br />Lombard died within a year of this film's release; it was the last film of hers she lived to see. What a shame it couldn't have been something better! She was overbearing in "My Man Godfrey", too, but in such a likable way you didn't just have to go with her, you wanted to. Here she plays for laughs that aren't there while sadistically breaking David's chops again and again. Montgomery rolls his eyes a lot like Groucho, a study in smugitude.<br /><br />The only really decent thing in this movie that lasts more than a few seconds is Gene Raymond as David's law partner Jeff Custer, who makes a play for Ann and acts with honor and decency. Raymond underplays his many reaction shots, and even a drunk scene, all to good effect.<br /><br />***SPOILER***So decent a guy is Jeff that Ann ends up rejecting him for not fighting David after she goads him into a confrontation, calling Custer "a lump of jelly". Jeff exits the scene, leaving Ann and David together for their future murder-suicide. Here's one Custer that managed to escape a massacre!***SPOILER END*** | 0 |
11,573 | [
600,
700
] | 572 | 677 | This is like a zoology textbook, given that its depiction of animals is so accurate. However, here are a few details that appear to have been slightly modified during the transition to film:<br /><br />- Handgun bullets never hit giant Komodo dragons. It doesn't matter how many times you shoot at the Komodo, bullets just won't go near it.<br /><br />- The best way to avoid being eaten by a giant Cobra, or a giant Komodo dragon, is just to stand there. The exception to this rule is if you've been told to stay very still, in which case you should run off, until the Komodo is right next to you, and then you should stand there, expecting defeat.<br /><br />- Minutes of choppy slow motion footage behind the credits really makes for enjoyable watching.<br /><br />- $5,000 is a memory enhancement tool, and an ample substitute for losing your boating license/getting arrested.<br /><br />- Members of elite army units don't see giant Komodo dragons coming until they are within one metre of the over-sized beings. Maybe the computer-generated nature of these dragons has something to do with it.<br /><br />- When filming a news story aiming on exposing illegal animal testing, a reporter and a cameraman with one camera is all the gear and personnel you will need; sound gear, a second camera, microphones etc are all superfluous.<br /><br />- When you hear a loud animal scream, and one person has a gun, he should take it out and point it at the nearest person.<br /><br />- When you take a gun out, the sound of the safety being taken off will be made, even if your finger is nowhere near the safety<br /><br />- Reporters agree to go half-way around the world in order to expose something - without having the faintest idea what they're exposing. Background research and vague knowledge are out of fashion in modern journalism.<br /><br />- Handguns hold at least 52 bullets in one clip, and then more than that in the next clip. Despite that, those with guns claim that they will need more ammo.<br /><br />- Expensive cameras (also, remember that the reporter only has one camera) are regularly left behind without even a moment's hesitation or regret. These cameras amazingly manage to make their way back to the reporter all by themselves.<br /><br />- The blonde girl really is the stupid one.<br /><br />- The same girl that says not to go into a house because a Komodo dragon can easily run right through it, thus making it unsafe, takes a team into a building made of the same material for protection - and nobody says a word about it.<br /><br />- High-tech facilities look like simple offices with high school chemistry sets.<br /><br />- Genetically-modified snakes grow from normal size to 100 feet long in a matter of a day, but don't grow at all in the weeks either side.<br /><br />- The military routinely destroys entire islands when people don't meet contact deadlines.<br /><br />- Men with guns don't necessarily change the direction they're shooting when their target is no longer right in front of them. Instead, they just keep shooting into the air.<br /><br />- The better looking you are, the greater your chance of surviving giant creatures.<br /><br />- Women's intuition is reliable enough to change even the most stubborn of minds.<br /><br />- Any time you're being hunted by giant creatures is a great time to hit on girls half your age.<br /><br />- Animal noises are an appropriate masking noise for 'swearing' at the same volume.<br /><br />- Old Israeli and Russian planes are regularly used by the US Military. | 0 |
11,576 | [
600,
700
] | 527 | 650 | Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.<br /><br />Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this. | 0 |
11,578 | [
600,
700
] | 483 | 619 | Writer & director Jay Andrews, a.k.a. Jim Wynorski, serves up more of his characteristic shlock with a decent cast menaced by grade-Z computer generated reptiles in "Komodo Vs. Cobra," as generic a rip-off of "Mysterious Island" meets "Jurassic Park" as you can imagine. The chief problem with this predictable yarn about monsters dining on mankind is the incredibly phony special effects. The cobra and the Komodo are hilariously awful. However, the graphics people do an okay job of integrating the monsters with their victims, not that any of this is in the least believable. Clearly, "Komodo Vs. Cobra" had a budget that so low that virtually everything non-human in its looks as fake as all get out. This cheesy monster epic takes place on a remote island where the U.S. military conducts top-secret DNA testing on animals. The result is that gigantic Komodos and cobra thrive in this tropical island paradise. As the action opens, the primary scientist is gobbled up by a cobra that likes to swim. After, we are introduced to a group of 'Greenpeace' like environmental protesters and a journalist. Planet One organizer Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish of "Hellbent") pays charter boat skipper Jim Stoddard (Michael Pare