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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9,279 | [
700,
800
] | 549 | 732 | The 3rd and last big screen spin off from the very popular ITV sitcom of the early 1970's,HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES is every bit as resistible and crude as the previous two efforts,and observing from a standpoint three and a half decades later,it is truly mind boggling that even one film was produced in this franchise.<br /><br />What constitutes the plot surrounds the adventures of Stan Butler (Reg Varney),his conductor Jack (Bob Grant) and their bumblingly autocratic Inspector Blake (Stephen Lewis) after their sackings from their regular jobs at the bus depot.They all find work in similar positions at a holiday camp with Stan's family (Doris Hare,Anna Karen,Michael Robbins) following therewith.<br /><br />British cinema had a deserved and considerable reputation for high quality in the 1960's,but much of this was due to American financial support and guidance which sadly drew to a close as the 1970's dawned.Thereafter,notable homegrown titles (GET CARTER being the among these very few exceptions) became as rare as Mick Jagger in a stable marriage,and UK cinema went down the road of cheap budgets,sleazy and witless sex comedies (The CONFESSIONS series,COME PLAY WITH ME) and flabby,elongated celluloid versions of various TV shows,mostly sitcoms (this being one of many hideous examples).Only DAD'S ARMY and PORRIDGE came off fairly respectably in this regard;the quirky success of the first ON THE BUSES film (it was the biggest box-office hit of it's year in 1971,nonsensical to think now!) led to two further sequels.<br /><br />To be fair,the TV series itself had a cheerful,ripe,non-PC vulgarity about it which was reasonably tolerable in half-hour sitcom form,but stretched to three times that length it taxes the patience beyond belief.It's ironical that HAMMER FILMS produced this effort as it virtually resembles a horror film in the literal sense,with ancient puns,hackneyed,poorly-timed slapstick and awful,seedy production values.<br /><br />A chance to send up the cheesiness of the British holiday camp is totally wasted here in favour of the above elements,and it is most bizarre,if not gruesome,to see the obviously 50-something Varney and the beaky-nosed,long-toothed Grant managing to instantly charm young women barely in their early twenties,while constantly laughing at their own bravado and lame jokes.The presence of Wilfrid Brambell (from STEPTOE AND SON) romancing the aged Miss Hare does not help matters either,and even though the film lasts about 1 and a half hours,it drags on to an interminably depressing degree.<br /><br />Thankfully,this was the last film in this most dire of film trilogies,and the TV series itself came to an end around the same time,with a sequel (DON'T DRINK THE WATER,which was roundly savaged by the critics and ignored by audiences) following in 1975.Most of the leading actors involved were not seen much afterwards,but the worst affected was Bob Grant.Afflicted with depression and other mental problems for many years,he committed suicide in 2003.A sad coda to a sitcom that was the most popular of it's era (it has not aged too well either),and should have remained that way,rather than the three financially successful but artistically hopeless big screen hybrids which diluted the happy memories and occasional merits of it's TV counterpart.<br /><br />RATING:2 and a half out of 10. | 0 |
9,307 | [
700,
800
] | 562 | 735 | 'The Mill on the Floss' was one of the lesser novels by Mary Ann Evans, who wrote under the male pseudonym George Eliot. I tried to read this dull and very turgid novel years ago, but was unable to finish it. I'll review this film version solely on its own merits, as I don't know how faithfully it follows the original novel.<br /><br />The film's opening credits are printed in an Old English typeface that suggests the mediaeval period, and so it's a very poor choice for a film with a 19th-century setting. (On the other hand, about halfway into the film, we see a close-up shot of a handbill advertising an estate auction. This handbill is set in authentic Victorian type fonts, and looks *very* convincing.) Most of this film is extremely convincing in its depiction of the architecture and clothing of early 19th-century England. The precise location of this film's story is never disclosed, but - judging by the actors' accents - I'd place it as somewhere in the Cotswolds, perhaps Warwickshire.<br /><br />The plot, what there is of it, involves a mill that changes hands a couple of times (over a couple of decades) between two rival families, one wealthy and one working-class. I disagree with another IMDb reviewer who claims that James Mason has only a small role in this film. Mason has the largest and most central role in this drama, as the scion of the wealthier family. As the spoilt and petulant Tom Tulliver, Mason is darkly brooding and impetuous. His performance here belongs in a better film: it made me want to see 'Wuthering Heights' recast with Mason as Heathcliff.<br /><br />As this is a multi-generational saga (something which George Eliot did much better in 'Middlemarch'), several of the main roles in this film are split among two actors apiece: child actors in the prologue, adults in the main narrative. The prologue of this film features a very well-written scene, establishing Tom Tulliver as wilful and bully-ragging from an early age, and young Philip Wakeham as decent and thoughtful. Through hard labour, Philip has earned a halfpenny: Tom tries to bully it away from him, but is unwilling to take the coin by brute force: he wants Philip to *give* it to him. All the child actors in this movie, male and female, are talented and attractive. Unfortunately, all of the children speak their dialogue in posh plummy-voiced accents that are utterly unlike the accents of the actors and actresses who play those same roles as adults. This discrepancy calls attention to the staginess of the material. Regrettably, none of the later scenes are as good as this prologue.<br /><br />The climax features a crowd of labourers in a rainstorm, much better paced and photographed than the earlier scenes. But modern viewers (in Britain, at least) can no longer take this sort of material seriously. By now, practically every British comedian has done a "trouble at t' mill, squire" comedy routine, parodying precisely this subject matter, so I had difficulty watching this movie with a straight face.<br /><br />The character actress Martita Hunt is good in a small role, but the opening credits (in that Old English typeface) misspell her forename as 'Marita'. I'll rate this dull movie 3 points out of 10: one point apiece for James Mason's performance, the early scene with the children, and the authentic Victorian typesetting in that auctioneer's handbill. | 0 |
9,382 | [
700,
800
] | 564 | 759 | Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.<br /><br />Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the "skills" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.<br /><br />Writer/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on "The Tracy Ullman Show" and "The Simpsons", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: "I like comedies, gangster movies and romances," explained Wolodarsky, "so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film." But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, "Coldblooded" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.<br /><br />Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.<br /><br /> | 0 |
9,386 | [
700,
800
] | 566 | 704 | If good intentions made a film great, then this film might be one of the greatest films ever made. The film has great actors, a master director, a significant theme--at least a would-be significant theme, undertone of fifties existential world-weariness, aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination, and characters about which one might deeply care. It is about patriotism and about patriotism in a healthy way.<br /><br />Not quite ten years after the film, I knew Air Force officers who taught my R.O.T.C. classes at university. They were intellectuals. They thought deeply about their work. They has senses of humor. One had been a crew member on the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb. I have wondered if any one of them died in Vietnam. I imagine that they flew missions there.<br /><br />Regrettably, the film fails. The movie lacks visual interest, drama, expression of feeling, and celebration of the very patriotism that underlines the narrative. No actress has been worse used that June Allison in this movie. Her Susan Holland is a woman that one would flee, not embrace. Col. James Stewart (who as then a colonel) makes a good stab at this role as Lt. Col(and later Col.) Dutch Holland. But the most interesting thing he does in the role is bite into a sandwich. I'm not kidding. Stewart was good as biting in sandwiches as he did in The Spirit of Saint Louis. <br /><br />One might think of Ted Williams, but I don't when I watch Mr. Steward in the role. I do think of William Holden as Lt. Harry Brubaker in The Bridges at Toko-Ri . The comparison is not good for Mr. Stewart, who seems wasted in this film.<br /><br />Footage shot from a B-36 looks like outtakes from commercials for an airline. Though beautiful, the aerial shots are mundane. For the time, they might have impressed viewers. The crash in Greenland involves unexciting modeling You expect the outcome to be good.<br /><br />The undertone--the subtext-- for the film voices the tedium that Air Force flight crews must have felt during their long missions and the banality that the Air Force used to make its business--well business like any other business. One imagines how a La Nouvelle Vague director might explore this theme and then one begins to think about how someone with imagination might have filmed this movie. Little moments are missed.When crews returned from long missions, the members of the crew got a shot of scotch and a massage before debriefing the mission. Showing that might have helped.<br /><br />Banality was the image the Air Force wanted and Mr. Mann accommodated the brass. Maybe, in that sense, the film works, but not for me.<br /><br />I mourn when I watch the movie, because I think all of us, director, actors, crew, viewers, and members of the armed services might have enjoyed giving and getting much more than we get here.<br /><br />I don't think that this movie had to be Dr. Strangelove or 2001, both of which it presages, but it had potential never realized. Yet, I enjoy watching it. I think of the airmen on their long missions and the ground crews in isolated places. There is a certain sense of honor celebrated here and I celebrate that honor. <br /><br />I certainly understand why people who praise this movie here and other places appreciate it. If there were no intentional fallacy, it would get a 10 from me.<br /><br />. | 0 |
9,395 | [
700,
800
] | 658 | 789 | Solo starts as a team of US soldiers go into Soth America to blow up a rebel airstrip, joining them is a robot named Solo (Mario Van Peebles) who can use any weapon ever made, is fifteen times stronger & ten times faster than any human being. Something goes wrong though & Solo refuses to kill innocent civilians which Colonel Frank Madden (William Sadler) isn't happy about, back at base & General Haynes (Barry Corbin) orders Solo to be shut down & reprogrammed. One of Solo's main directives is self preservation so decides to escape back into the South American jungles where Colonel Madden & his men are sent in to recapture it...<br /><br />This Mexican American co-production was directed by Norberto Barba & one has to say Solo is awful. The script by David Corley was based on the novel 'Weapon' by Robert Mason & is one cliché after another, robots were popular at the time Solo was made in Hollywood & at the box-office so Solo rip-offs the likes of Robocop (1987), Universal Soldier (1992) & the two Terminator flicks as well as having the same setting & basic story as Predator (1987). This is the usual rubbish about an emotionless robot who grows a sense of humanity while being around people, at first he doesn't know what a joke is or why one person would care for another but by the end he develops emotions & starts to befriend people, sounds like Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) to me. The character's are poor & Colonel Madden in particular is given absolutely no motivation for hating Solo at all & why he would kill other US soldiers & disobey orders to destroy it. You know I saw this on cable telly last night for free (thank god I didn't spend any money on it) & I looked it up in the TV guide & do you know what it said? My TV guide described Solo as a 'dire sci-fi action starring Mario Van Peebels' which when I think about it is a perfect description of Solo. In less than ten words my TV guide has hit the nail on the head, I mean it's a sci-fi action film, it certainly stars Mario Van Peebles & it's definitely dire. Enough said really.<br /><br />Director Barba doesn't do anything particularly special here & the action scenes lack any real excitement & the sci-fi elements are virtually none existent apart from the fact Solo is a robot. So the military lose Solo & Colonel Madden is sent in to recapture it right? I'm not being funny but wouldn't the military have put a 'self destruct' mechanism inside Solo in case something like that happened? Surely at the very least Solo would have had a tracking device inside it so the military would at least know where it was at any given time? I'm not being funny but these people can come up with a walking talking robotic soldier but they are not clever enough to realise that a tracking or self destruct device might be useful if anything went wrong? The violence is mild, there are a few OK fight scenes but this is pretty weak stuff really.<br /><br />Technically the film looks alright & is competently made, it was actually shot in Mexico. The makers of the Dolph Lundgren action flick Agent Red (2000) edited footage from Solo into that film. The acting is poor, Van Peebles was the perfect choice to play an emotionless robot... William Sadler deserves better than this, it was only a few years prior he was staring in the fantastic Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990).<br /><br />Solo is a really bad sci-fi action flick which is basically a huge rip-off of big budget Hollywood sci-fi action films like Robocop, Universal Soldier & the Terminator films. Not recommend & I'm going to start & pay more attention to my TV guide when it comes to choosing films to watch... | 0 |
9,457 | [
700,
800
] | 559 | 701 | This very finely crafted film commits the unforgivable (which is ironic, given the film's theme). No one coming into this film knows what they are in for. Worse than that, 3/4 of the way into the film, no one still has any clue of what they're in for because everything up to that "moment" is a different movie.<br /><br />As a front-row fan of Dutcher's first two films, easily competing for the Best 2 Mormon films to date (competing with Saints and Soldiers and, now, New York Doll--saw that at a screening), Dutcher had me wanting to see his film for a very long time. I was there. I wanted to believe, believe that I'd see the next great Mormon movie, one that would hold the Numero Uno spot for a very long time. But no. Three-fourths in the film took the sharpest of left turns and dragged me through something that I never wanted to go through. He takes on the Mt. Everest of all moral issues, yea, both of them, with little time or emotional capacity left to adequately address them, but instead waves them both off with a nod towards Jesus as if that will make all things well, instantly. (True it is that Jesus saves. Don't accuse me of not believing that. That's not Dutcher's problem.)<br /><br />Is the film shot well? Indeed. Do the actors act? They acted their pants off. Was the music appropriate? All but whatever was over the closing credits. Everything about this film was superb, except the story, which was so dank and wrong, that all else doesn't matter. (I learned "dank" from New York Doll, very decent show, by the way.) The third act of the film was neither desirable nor pleasant nor faith affirming. I know Dutcher was bending over backwards to make it so, but I was so far shoved out of the movie at that point that nothing, no thing, could have brought me back. The preposterous unbelievability of dozens of details in the final minutes didn't help. Anyone who's been on a mission knows what I'm talking about, especially anyone whoSpoiler Alertis familiar with events surrounding someone being sent home from a mission early for moral and/or psychological reasons. It's as if a parallel universe suddenly sprung up where normal rules or behaviors suddenly don't apply.<br /><br />There are a million things good about this film, but they were created and beautified only to be trampled upon and thrown away in a knee-jerk fit of "ooh, this will really get them" elitism. Hence, unforgivable. I can only hope that when Dutcher puts the finishing touches on his next film ("Falling", apparently), that he remembers that film critics can only buy so many tickets and that it's the fans that pay the bills. That's why the first God's Army was such an unqualified success.<br /><br />Dutcher's shock and awe approach proves that when it comes to the Big Issues he is in way over his head, having neither the spiritual nor creative maturity nor business sense necessary to take them on. I praypray!he learns his lesson and that years from now he and we all look back, with a chagrin, and rejoice that he pulled his head out of where the Light doesn't shine and really, successfully, takes on those and other issues and changes the world forever because of it. | 0 |
9,472 | [
700,
800
] | 610 | 739 | All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore. <br /><br />That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission? <br /><br />And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.<br /><br />I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.<br /><br />That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...<br /><br />You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.<br /><br />After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.<br /><br />The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.<br /><br />I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get. | 0 |