of CBS-TV's "Houston Knights") five grand with the promise of another five grand if he will take them to this forbidden island. Meanwhile, the U.S. military suspect that something is amiss on the island so they send their own team of men who give eaten by the supersized predators. Our heroes run into the last remaining scientist on the island, Dr. Susan Richardson (Michelle Borth of "Wonderland"), the daughter of the scientist responsible for this insane science project, who tells them that the military is going to target the island for destruction. The title match between the two overgrown predators occurs in the last quarter hour after our heroes, who have been consistently whittled down by the monsters, find a helicopter and take off in time before the military pulverizes the island. There's no tension, suspense, or anything worthwhile in this substandard creature feature. The best thing about this yawner is composer Chuck Cirino's orchestral soundtrack; it gives "Komodo Vs. Cobra" an epic feel. Usually, Jay Andrews writes and directs tolerable drivel, but this ranks far below his low standards. The sexy women fare better at survival than the guys. In one scene, our heroic group fords a river and we don't get to see any wet T-shirts. Drat! There's nothing in the way of memorable dialogue or relationships in this dreck. I think that the military guys do far too much saluting when they get their heads together to conspire. Let's hope that Michael Pare got a good payday out of this garbage. The ending as one of the scientists takes on the characteristics of a lizard comes strictly as an afterthought. It's not so bad it's good, it's just bad. | 0 |
11,579 | [
600,
700
] | 489 | 609 | I just found out before writing this review that "Komodo vs. Cobra" and another movie called "Curse of the Komodo" were both directed by the same guy, Jim Wynorski. That might explain why they are films of nearly identical premises. They both feature a military-governed island, a colonel whose concerned more about covering his tracks than the lives of his employees, people racing to get to a chopper that is conveniently lying in a field somewhere on the island, and giant komodo dragons created through genetic experiments running amok. What differences are there? Well, the intruders on the island are now capitalists wanting to expose the government secret and there's a giant cobra on the island as well, hence the title "Komodo vs. Cobra" even though the conflict between the two monsters is hardly relevant to the 'story.' "Komodo vs. Cobra" is more or less what you'd expect given its title and its channel origin: the Sci-Fi Channel. Although every now and again you will find one that for one reason or another may appeal to you (I liked a movie called "Komodo") I hardly doubt this one will.<br /><br />"Komodo vs. Cobra" is not only a boring film, but it's also one of the least enthusiastic sci-fi flicks I've seen in a long time. In some of these movies, there is an air to them that indicates the filmmakers were giving at least a certain level of effort, but I see very little here. That's indicated again by it just being a rehash of "Curse of the Komodo." The CGI for the monsters look as if they came straight out of a second-rate video game, the cinematography and misc en scene is poor, the acting ranges from passable to poor, the action scenes are dull, and then there are some parts that are, frankly put, unforgivably bad. I see a lot movies where a person will shoot a gun many times without reloading and I can deal with this. But in this movie, where Michael Paré takes a single thirty-eight handgun and fires it approximately fifty times nonstop without reloading once
well, at first I laughed, but even then it just became tiring. That would be the 'action.' A monster appears, people scream, Paré fires nonstop without reloading his gun once throughout the entire picture, and somebody gets eaten.<br /><br />"Komodo vs. Cobra" is a very bad movie. The only thing in the movie that is worth mentioning in a charitable manner is an actress named Michelle Borth, who is not only very beautiful, but a surprisingly strong performer. Even with the trashy dialogue and lack of enthusiasm in the screenplay she was given, Michelle Borth managed to pull off a surprisingly good performance and it just appalls me that an actress as good as her can get stuck in a film as junky as this. She obviously took it for the paycheck, but it won't boost her career any, I'm afraid. | 0 |
11,599 | [
600,
700
] | 550 | 694 | Cheap, gloriously bad cheese from the 80's, the decade of cheese. I watched this one first uncut and un-MST3K'ed, and it was pretty much laugh out loud funny even without the comments.<br /><br />The plot(such as it is) revolves around a post-apocalyptic world in which the AI robots revolted(sound familiar?) and destroyed pretty much everything, leaving a world in ruins with air so bad no one can breathe it. The few humans that are left act as slaves to an enigmatic being called the Dark One, which seems to be part computer and part organic being. The 'air slaves' work to produce energy for this being in return for breathable air. Every once in a while, the Dark One has the strongest of the air slaves fight to the death, so that no one will rise as a leader in a revolt against the Dark One.<br /><br />Okay, that's the so-called serious stuff. On to the silly stuff, such as the ridiculous quasi-futuristic clothing that everyone sports, including car seat cover 'fur' garments, loin cloths, and spangly stuff and feather boas(worn mostly by the Dark One's henchwoman, a chick with an unrecognizable and almost non-understandable accent). Or the wooden acting and stilted lines sported by all of the so-called 'actors', who's dialog is high on pretension and low on sense. Or the dime store special fx, including pink socks with teeth glued onto them for 'deadly' sewer snakes, a bomb made of strung piano wire and a tin can, and terrible 'mutants' with Halloween rubber masks on.