9,493 | [
700,
800
] | 540 | 700 | They call this film "euro trash horror". <br /><br />Well, it's not horror. The film takes place in Europe, so yes, it's "euro". Trash? Ah yes, it's trash all right.<br /><br />You know you're in for a great movie when, right at the beginning, the DVD gives you text on the screen apologizing for the quality of the print you're about to watch. Expect crackles, odd jarring cuts, and for the movie not to fit the screen. Plus there's the sound -- at first I thought I was watching a dubbed film. Then, watching the lips carefully, I realized that, no, it's that the sound quality is embarrassingly bad and out of synch.<br /><br />The plot itself is fairly goofy -- an old, disfigured woman named Dr Bannister kills a scientist for his youth formula. I'm not giving much away because when you see the "old woman" it's pretty obvious she's under a layer of thick, badly applied make-up. Anyone with a lick of sense, seeing the fake old age, knows what's coming next.<br /><br />Yes, the "old crone" is miraculously transformed into a beautiful young woman -- complete with face make-up and a long wig of hair! Zounds!<br /><br />When I say the old woman is disfigured, I mean she has cornflakes glued to her face. The film makes no attempt to explain how the cornflakes got there. For that matter, there is no attempt to explain anything at all relating to any of the characters. They're never developed beyond the level of finger puppets. <br /><br />The two policemen pursuing our anti-heroine just wander about, apparently baffled by the simplest clues. The murdered scientist was working on a youth serum, the old woman has disappeared, and we keep running into a young woman -- how do these pieces fit together?! What does it all mean?! One of the cops sweats a lot and pats his face with a cloth. The other smokes a pipe. That's pretty much all we get, character-wise.<br /><br />Dr Bannister (the crone, now a beauty) goes around wearing odd costumes and then taking them off so we can see her flesh. She has affairs with men. She gets in a catfight with a young woman in a nightgown. She goes to Geneva so we can see the lake there. She water- skis a bit, then takes off her wet suit to reveal a strange bead-curtain bikini. She takes off her clothes again in a strange ninja costume striptease.<br /><br />The ending? Well, without giving anything away, it's just a bizarre, tacked on conclusion that makes about as little sense as the rest of the picture. It's the sort of thing a writer comes up with when the director wakes him up at 4 AM and says, "Quick! We need an ending for our movie! What happens next?"<br /><br />The writer mumbles something half awake, and the director runs with it.<br /><br />What's good about this movie? Some of the music is campy and fun. That classic 60s organ music that's so corny it's enough to make you laugh out loud. There are some odd seduction scenes, bizarre dialogue, goofy moments. <br /><br />It's very close to being so bad it's good. I did manage to watch it from start to finish without gouging out my eyes or sobbing. I guess that's praise, of sorts.' | 0 |
9,618 | [
700,
800
] | 635 | 790 | This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain. This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers who hoped it would do justice to the novel.<br /><br />There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy (sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour. <br /><br />But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no assistance from a writer who thinks he/she can write like Austen. The writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is jarring.<br /><br />As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench, who clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the behavior of women of the period.<br /><br />If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future to erase this abomination from our minds.<br /><br />The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version from their minds. | 0 |
9,625 | [
700,
800
] | 607 | 792 | I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.<br /><br />Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.<br /><br />What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.<br /><br />The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.<br /><br />Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.<br /><br />On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.<br /><br />In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite. | 0 |
9,660 | [
700,
800
] | 574 | 703 | There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.<br /><br />Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.<br /><br />Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.<br /><br />Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.<br /><br />I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking. | 0 |
9,715 | [
700,
800
] | 606 | 774 | I won't be too hard on this show because I enjoyed the first season, but then, things got worse. The concept is nothing special, just about a girl named Casey who is trying to cope with a new step-brother, Derek, and his loud, crude family, while she gradually forces her princess standards onto each of them.<br /><br />In season 1, the story was actually interesting. I liked Casey back then because she was smart, strong, independent, and conservative. She was well-mannered and deep. I felt bad when she was being harassed at her new school by her new step-brother. She was a perfectionist, but not as annoying as the later episodes. Oh, and she dated a nice guy, who is now currently portrayed as one of Derek's idiot friends. The season grasped the true tension the title of the show was trying to capture.<br /><br />Now, I can't say the show has really gone downhill because the story is sometimes interesting, but I root for Derek now instead of Casey. Now, there is little, if any interaction, between the two siblings. If they interact, it's only briefly. Oh, and I don't want any Dasey fans in my face. People, that's called INCEST, even if they are step-siblings. My tolerance can only go so far, but that's not the point.<br /><br />It's strange. Derek, as the antagonist, has gotten more sensitive over time, while Casey, the supposed protagonist, is more neurotic and unlikeable than before. I like how the younger kids get more airtime, but the parents are even more clueless than before. But that's not the biggest problem...<br /><br />Unfortunately, we are forced to see everything from Casey's point of view, with lame, nauseating background music. She has gotten stupider and more shallow over time. In one episode, she got whiny and wanted her boyfriend to be more chivalrous, so she purposely dumped food on herself and blamed Derek. Now, what happened to being a strong, independent feminist? I haven't watched much of the fourth season, but I hear she is dating a guy named Truman, who is a jackass and is arrogant. Oh, I remember that fencing episode. She constantly reminds him she doesn't like him, freaks out over being "goosed" by a sword, and in the end, hooks up with him because she can "handle" him? What the hell? Why go with a guy like that in the first place. The 1st season Casey would have just punched him in his...never mind. Or, maybe that would have been my reaction. Oh, and she's a cheerleader. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think she fell on her head at one of her practices. And in a prom episode, she cried because she couldn't find the "dress in her dreams," and wasn't completely satisfied until she became prom queen. One thing I've noticed is that no matter how bad Casey tries to tell us her life is, thing's almost always go her way in the end (she gets the guy she wants, Derek gets some kind of revenge, people all love her, etc.) Derek is still quite immature, but I see that he really has matured. I don't see why many people hate Sally. She seems nice, and it's good to see Derek in a serious relationship with someone he cares about rather than "playing the field." He is also treating Edwin slightly better, and is a good brother to Marti.<br /><br />Really, the show is so-so, and I rated it low because despite some character development, the character I once admired has now become like any "fashionable teen queen" you can see anywhere on TV. But it was good while it lasted. | 0 |
9,771 | [
700,
800
] | 565 | 739 | Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.<br /><br />Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.<br /><br />If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.<br /><br />Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!) <br /><br />The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.<br /><br />The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.<br /><br />The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!" <br /><br />And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.<br /><br />It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note. | 0 |