<br /><br />A band of air slaves follow their leader, a mysterious wanderer who has adapted to the air outside, to go to the energy plant to destroy the Dark One. The guy's name is Neo, which explains where the Wachowski brothers got the idea for the Matrix. They meet up with a group of Amazons along the way, with the obligatory fight scene in which the female is bested(of course). Has anyone else ever noticed that in every Amazon movie or t.v. show ever produced, these so-called amazing warriors always get their butts kicked by either men or women? Amazons are just pansies, I guess.<br /><br />This band of determined warriors makes their way through Central Park...errr...the ravaged lands beyond the last standing city(good way to save money on the matte paintings of a destroyed New York City, anyway) and journey into the sewers leading to the Power Station where the Dark One and his go-go girl henchwoman Valeria hang out. Here they vanquish such ferocious beasts as the sock puppet worms, a giant spider no one sees, and the goofy lobster robot who is one of the Dark One's personal guard. <br /><br />The final showdown is pretty sad. One of the slaves, a girl who's father was taken by the Dark One because he'd produced a way for people to breathe the foul air, sees that her father has been 'consumed by the Dark One's true form", which involves him being eaten by a giant avocado until only his head is sticking out. The three remaining adventurers destroy the Dark One by turning off a few switches, and the robot holocaust dies not with a bang but with a whimper. The two humans exchange some amazingly wooden last lines, and that's it. The End. | 0 |
11,620 | [
600,
700
] | 588 | 683 | This film actually starts out pretty interesting but for my taste it degenerated far too quickly into a dull and predictable melodrama. None of the performances are particularly interesting and the camera work is just standard TV movie stuff, so there's really no reason for anyone to see this movie unless they are as big of a Jeff Bridges fan as I am I guess.<br /><br />Bridges plays Mike Olson, a young man who announces at a family picnic that he is quitting college to go on the road. His parents believe he is "just acting out" and talk about how "he has no plan". He assures them he does have a plan, and that he needs to discover his true self and his place in the world. So much so in fact that he invites them to go on the road with him and purchases an antique bus to travel in, which he and his father repair in true TV movie father-son bonding fashion. Up until about this point in the film I was somewhat interested in the plot and characters and I wanted to see how his stuck-up mother (Vera Miles) was going to react to life on the road. There's a funny scene early on where the father and son have to convince her to take the trip with them. They show her the inside of the bus and she gradually becomes more and more interested, finally departing in a huff with some kind of talk about curtains versus blinds on the windows. Bridges marvels to his dad (Carl Betz, equipped with radio announcer voice) that she has changed her mind. Dad assures him "electric oven... works every time!".<br /><br />But the movie goes downhill almost as soon as they hit the road. It turns out that Mike's only "plan" is to introduce them to some "friends" of his who turn out to be random people who they meet at a hippie rock festival. As soon as I saw the rock festival I was a bit disappointed... particularly as it became obvious that the entire rest of the film would take place at the festival campground and not actually on the road. But at least I thought there might be a decent band like, well, if they couldn't afford Hendrix or the Stones maybe they would at least have Canned Heat or Little Feat or something like that. No dice -- apparently the only music at this festival is some horrible choral group with orchestra that sounded like a poor imitation of the Fifth Dimension, coupled with an annoying announcer who's supposed to be humorous.<br /><br />Also we are introduced to a set of hippy festivalgoers and their various medical melodramas. Kathy (Renne Jarrett) is a pretty blonde girl with existentialism and nature on her mind, who falls in love with Mike before revealing the fact that she needs kidney dialysis to live and has run off to the festival to die. And 2 other campers are determined to have a baby in their crude tent, introducing the struggle between modern medicine and hippy ignorance (or something like that). All in all the longer this goes on the more painful the film becomes for anyone hoping for any element of surprise or real drama.<br /><br />Basically this movie is a waste of time, although it would probably amuse anyone who is really into the period of time in the late 60s, early 70s and the films from that time. I'd be just as happy if I never see it again though. | 0 |
11,653 | [
600,
700
] | 481 | 631 | I guess my biggest mistake was to watch this remake of '95 "Piranha" back-to-back with Joe Dante's '78 original. I did the same last week with "The Omen". Curiously enough, watching the remake right after the '76 original, really made me appreciate the 2006 version quite a bit for various reasons.<br /><br />But this approach sort of backfired on the '95 Piranha version. It enhanced the fact that it really is a lesser picture. Basically, the '95 version is more or less the exact same film, as it tells the same story and follows it practically scene-by-scene (only Barabara Steele's character and the military intervention were written out of it). But the cinematography wasn't as good. The acting was worse too. Especially Alexandra Paul (playing Heather Menzies' character) showed me again what a horrible actress she is. Bradford Dillman (from the '78 version) had his Charlton Heston way of acting going, which was amusing, while in the '95 version William Katt does a good job at being William Katt. So I didn't mind him, really. But the whole cast is pretty much inferior and the only worthwhile event was spotting James Karen ("Return of the Living Dead", parts 1 & 2) in a cameo. John Carl Buechler's make-up effects aren't as neat as Rob Bottin's. The musical score had some ring to it, but Pino Donaggio's score was much more memorable in the original. So all these shortcomings really shone through with having just re-watched the original as part of this double bill.<br /><br />Since Scott P. Levy's remake does follow Dante's original, I guess it is entertaining enough to sit through, though it's lacking the wit Dante's original had. But what really made me not like Levy's version very much, is the fact that quite a bit of stock footage from the first film was re-used during the piranha attack scenes. I never like it when filmmakers do this (and I'm not talking about using footage for flashbacks or other valid reasons). I mean, if you don't have the budget (or imagination) to come up with newly shot material, then for Pete's sake, don't do a frickin' remake. But Roger Corman produced this (cheaper) remake, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised about the re-use of footage.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch "Piranha", then make sure it's been a while since you've seen the original. You might enjoy this remake a little more then. And oh yes, that cool little stop-motion creature from the original is nowhere to be found in this film, as to be expected. But what's worse, there also isn't any female nudity in this one (the original really had quite some titty-shots going for it, and that blonde girl from the opening-scene even accidentally pulled her underwear a bit down too far when removing her jeans!). Figures, as this '95 version was made for TV. | 0 |
11,683 | [
600,
700
] | 487 | 601 | *SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.<br /><br />Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, "Why did you do it, Gus?"<br /><br />In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.<br /><br />Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.<br /><br />To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous "bathroom scene" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. "See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!"<br /><br />If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed. | 0 |
11,782 | [
600,
700
] | 510 | 631 | One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period. <br /><br />The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look. | 0 |
11,796 | [
600,
700
] | 502 | 648 | This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.<br /><br />There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).<br /><br />The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.<br /><br />The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).<br /><br />Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.<br /><br />There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend. | 0 |
11,822 | [
600,
700
] | 456 | 621 | Roger Corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low-budget career, spanning over 300 movies. While few (if any) would call him great, his films' obscure connections to underground culture (via reference, tribute, or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. Throughout his career, he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films ("Piranha", "Humanoids from the Deep", "The Black Scorpion", etc.), without improving on them in the slightest. "Raptor", "written" and "directed" by "Jay Andrews" (Jim Wynorski, the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures, "Chopping Mall") takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding Corman's mid-'90s "Carnosaur" trilogy.<br /><br /> Wynorski's credits are in quotes because "Raptor" isn't a tribute to the "Carnosaur" films, and not even a remake. "Raptor" IS the "Carnosaur" films, or at least the film's dinosaur-induced death scenes, haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of "dino's eye view" shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). The "new" material was written around the footage, instead of vice versa, and is totally unremarkable, with huge gaps of logic (e.g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3, where the soldiers had different uniforms, could be included), which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the "Carnosaur" films already. The actors' lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness, any character dimension is only presented in the script once, maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950's b-films, and it certainly doesn't make anything between the ripped-off attack scenes worth watching. Even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. When the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book, the "spring-loaded animal", something is seriously wrong.<br /><br /> As it stands, this is a despicable practice in two b-grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations, because they haven't got one) ripping off their own material, for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks, simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the "Jurassic Park" series?). There isn't much more I can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations AGAINST viewing; the only good thing about it (besides gazing at Melissa Braselle's navel) is that now I don't have to see any of the "Carnosaur" movies. | 0 |
11,965 | [
600,
700