9,834 | [
700,
800
] | 591 | 781 | This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. "The Stupids" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.<br /><br />In order to appreciate "The Stupids", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: "I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime." In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch "Freddy Got Fingered" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.<br /><br />It works with good movies too. If "Jaws" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think "Jaws" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of "Showgirls" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s/early-90s-style farce that it is.<br /><br />The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way "The Jerk" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A "bad" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like "The Stupids" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.<br /><br />I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.<br /><br />I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say "Release the drive bee!" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.<br /><br />And that's exactly why it works. | 0 |
9,857 | [
700,
800
] | 580 | 713 | As a semi-film buff, I had heard of this infamous movie a long time ago. I had heard that it was basically a 15 million dollar film about the tyrannical rule of the Roman emperor Caligula, complete with hard-core pornography. What struck me was that it was a porno movie yet it had great thespians like Peter O'Toole, John Geilgud, Malcolm McDowell and Hellen Mirren in it!!?? A week ago I saw a documentary about Caligula on the History channel and this film came back into my head and finally my curiousity got the best of me, I foolishly rented the DVD and even more foolishly watched it.<br /><br />Within the first 30 minutes I was seeing acts of sex and especially violence that would earn an NC-17 even by todays standards. Was it really necessary to have a scene of a man having his urinary track closed and then have gallons of wine poured into him and then have his stomach cut with a sword (all in very graphic detail). And a scene where a guy gets his d*** cut off and fed to dogs (again in very graphic detail)....and this just scratches the surface. The argument for this movie from those who like it seems that it is the only film that honestly portrays pagan Rome and it's excesses. When in fact what this movie really is, is sheer exploitation. From beginning to end you see nothing but endless torture, and decapitations and every kind of violence and crude behavior imaginable (sadomasochism, rape, necrophelia, it just never stopped). There is no insight into Caligula himself, what might have propelled him to go mad, the horrible childhood he had that molded him into a sadist as an adult. This is not a historic film, it is sleaze. Even the porn in this movie stinks, and through much of this when I wasn't gagging I was just incredibly bored. By the time it was over I was depressed, didn't feel much like eating and this movie does the impossible, it actually can turn you off of sex.<br /><br />What were these great actors thinking when they got into this. I did read that the porn segments were filmed after the principal shooting was completed (which explains why none of the main actors are in any of these scenes and why the quality of these scenes is so poor). But still and all these actors must have known what they were getting into. Right at the opening credits it says "Penthouse Magazine and Bob Gucionne Presents". And the scenes that the famous actors actually take part in are completely repulsive in and of themselves. Apparently director Tinto Brass wanted his name removed from the completed film entirely, as did the screenwriter (Gore Vidal of all people). Even John Geilgud and Peter O'toole were begging people not to see this when it opened at the Cannes film festival.<br /><br />For the amount of money the producers spent on this, the movie's quality is terrible. Everything is underlit and murky as if the film was dropped in a swamp prior to being developed, and that's when you're lucky enough to view a scene that's actually in-focus. The sound is poorly dubbed, much of the music is awkward and the editing is god awful.<br /><br />Anyway, I brought this movie on myself. My advice...don't watch this, don't watch this, don't watch this......as for myself tomorrow night I am going to watch something lighter....like DAWN OF THE DEAD! | 0 |
9,881 | [
700,
800
] | 551 | 713 | Thankfully you don't need a lot of "book learnin" to understand where this thing's going... Obviously a poverty row cash-in on Universal's big hit THE WOLF MAN (which was made just one year earlier), this finds the always-watchable George Zucco in another of his patented "mad doctor" roles as brilliant, vengeance-minded scientist Lorenzo Cameron. Cameron, who has set up shop deep in the swamp lands of what I'm presuming is the Louisiana bayou, is plotting revenge against four of his former peers who both humiliated him and forced him to resign from his previous job. You see, they scoffed at his claims of being able to mix man with beast to create an unstoppable army of wolfman creatures that would come in handy during war-time. Thankfully Cameron has found the ideal test subject for his wolf blood injections - a hulking, child-like half-wit named Petro (Glenn Strange). Petro is pretty clueless as to what's going on, doesn't ask too many question and lets the doc strap him down to a table and shoot him up with whatever happens to be in his syringe. This results in a time-lapse change of man turning into a werewolf. Cameron lets him out of the mansion using a secret passageway, so you basically get a big guy (Strange was 6'5") dressed in overalls with a bushy beard, hairy paws and a set of over-sized plastic teeth, running around in the woods the majority of the time. After an eyewitness sees the beast and a little girl is killed, the locals grab their rifles and organize a posse to hunt it down. Dr. Cameron, who can control the beast with a whip and also has a handy antidote to reverse the effect, also drags Petro along to the big city to try to track down the professors who had made a mockery of his original theories and destroyed his reputation in the process. Also hanging around the house is Cameron's daughter Lenora (Anne Nagel), as well as Lenora's nosy reporter boyfriend Tom (Johnny Downs), whose first inclination is that they're dealing with an upright-walking prehistoric creature (!)<br /><br />Though a typically chintzy PRC flick in many ways, with unimpressive sets, cinematography and make-ups, as well as a fairly bland supporting cast, it remains watchable thanks to the histrionics of star George Zucco. I have no clue why Downs received top billing; he shows up half-an-hour in and really doesn't have a whole lot to do, nor is he all that impressive doing it. This is Zucco's show all the way and he's great ranting and raving, talking to himself while fantasizing that he's talking to his peers ("I'm not interested in your imbecilic mouthings!") and temporarily sliding in and out of sanity. Strange seems to have patterned his performance as the hilariously naive and slow-talking semi-retarded country bumpkin around the entire oeuvre of Lon Chaney Jr., from his turn as Lenny in OF MICE AND MEN, to his performance as the aforementioned WOLF MAN. In any case, Strange and Zucco do a fairly good job playing off one another. My favorite part is when Zucco calls him his "guinea pig" in front of a colleague while Petro just sits there grinning and staring at a doorknob. Some of the foggy swamp scenes are pretty atmospheric, too. | 0 |
9,978 | [
700,
800
] | 587 | 713 | What Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine does best is to delve into Garry Kasparov's psyche during the 1997 competition against IBM's Deep Blue. You see him becoming more and more paranoid, and increasingly unravelled, all because in the second game, Deep Blue made a move that seemed too human for his preconceived notion of chess computers. Kasparov thought then, and still does, that IBM cheated.<br /><br />Game Over tries to seem unbiased, but it is clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated. However, they give no real evidence to support the cheating claim, only intimations that IBM's security surrounding the computer room was because IBM really had grandmasters hidden in there overriding the computer on certain key occasions, and Kasparov's assertion that the computer didn't play like a computer usually does at one point in game two. In game two, Kasparov played a game that was designed to trick the computer, attempting to sacrifice a pawn in a situation where previous computer chess programs would have taken the pawn, leading to the computer's eventual loss. Deep Blue didn't take the bait, and Kasparov was so rattled because the computer seemed to play like a human that he didn't even see that he could have played Deep Blue to a draw and ended up resigning. That game psyched him out so much that he was unable to recover, and after playing games 3,4, and 5 to draws, lost game 6 horribly.<br /><br />The question of whether IBM cheated all comes down to that single move in game two, where the Deep Blue made the move that any human would make but that had, up to that point, tripped up computers. Joel Benjamin, a chess grandmaster on IBM's programming team explained in the documentary that they knew that chess computers always got tripped up in that situation, and consequently spent a lot of time and effort programming Deep Blue so that it wouldn't make the mistake that other computers do. If you believe Benjamin's assertion, then the case is clear, IBM did not cheat. Unfortunately, the director quickly moved on and never mentioned IBM's explanation for the rest of the movie, preferring to cut between shots of the chess playing hoax of the 19th century, The Turk, and shots of Deep Blue, hinting that Deep Blue was really controlled by a human as well. As someone who has an understanding of programming, the explanation by IBM makes perfect sense--if you knew what you were doing, it would not be terribly difficult to put something in the code so that, if thus and so conditions are reached, then do thus and so--in other words, tell the computer what to do if a situation like the one that Kasparov created in game 2 ever happened. This isn't cheating, it's doing a good job of programming a chess computer.<br /><br />In the end, it's eminently clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated, and the repeated comments about IBM's stock rising 15% the day that Deep Blue won suggest the idea that IBM cheated to pump its stock price (Kasparov even compares IBM and Deep Blue to Enron). However, there is plenty of outside opinion, within both the chess and computer science communities, that Deep Blue won fair and square and that Kasparov lost because he simply couldn't get past his view of computers as "dumb machines" and got psyched out by a machine that didn't seem so dumb after all. I just wish that the director had let us see the alternative opinion.<br /><br /> | 0 |
10,045 | [
700,
800
] | 603 | 703 | From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before
in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.<br /><br />And that's what happens in "The Love Light", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.<br /><br />The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a "picturesque squalor" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by "picturesque luxury"
); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with
a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean "Ich Liebe Dich" but "Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea"
<br /><br />Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed
) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.<br /><br />From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed
) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes
a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.<br /><br />But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.<br /><br />As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in "The Love Light", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl!
but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.<br /><br />And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress. | 0 |
10,168 | [
700,
800
] | 615 | 787 | I happened across this movie while channel-surfing and it seemed to be yet another poorly- made Christian film about The End Times (which I find rather entertaining because they take themselves so seriously). To be fair, I only saw the last 30 minutes, so I missed the part about UFOs and the Sci-Fi stuff. But it was long enough for me to categorize it as an embarrassing and appalling representation of the Christian faith, as well as a rather pathetic film in any artistic sense.<br /><br />As a film, the script was terrible, the acting was mediocre, and the pacing was poor. The cinematography and direction were sub-par: no interesting visuals, no layered plot line, no creativity. Don't just blame it on the budget- films can still be interesting without special effects. This wasn't. Christian films cannot excuse their mediocrity and unoriginality in the artistic sphere just because of their message. And the message here was hardly "Christian."<br /><br />**Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is targeted towards Christians**<br /><br />First off, it is unethical in any business to bait-and-switch your customers. I don't like being told I can win a free iPod only to realize I have to spend $300 at participating stores first. Nonchristians don't like being told they're watching a Sci-Fi film and then get bombarded with Christian propaganda that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Hidden agendas don't win you any friends, much less converts. <br /><br />Secondly, you should not use overt threats to convince people your beliefs are true. The actors who represented Christians came off as callous, smug bullies when dealing with the skeptical "unbeliever"-- they even go so far as to stage the rapture in order to scare him into believing. Representational dialogue: "Turn to Jesus- OR GO TO HELL!" "Fine, don't believe me- BUT YOU'LL BE SORRY!" "The day you die, I can guarantee you'll wish you paid more attention to this Jesus stuff- WHEN YOU LAND IN THE BELLY OF HELL!" OK, I may be exaggerating, but it certainly came off in the same manner. If you think this is a "clear message for Christ," you're wrong. I don't recall Jesus using threats and coercion. And I don't think people can make an authentic decision to believe in him out of fear. So Christians, please don't use this as a "witnessing tool" for your "unsaved" friends. It is heavy-handed, offensive, and inaccurate in portraying a true Christian message.<br /><br />Thirdly, the theology was bad. Apart from characterizing Jesus as a means of hell-insurance, it gave no room for debate or discussion and didn't attempt to engage the issue of whether UFOs or alien life could exist. Instead, it offered one pat answer: "UFOs are the devil's scheme to deceive people when the rapture happens," which is neither biblical nor widely-accepted by most Christians. As the Bible doesn't mention UFOs or aliens, you can't use it as a source to draw conclusions one way or the other. The rapture isn't necessarily even a widely-accepted, sound biblical concept, though nowadays most evangelical Christians seem to believe it because of a popular book series. If you do your research (as so many of the supportive reviewers are suggesting), the idea of two comings of Christ (the first as the rapture) is a relatively new phenomena in Church tradition, popularized by some traveling evangelists around the turn of the 20th century. The majority of orthodox Christians will probably find this film's message to be a pretty big stretch that rests on a lot of unsupported presuppositions.<br /><br />Basically, this film misses the mark both as a worthwhile piece of entertainment and as an accurate representation of Christianity and its beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it. | 0 |
10,288 | [
700,
800
] | 616 | 782 | I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.<br /><br />What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.<br /><br />Where to start? Okay..<br /><br />1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.<br /><br />2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.<br /><br />3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.<br /><br />5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.<br /><br />6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.<br /><br />8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.<br /><br />9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.<br /><br />My two cents on this movie. | 0 |
10,317 | [
700,
800
] | 537 | 704 | I am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the "Fat Guys At the Movies." The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie "stupid" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.<br /><br />Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking "twist" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the "twist" every five minutes thereafter.<br /><br />There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.<br /><br />None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.<br /><br />This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess. | 0 |
10,327 | [
700,
800