] | 482 | 611 | Jerk hazer Mike(David Zelina playing this college frat man as one major bastard you want to see die right away)and his college cronies leave hypoglycemic diabetic Sam(Caleb Roehrig)hanging on a wooden cross along with this scarecrow which is a legendary ghost story. They get PO'd at Sam who essentially goes into shock and aims a swinging punch at Mike that lands across his girlfriend Patty(Kristina Sheldon)instead so leaving the poor guy hanging is his punishment. Somehow, Sam's soul "emerges" with the inanimate scarecrow who comes from the cross to destroy everyone who left the poor guy there to rot. Mike and the gang send the uninitiated dorks back to bring Sam down but they are the first to receive a swinging blade across their throats. Mike and his posse head for the beach to gulp booze, play volleyball & bicker until the scarecrow arrives to end their little soirée. Sam's substitute brother Jack(Matthew Linhardt)is supposed to look out for him, but decides to sleep with new love-interest Beth(Samantha Aisling)instead. So when he receives a cell-phone message from Mike concerning how they left Sam hanging on the cross while they were off at the beach taking in the sun and sand, Jack is frenzied with fear. Beth's estranged father is a doctor and he agrees to see after Sam's condition after they cut the nearly dead young man down taking him to emergency hospital. Returning to the beach to confront Mike because of his negligence(..not to mention Jack's promise to coach Ramsey, played by UFC fighter Ken Shamrock, regarding no hazing), Jack and Beth will face the same straw-stuffed assassin that is bumping off the others. Coach Ramsey, who was part of a past hazing incident that went awry causing killer-scarecrow-mischief, has to confront some demons himself as he informs the survivors of the group about what they are up against.<br /><br />Babes, boobs, and blood..this flick follows the basic slasher guidelines. Yet, this flick also carries the typical slasher traits of corny characters, acting, dialogue and overall plot. The flick shows signs of it's low budget particularly in the violence as most of the real action takes place off-screen instead of showing it happening up, close & personal. What appears on screen is mostly the aftermath of the killer's vengeance:one fellow holding his guts, another with a stake(holding up the group's volleyball net) plunged through his chest, blood spatter after a woman gets hit over the head presumably with a large rock, one chick laying dead after the scarecrow hit her with the SUV, etc. There is also some dubbing problems where it's clear the sounds of their voices often don't match the movements of their lips..particularly the unintentionally hilarious sequence where Ed(Travis Parker), wannabe rock star, is singing to his buddies a horrible song they all seem quite impressed with. | 0 |
12,006 | [
600,
700
] | 512 | 660 | It's a bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that "Aeon Flux" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.<br /><br />It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of "destroy the regime." Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of "Aeon Flux" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. "Aeon Flux"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.<br /><br />There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of "Aeon Flux." Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like "Aeon Flux" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential. | 0 |
12,010 | [
600,
700
] | 506 | 625 | Critics have started calling it the Oscar Winner club, understandably. What after Halle Berry won it for Monsters Ball then going straight to the diabolical Catwoman. Hilary Swank triumphs in Boys Don't Cry and follows it with The Core. Jamie Foxx takes a nosedive as a pilot in the dull Stealth after scooping a gong for Ray. Now it's seems Hollywood Starlet Charlize Theron craps all over her "Monster" Oscar with this one of the worst Sci-fi spectacles ever made.<br /><br />The film loses its audience interest after a mere 20 minutes meaning the only thing really worth staying for is the fact that despite the film being rubbish Charlize Theron is still an exceptional actress who is clearly making the best of a crude and laughable premise. Not only is Æon Flux ultimately shallow but for an action flick it's also really very dull. It will only really appeal to comic book fans and Horney teenagers who like the idea of Theron running around half naked for 90 minutes. Flux only really succeed in failing.<br /><br />Set against the 2011 virus that kills 99% of the world's populace, and in the last city on Earth, Bregna, the survivors, some four hundred years later, in the year 2415, are continuing to live in the Goodchild dynasty, the name of the scientist who developed its cure.<br /><br />All is not well in this utopia and it is not what lies beyond its high walls that protects its citizens from the never ending jungle but what unspoken, unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unfortunates' together that lies within these walls of paranoia, conformity and unquestionable obedience. Filmed in and around Berlin, ironically, this is a story set against a totalitarian state, a walled city, where its peoples are no longer capable of reproducing, and its sinister and most secret plot of how it sustains life.<br /><br />Æon Flux is the assassin that has been assigned by the underground rebels to change the course of Mankind, forever. This is the story of her fight for justice, freedom and revenge.<br /><br />Æon Flux combined lousy narratives, ropy pacing and truly dire effects. Looking more like an unrealistic video game rather than a film. The only thing that is fortunate about the failure is that no sequels are in the works, Flux might just be the beginning and the end of what could have been one of the worst franchises in history, thank god for the lousy box office takings then.<br /><br />My final verdict on this truly lousy feature? There really isn't a story here just Charlize Theron jumping around in a black suit like a grass hopper. The acting is very wooden moronic and emotionless compared to the other cinemas that are out there today. It try's too much to be like an adaption and doesn't really take much from the cartoon which is what I was expecting, the only thing that was done half right that pays tribute to the cartoon was the fly in the eye scene. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
12,053 | [
600,
700
] | 544 | 697 | UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2<br /><br />WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?<br /><br />UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.<br /><br />As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).<br /><br />The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...<br /><br />In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them. | 0 |