] | 586 | 731 | I always wanted to see ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE for a very long time. I've always been intrigued by the title, the star and the desert but for some (now pretty clear) reason, this film is never shown on TV or I've happen to miss it if it's ever shown. Well, after watching the DVD, I now know why the movie is rarely shown: it's because it's not that good. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much of a mess.<br /><br />ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was made by a first time director and it shows. The film is mainly a series of vignettes with absolutely nothing holding it together. More like a collection of short movies haphazardly strung together. The movie can be boiled down to this: intro (murder); cop and girlfriend together; intro credits; cops going to work; crazy guy tells story; cop finds dead body; cop and chief and girlfriend at bar; chase scene; etc. The scenes just don't flow together. They're very distinctively independent from each other and because of this the characterization is weak, borderline amateurish. The scene at the bar with the girlfriend, the scene at the farm with the hippies, the scene with Big John and the Chief yelling at each other were cringe worthy. I almost stopped the film during those (awful) moments.<br /><br />The film-maker's lack of experience is in evidence throughout the film. The style, like the 1970s, is all over the map. The intro credit scene makes the movie look like a commercial for law enforcement. Then it tries to be a buddy film (Big John and Zipper) then a murder mystery; then a melodramatic love story; etc. A film doesn't have to have one particular style in order to be successful but I'm afraid the style in ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was confused. You can clearly see that the director had no idea what he was doing or where he was going with it.<br /><br />The film is not a complete disaster. While the content of ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is almost amateurish, the look of it is extremely (and deceptively) professional. The cinematography is stunning. Every frame is worthy of an exhibition at an art gallery. Or, because the first (and last) time director was involved in the music business, worthy of an album cover. The beautiful look of the film gives more credence to the finish product than it really deserves. And thanks to Robert Blake's acting (of a really badly written character), the film maintains a certain level of realism, even though nothing else makes much sense. What's remarkable about the look and composition of the film is that it's been copied and duplicated a million times over. The intro credits reminded me of something like TOP GUN, which was made 13 years later. Scenes of Johnny dressing up, with his clothes on the bed, reminded me of American Gigolo. Strangely enough, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE has a very contemporary feel to it, due to the stunning visuals, even if the story and the philosophy behind it are hopelessly outdated.<br /><br />So, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is, on one hand, a remarkably underrated and overlooked film because it obviously influenced a lot of future filmmakers out there when it comes to the look and composition. Very few films can claim to have achieved this and legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall should take full credit. But, on the other hand, EGIB is also deservedly forgotten because the poor characters, confusing story, and muddled direction, none of which are worth of remembering. | 0 |
10,446 | [
700,
800
] | 622 | 761 | I like Steve Buscemi. I like his work very much, both as an actor and a director. You could say that I am -into- Steve Buscemi. A Steve Buscemi freak. I lurv Steve Buscemi.<br /><br />I remember when I first saw Buscemi's full length directorial debut, "Trees Lounge." I enjoyed the movie, although it wasn't as good as it could have been. It was -almost- there. It -almost- scratched that itch, the itch of wanting to see "small" movies about "small" people in "small" bars that are in "small" towns. It was close enough to where I would say that it was a very good movie - one that with a few tweaks could have been great. But that's OK. I like the movie and I've watched it more than once.<br /><br />But this review is not about Trees Lounge. It's about "Lonesome Jim." When I saw the description of the movie and then I saw who's movie it was, I was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that I knew that Trees Lounge could have been. But what I actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy, heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol-induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation.<br /><br />In other words, this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that I wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state - the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning, or if you happen to be the floozy, waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. The film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread, no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. I am not sure what the point of this film was, and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. Sorta like those new cars that don't come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (I'm not one of them, but hey, I can sympathize). Overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. I mean, Trees Lounge was about boring people doing boring things, but it was interesting. <br /><br />I blame a lot of this on Affleck. Why do people keep casting these Affleck turds? They suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. One Affleck was in one decent film (and wasn't even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named Affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. And Liv Tyler is no better. Being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. She is as lifeless as Affleck. These people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. People pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma - these two duds together don't have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at Wal Mart. I always thought that Steve Buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum, but oh Steve you let us down. This film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper. | 0 |
10,518 | [
700,
800
] | 626 | 789 | **Possible Spoilers** Three young people on the wrong side of the law are given a chance to turn their lives around and become useful members of society by becoming undercover cops in `The Mod Squad,' a resurrection of the hit television series of the 60's, directed by Scott Silver. Given their less than stellar backgrounds, and because of who they are and the people they know, Julie Barnes (Claire Danes), Pete Cochran (Giovanni Ribisi) and Lincoln Hayes (Omar Epps) can go places other cops can't, so they are tapped by Captain Adam Greer (Dennis Farina) to infiltrate a seedy night spot suspected of being a front for a prostitution ring. For a start, Julie gets a job there as a waitress, while Pete and Linc just `hang out' to find out what they may. Julie quickly becomes reacquainted with an old boyfriend, Billy Waites (Josh Brolin), who turns out to be involved with drugs, which are tied in to the shady dealings going down at the bar. Before it's over, the `squad' is in it up to their necks, while also running afoul of a bunch of wrong cops who are also involved with the drugs, and consequently tied in with their investigation. From the beginning of the movie, there is a sense that you are coming in late; as if it's presupposed that you know what's going on as far as the origin and workings of the squad. All you get here are brief mug-shot bios of the three that give you nothing more than a glimpse into their past; there's nothing about how this all actually came about. The thinking was probably that by doing it this way it would lead into the story quicker, get things moving along. While this is true to a certain extent, some added background would have made the texture of the story a bit more interesting; the way it was done here merely depreciates the credibility of the entire proceedings. The plot is marginal to begin with, and any time spent on character development would have been well worth the while. What's delivered, and quite unimaginatively at that, is a less than compelling story filled with one dimensional characters. The performances are satisfactory, but the actors get no help from the script, nor apparently from Silver; Danes, Ribisi and Epps come close to fleshing out Julie, Pete and Linc, but given the time allotted them, combined with the lack of support, they still fall way short of giving these people life. Farina, a good actor who deserves better than what he gets here, comes off as nothing more than a caricature of the `good cop.' There's a feeling that everything was given the once-over in this film; some detail and nuance would have driven the stock up considerably on this one. The supporting cast includes Richard Jenkins (Detective Mothershed), Steve Harris (Briggs), Larry Brandenburg (Eckford), Lionel Mark Smith (Lanier) and Sam McMurray (Tricky). It's a shame to see the acting talent involved here wasted like this; a lot more thought and planning should have gone into the making of this movie. As it is, it comes across as ill-conceived and poorly executed. Danes, Ribisi and Epps are like Major Leaguers who got stuck playing for all the marbles at the local sandlot; instead of getting a shot at the title, they all got hung out to dry. Like Terry says in `On The Waterfront,' `You was my brother, Charlie, you shoulda been looking out for me.' Well, it's obvious that there was no Charlie to look out for them here, and after `The Mod Squad,' they can all just hope for something better to come along the next time. I rate this one 1/10. | 0 |
10,536 | [
700,
800
] | 608 | 761 | The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of "Drake & Josh" fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the "Rick Punchers" joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.<br /><br />We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.<br /><br />We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.<br /><br />We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.<br /><br />The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.<br /><br />We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the "Douchebag Of The Year" award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).<br /><br />Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one. | 0 |
10,560 | [
700,
800
] | 594 | 711 | "Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.<br /><br />One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.<br /><br />The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.<br /><br />Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.<br /><br />The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous. | 0 |
10,695 | [
700,
800
] | 637 | 787 | As main "character" Lillith Silver likes to point out - "you know f**k all about vampires". It is evident that this statement was aimed at the cast and crew, who create an exceedingly bad image of everyone's favourite bloodsucking undead. According to the misguided director, Vampires are all caked in white foundation and crammed into latex similar to a piece of meat in shrink wrap. With fangs resembling Bannana's and a bad case of asthma our main character Lillith creates a slapstick caricature of the "modern day" Vampire.<br /><br />The plot consists of a 9 year old boys' playstation collection jotted down on a piece of paper, then blended together to concoct this horrible tale. Lillith our pale protagonist is a Vampire Bounty hunter who makes a living from snubbing out members of everyone's favourite cult, the Illuminati! Rather than incorporate the classic assassin methodology of stealth and precision however, Lillith waltzes in through an open window and then proceeds to chomp her targets necks before shooting them point blank with a handgun (that apparently doesn't leave bullet holes thanks to the shoddy continuity). PC Plod is then assigned to solve the murders, he comes to the grizzly, yet strikingly obvious conclusion that Lillith is actually a Vampire and proceeds to hunt her down armed with the usual vampire dispatching tools including a cross, garlic and a sharpened piece of wood. Meanwhile, Lillith, who has gotten into the habit of bonking her boss, is distraught when an old nemesis kidknaps him and demands a Ransom to be delivered personally. As you may imagine, this doesn't go according to plan. I'm not going to put myself through the pain of the following scenes however, so I'll skip to the end. Lillith and her "nemesis" have a showdown, and after Lillith obtains victory it is then revealed, with all the extravagance of someone being told they have cancer, that the two are century old lovers and the whole plot was some kind of twisted game. Yes, that kick in the balls was the actual ending of the film. In my eyes, this joke of a conclusion is the icing on the latex clad cake, and seals this film in the "Never ever watch this" vault.<br /><br />As far as cinematic techniques go, the film merely doesn't bother creating any style. The director tries to rescue his disasterpiece from the brink, by throwing in some close ups and a few multi-angular shots, this however is not the saving grace the film needed.<br /><br />You may be screaming "but this is a B movie, its meant to be crap!". I however do not take pity. I have seen some cracking B movies, such as evil dead 2, and Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and therefore this disgrace cannot hide behind excuses. The budget was low, This is obvious by the lack of location and good actors. Maybe however if the director was more creative and spent less money on paying for makeup and fake blood, he could have done something decent with this sickening attempt. The seedy sex scenes are not beneficial in any way and merely served to give me a few chuckles at the obscene acting skills throughout. Half the budget must have been paid to the female cast merely for getting their tops off for lesbian romps. If I wanted to watch a vampire porno, I would have bought Muffy The Vampire Layer.<br /><br />The cast are bad, the story is worse and the effects are cripplingly fake. This film had some potential, however its seedy undertone and embarrassing portrayal of a classic horror character merely served to be its downfall.<br /><br />If you want a laugh with a few friends, I recommend you watch this mockery. If you are looking for a more serious Vampire action flick, try Blade or Underworld to sooth your raging bloodlust. | 0 |
10,708 | [
700,
800
] | 594 | 775 | Whoever filled this stupid idea of acting and producing a movie in Himesh's head, which is always hidden under a cap, covering almost half of his face all the time ? Only hope this is first and the last as well, for God's sake ! From Assalam Valekum to Gayatri Mantra, Himesh has tried every thing, to create an aura of his so-called singing talent, which is nothing but atrocious pronunciations of words like Tanhaiyya, which completely kill the beauty of the terms, so commonly used for love songs. Why does Himesh not smile ? Simple, because he does not use close Up toothpaste ! Now there this friend of his, tailing him around every where, and this number one lawyer in the town, who has to herself sexily wiggle and try to seduce Himesh, of all the handsome German people she might have met earlier, perhaps the male lawyers on this part of the world might be cursing their fate, for destined to deal with the stiff, unattractive lot, every day ! The action scenes are so funnily shot, like the event planner attacked by the thief, autos riding over the cars, so on and so forth. The father of the bride seems to be in a great hurry to get rid of his daughter by marrying her off, that he flies to and fro around. Most hypocrite, he praises HR for distributing love among people of the world, as if they were sweets , and on his back, coolly gives a lecture to his daughter on these show business men. when Himesh is proved innocent, he again unceremoniously dumps the other guy, as if it's a game of musical chair ! i didn't get to se the poor guy's face even, did you ? Hansika in the role of Ria, looks as if she is in need of an eye check up, for strain in her eyes ! The fellow in the role of a friend is good, who has acted quite naturally, and should be in better movies, like Sharman Joshi, for example. Child artist in Trishu's brief appearance is sweet, but wasted. It seems today's young generation has gone nuts , since they prefer this kind of mockery of lyrics and musical scores , and associate gossip with it, for example, if you sing ek bar aaja, the ghost would come. this is a weird taste in music, and rather funny. i am surprised, how such classic lyricists like Gulzar , have opted for Himesh of all the people, to give music. There is story in Panchtantra , that a crow attachés so many feathers of a peacock, to look beautiful, and appeal to the birds; but the feathers fall off ultimately, and the real dark crow is revealed ! Hope Himesh takes a hint, and refrains from manufacturing such meaningless stuff, and wasting precious money, which he has earned by taxing his short nose so much ! His friend does tell him, if your nose is cut, how will you sing ? Thanks for showing us Germany, Himesh, at a reasonable cost of renting the DVD ! and correct those spelling mistakes, will you ? an extra e in movie, and no e in love ! There is also a famous number from the old film Sholey, Mehbooba, on which Mallika Sherawat wiggles, once again, but this time with Himesh, winking at her, and conveniently, Ria , his so-called real love, and his new bride is not around ! Now that was very clever, Himesh ! At least one thing in this movie which you have done smartly, to justify Sherawat's presence . But doesn't she look a bit washed down ? | 0 |
10,731 | [
700,
800