12,075 | [
600,
700
] | 561 | 686 | ***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***<br /><br />1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR<br /><br />having your testicles ironed.<br /><br />When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call "The Last Resort" now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.<br /><br />About this show (FNWJR).<br /><br />Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.<br /><br />Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his "Its my ball and I'll take it home" attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).<br /><br />However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when "Life On Mars" star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said "What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying". If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.<br /><br />Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like "Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted" with an underline message being "please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band". Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.<br /><br />Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to watch. | 0 |
12,078 | [
600,
700
] | 554 | 690 | I'll preface my review by stating that I am not a fan of the independent 'straight to video' genre that owes a great debt to the grindhouse films of the 60's. I don't own any, I've never rented any, so I might lack the appreciation for these tongue-in-cheek, low-budget stinkers that many other people have.<br /><br />I caught this movie on Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. Please don't ask me why I was watching Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. We were bored with World Championship Poker. Some atrociously bad acting courtesy of Misty Mundae (and I wish she wouldn't own up to being from Illinois, as we actually turn out some very bright thespians here) caught our attention. Now normally, the aim of some good soft-core porn would be to get you and your partner in the mood. Some good sex, tongue in cheek humor, and who know what could happen? After about 15 minutes, and a scene where the title character seduces a mugging victim, my lady friend said 'if you want to watch the rest of this fine, I am going to bed so I don't have to. Please turn the volume off.' Here is what I gather from the plot: Misty's character is a sexless nerd who gets bitten by a spider and turns into a super-sex kitten with super web slinging powers that don't come from her wrists. There is some sort of evil villainess involved, who didn't look particularly evil or sexy. Spiderbabe saves the day, has sex, M.J. (who is male in this film) constantly gets propositioned by stereotypically bad gay bikers, and somehow the evil villainess gets pushed off a building to her death.<br /><br />What was good about this film? It ended.<br /><br />What was bad about it? Acting to make a third grade pageant look like Oscar winners, a script turned out by people who I picture to be drunken, college-aged sex perverts who wouldn't know what sex is if they took a class taught by Dr. Ruth, special effects that were about as special as someone jumping off a trampoline, humor about as funny as
well, I have yet to encounter anything that is lamer. The sex scenes? If we were watching a video, the only thing those scenes would have turned on is the fast forward button. And the action scenes? Some of my old Atari VCS games had better choreography.<br /><br />Now I know this type of film is supposed to be enjoyed for it's inherent badness. Companies like EI don't set out to make good movies: they have a niche and they target it. My experience as a marketer tells me they are right on the money in servicing their audience. But after my brief exposure to 'Spiderbabe', I for one can say I am not delving into that world again any time soon. Maybe the problem with the filmmakers in this type of genre is this: they spend so much attention to making the films bad, that if they made an effort to try and focus on those things they do very well, they would turn out some very enjoyable 'le bad' Cinema, a la Troma films in the 80's. Sorry folks; the spirit is there, but the effort isn't.<br /><br />Though I have to admit that "Alice in Acidland" intrigues me
| 0 |
12,285 | [
600,
700
] | 492 | 610 | First of all, the nature in the movie is beautiful, and there is a bit of Mongolian music. Well, the horses looked Mongolian and the camels, but that's about all what was Mongolian in it. Oh, Borte is played by a Mongolian actress, albeit a lame performance. But she is pretty, which redeems a bit the lack of performance on her part.<br /><br />But, I totally failed to understand what was the point of this painful-to- watch piece of 1.30 hour fantasy created by Mr.Bodrov. The plot totally lacked any sense of cohesion. There was no logic behind the development of the plot. In fact, there was hardly any story at all, just a number of loosely tied scenes with a bunch of guys in "Mongolian" clothes, speaking some kinda pidgin that is supposed to sound like Mongolian. Most actors were either Japanese, Russian or Chinese, most scenes were shot in China, Kazakhstan or Russia and there were a lot of disturbing pathos about what is it to be a "Mongolian". The dialog is primitive and the scenes with dialog are slow. The battle scenes are laughable. All the supernatural pathos is lame and is obviously there only to make up for the lack of the story.<br /><br />The Japanese actor was like a wooden doll, and looking at him one wouldn't get any idea how this person could become a leader who could unite the nomadic tribes. He looked sleepy, soft, stiff and pitiful for the most part of the movie.<br /><br />And I don't even want to start on the subject of the historical relevance of this piece of cinematic waste. To see Chinggis-khan half of the movie as a slave, to see his two first kids be born from other men, to see his wife selling herself to the Tangut merchant... my blood starts to boil. And where is the beautiful story about the friendship between Temujin and Jamukha? One could make a great movie out of it. Where is the story of the rise of Temujin? Of his childhood, of his relationship with his family, with his brothers, of how he struggled to survive among mighty enemies of his family? where is Van khan, who helped him a lot? where is the depiction of life in the steppe, of the life of the nomads, of their traditions, of their relations with the other nations around them?<br /><br />Where is development of the characters? We totally fail to see what brought Temujin together with Jamukha and what brought them apart and most important, how Temujin became Chinggis-khan, how he, an outcast with no wealth and military power managed to unite the Mongolian tribes and create such an organized and effective war machine that crushed one nation after another and created the largest land empire in history. All this could make several interesting and dramatic stories with complicated plots and deep characters, but unfortunately we didn't see any of it in Bodrov's creation, not even a glimpse. | 0 |
12,322 | [
600,
700
] | 453 | 609 | This one's as cheesy as they come the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)! <br /><br />Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956) with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).<br /><br />Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax which is so rushed as to be "a wash-out", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of "so bad, it's good" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up! | 0 |
12,348 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 681 | Gotta add a comment to this one!!!<br /><br />First, ironically, one needs to add the "spolier alert" to conform to IMDb's parameters, but there is absolutely nothing here to be "spoiled."<br /><br />There are six characters: the good-looking gal whose the A-list mountain guide in the area of the "climb," and apparently among all guides (including Mt. Everest Sherpas) on the planet; her lost love, who disappeared from the titled pass two years prior, whom the party is purportedly seeking, but never find; her store-owner friend, also a guide, who may be better than a Sherpa but no match for her; the weird lead actor who engages her services, and says they'll find her long-missing love in the bargain; his one associate, a computer hacker with purportedly limitless expertise, of a level sufficient that Gates might seek advice from him; and his other colleague, a bodyguard who apparently has an IQ not even near three digits.<br /><br />There are, of course, nefarious goings-on, and the secret quest of the lead actor is to gain recovery of a satellite which has fallen in the "Pass," and has world-altering and unique data to bring them untold riches. Exactly what is never revealed.<br /><br />Overacting abounds, the script looks like something which might get a C- in a freshman writing class (but an F if submitted at a higher level), and the thespians gnaw every piece of scenery like a horde of beavers.<br /><br />The most interesting aspects of this movie for me was juxtaposing portions with three other flicks or roles I've seen.<br /><br />First, the mysterious, undisclosed secret data makes one recall "The Spanish Prisoner," an A-list/Mamet film, surrounding a valuable corporate "process," never specifically clarified, but better for it. Definitely not so here.<br /><br />Second, the lead biscuit proved perhaps even more resourceful then "Rambo" in dealing quickly when menaced later in the presentation.<br /><br />Third, I remember a Steven Seagal flick (don't recall the title) where he was semi-conscious and abed for about 1/3 of the time, and fully-comatose for another 1/3. Although I've not sought viewing a lot of his work, I've seen enough to have noted that while comatose, he provided the best work he ever has, and most in-line with his laconic persona. In this opus, while awake, the young hacker may have been the most engaging personality on-screen, but while indisposed and incapacitated during the latter portion, and unable to emote, he provided the best acting during this seemingly unending two hours.<br /><br />Take the thin, silly basis for a plot here. Imagine it being compressed into, say, a lbit on SNL, with Gilda Radner, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Martin Short in the four roles. They could get record laughs with few changes to the dialog here.<br /><br />The most interesting aspect in the last analysis is contemplating what information could have been in the spy satellite to be worth "even billions" to any of many nations, and yet rendered worthless (according to the guru hacker) if simply placed upon the internet, with no apparent consequences thereafter? Even a turkey like this one should have at least a small trace of logic somewhere. This one is totally devoid. | 0 |
12,350 | [
600,
700
] | 503 | 606 | Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.<br /><br />Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.<br /><br />The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.<br /><br />Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.<br /><br />Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.<br /><br />The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything. | 0 |
12,353 | [
600,
700
] | 496 | 601 | Not a balanced point of view. The director shouldn't express her opinion as truth. The movie has some criticism of Fujimori but it always gives him and his family the last words. So few critics of Fujimori were provided that it seems the only reason they were included was to be able to say the movie provides both views. But that is not the case.<br /><br />The movie barely shows one of the massacres that Fujimori is accused of. And it gives him credit for the masterminding the murdering of the MRTA insurgents that took the Japanese embassy. It is well documented that the CIA did the planning. There is even pictures of a well known CIA strategist on the site published by Caretas magazine and other newspapers.<br /><br />The fact that such well known information was not used by the director gives us a few possible conclusions: the director is pro-Fujimori and purposely and falsely chooses to give the credit to him; the director does not want viewers to note that the CIA and Fujimori worked together; or it was just out of ignorance since the director is not Peruvian and was not present in Peru at the time the events occurred.<br /><br />The explanation provided by other commentators, that Fujimori is still fairly popular in Peru, does not excuse the lack of accuracy and balanced explanations.<br /><br />Also, the statistics provided in the movie for the actual support of Fujimori were the highest I have ever heard of. Most statistics by major poll agencies are much lower.<br /><br />Another point to mention is that the intelligence that was key in the capture of the leader of Sendero and discover the secret network was done by a police force led by Ketin Vidal and he had complete autonomy from Fujimori and Montesinos.<br /><br />The first government of Fujimori did experience an improvement in overall economic trends (GDP) but this improvement was financed by the privatization of several national industries with contracts that were not beneficial for the country in the long term. Also, the gap between rich an poor continued to increase during Fujimori's regime. In his second term the economy was suffering and there was nothing else to privatize and by the end of Fujimori's second term the economy was about to collapse.<br /><br />In terms of investments in infrastructure of Fujimori's regime, they fallow the paternalistic pattern. They were created to raise support for Fujimori but were not meant to last long. These structures needed continued maintenance but Fujimori did not provide political power for the civilians in order to demand further investment. In fact, Fujimori's regime was able to destroy most forms of political organizing such as unions and grass-roots groups and the increase in informal unorganized labor was immense.<br /><br />Finally, the director chose to spend most of the movie talking to Fujimori instead of citing the cases of massive corruption in favour of Fujimori (the Media, Business Owners, the Military, etc) that were so wide spread it was impossible that Fujimori was not aware of it. | 0 |
12,355 | [
600,
700
] | 522 | 690 | I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or "Fog of War" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called "The return of Fujimori". The director presumes she made a "perfect" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. <br /><br />The movie has few crucial facts wrong: <br /><br />1) She uses the so called "landslide" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.<br /><br />2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. <br /><br />For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic "cojones", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a "patriot" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a "traitor". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not "a single dollar" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.<br /><br />This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words "oportunistic", "naïve" and "denial" come to my mind instead. | 0 |
12,389 | [
600,
700
] | 508 | 651 | The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.<br /><br />"The Cat in the Hat" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.<br /><br />Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.<br /><br />the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.<br /><br />This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.<br /><br />It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.<br /><br />The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.<br /><br />Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.<br /><br />Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.<br /><br />The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like "You dirty ho" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.<br /><br />Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,<br /><br />It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.<br /><br />Like my Mom always says, "Curiousity killed the Cat".- The Cat In The Hat * out of ***** | 0 |
12,450 | [
600,
700
] | 546 | 685 | The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.<br /><br />Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect. | 0 |
12,481 | [
600,
700
] | 477 | 617 | Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.<br /><br />Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.<br /><br />Wassup Rockers is nothing.<br /><br />It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.<br /><br />But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clichéd National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.<br /><br />Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
12,508 | [
600,
700
] | 496 | 601 | I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships. <br /><br />Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it. <br /><br />Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering. | 1 |
12,616 | [
600,
700
] | 567 | 687 | I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.<br /><br />I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.<br /><br />It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.<br /><br />But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs. <br /><br />Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.<br /><br />I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.<br /><br />Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.<br /><br />Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education? <br /><br />Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.<br /><br />THE GIST <br /><br />Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.