] | 548 | 735 | Hellraiser: Bloodline is only a so-so film. I believe it's the fourth installment in the Hellraiser series.<br /><br />I missed the beginning, and all I remember from there was some topless women and a box-shape thing on a computer screen. But, using my wit and intelligence, (and the Info Button) I soon found out that the villain (Pinhead) was released from Pandora's Box, which, I believe is a gateway straight to Hell.<br /><br />So, anyways, Pinhead somehow comes out of the box and terrorizes the "Toymaker's" family. And, that's about it. Oh, and not to mention the random tortures of various people that cross his path. Yawn.<br /><br />What mainly happens in this film is that Pinhead captures the kid, and then unleashes the dog on his wife, and then kills a random person. Then he husband comes along, blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Why it fails is because Hellraiser: Bloodline is too corny to be scary. Look at Pinhead's minion of creatures: a cheesy dog that looks like it's been turned inside out, two men whose heads and bodies are connected together, (Siamese twins in a horror film?) and some person who is supposed to be a princess of some sort. (I haven't seen the previous films.) Now look at the main villain. His name is Pinhead. Isn't that the name you call somebody when they're stupid? He has pins in his head and hooks coming out of his fingers, and he has blue skin. I suppose he would make a decent villain if he didn't have such a corny name, and a corny speech. Somewhere in the film, two cops approach him and say "Don't make us put some pain on you!" Pinhead replies "Pain? How dare you use that word! I AM pain
" blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It sounds a bit cliché if you ask me.<br /><br />Don't forget the final half of the movie. The characters (and audience) get to experience more torture when Pinhead attacks some futuristic asylum. Some person who we don't recognize (Maybe he was in the previous films. I don't remember him in the beginning of the movie.) This scene is basically one thing played over and over again: <br /><br />A guard goes to inspect a mysterious noise.<br /><br />Some other guard: "Oh no! He's down. I will go check on him
by myself!"<br /><br />After he dies the same thing happens again.<br /><br />(SPOILERS) Here's the thing I didn't get. In the film Pinhead is supposedly sent to Oblivion at the end. So, how does he come back for another four films? Are they prequels? Why hasn't he died in the previous ones? Geez. The makers need to come up with an idea for a different series. (END OF SPOILERS) Hellraiser: Bloodline is gory and full of torture scenes, but has little thrill or scare value. Just forget it. Bad special effects with bad
everything else make this more of a snooze-fest than a good horror.<br /><br />Good: Well
some people may enjoy the topless women in the beginning. Plus, Pinhead's voice is pretty cool. I suppose if you like ultra-violence, you might like this too.<br /><br />Bad: None of the reasons above make this a very good film. The corniness and repetitiveness are pretty bad. And, who names their villain Pinhead?<br /><br />Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment. | 0 |
10,735 | [
700,
800
] | 550 | 751 | ***SPOILERS!*** I sometimes wonder what makes sequel-makers think that they have to explain (and therefore destroy) the mysteries behind iconic Horror films. The original "Hellraiser" of 1987 was an absolute masterpiece and probably one of the scariest films ever made. The 1988 sequel "Hellbound" was also a fantastic Horror film, though I personally didn't like how the viewer got background information on the Cenobites, some of the all-time creepiest Horror-villains in the original. The third part, "Hell on Earth" (1992) was already quite a mess, whose makers obviously thought it necessary to add a dose of humor to the formerly incomparably creepy lead-cenobite Pinhead (a typical 90s stupidity) and therefore destroyed most of his scariness. This fourth part "Hellraiser: Bloodline" (1996) is slightly more atmospheric than the third one, but it lowers this quality by inventing even more silly and completely unnecessary 'background information' about the cenobites and the opening of the gates to hell.<br /><br />Seriously - did we need to know how the mysterious puzzle boxes that open the gates to hell are being made? I think not, and that is not the only mystery about the cenobites that is stupidly destroyed in this film. The setting of "Bloodline" goes back and forth in three different periods. The film begins in a 22nd century space-station, when scientist Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) attempts to close the gates to hell forever. When government soldiers disrupt his mission he has to explain his reasons. In 18th century Paris, Merchant's ancestor was a toymaker assigned to build a puzzle box by an aristocrat obsessed with the occult. An evoked demon, the princess of hell, took over the body of the beautiful Angelique (Valentina Vargas). Since the only person capable of destroying the gateway to hell is the one who built it, the bloodline of the toymaker would be cursed and his ancestors infested by cenobites throughout the ages... The film, which takes place in the 18th century, the present, and the 22nd century, really is quite a mess. I admit that the part set in the 18th century has a creepy atmosphere and is by far the best part of the film, but its also its smallest part. The parts set in the present and in the future are quite weak, and filled with stupid and unworthy elements. The film's undoubtedly strong points are the terrific make-up and gore-effects, the absolutely ravishing Valentina Varagas as the she-demon, and Pinhead (Doug Bradley), who, in spite of having lost some of his creepiness, still is a menacing villain. It is an almost offensive idea for "Hellraiser" fans, however, that Pinhead is supposed be defeated by a ridiculous light-show. Overall, "Bloodline" is not a complete disaster, but it sure is an unworthy sequel to a series that began so brilliantly. Even director Kevin Yagher was obviously embarrassed about it, as he preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee. Overall, this is only recommendable to hardcore Pinhead-fanatics, and most of them are probably going to be angered by another diminution of their favorite demon's creepiness. All others are well-advised to stick with the brilliant first, and excellent second part of the "Hellraiser" franchise and skip all the others. The makeup effects in "Bloodline" are creepy as hell, but almost everything else is disappointing. My rating: 3.5/10 | 0 |
10,885 | [
700,
800
] | 618 | 740 | The Fanglys is set in a small Texan town called Layton on the eve of Halloween as the townspeople treat it like the second coming of Christ or something, I mean Halloween isn't that important is it? Anyway, Sheriff Pete (Burton Gilliam) has been called out to yet another murder as local boy Ned (co-associate producer John William Galt) has discovered a body in the local woods. Could it be the Fang Lady (Justin Hamilton)? The central character involved in a local legend about a witch who kills teenagers, who knows? Being the fun sort of guy he is Mark (asisstant director & producer Robert Harvey) convinces his missus Kelly (Laurie Reeves) to ride out to a cemetery that his mate Steven (Josh Gobin) found the night before for a Halloween party. The idea of spending the night in a cemetery in the middle of the woods obviously appeals to Kelly & she agrees, along with Steven & a girl he picked up named Camille (Natalie Woods) & their nerdy friend Jerry (Tim Boswell) they all set out for a night of fun, well as much fun as you can expect to have in an isolated cemetery. However they soon discover that the legend of the Fang Lady is far from the bedtime story many make out...<br /><br />Edited, executive produced, written & directed by Christopher Abram The Fanglys is a pretty rubbish attempt at a horror film. The script is very predictable, dull & doesn't deliver any sort of entertainment value whatsoever, in the right hands & with a decent budget The Fanglys could have been an effective horror film but as it is it isn't. It moves along at a fair pace but the on-screen 'action' is so poor that it doesn't matter, I don't quite know what else to say other than The Fanglys is a really bad film & I can't see anyone getting any sort of enjoyment out of it. The dialogue is basic, the character's are clichéd & lifeless while as a whole the film seems a lot longer than the 90 minutes running time. There are a few lame attempts at humour which don't sit that well along side the horror elements & what was that retard keeping in that cage? I'd imagine the budget didn't allow the filmmakers to show it. Oh, if you want to know what happens to Jerry at the end then you'll have too keep watching past the end credits as the lame truth is revealed, assuming you can actually make it that far of course (believe me it takes some doing).<br /><br />Director Abram doesn't do anything special. Abram thinks bathing scenes in neon light is stylish, I can tell him that it isn't when your film is supposed to be set in the woods. There's no atmosphere, scares, tension, excitement or any of the elements that makes a good horror film good. Forget about decent gore, there's a bit when someone eats some skin off an arm & a pitchfork stuck through someones throat.<br /><br />Apparently The Fanglys had a filming budget of $2,837 which makes it one of the lowest budget films ever to have a commercial release, & to be brutally honest it shows. What about the retarded guy & his false joke shop teeth that look ridiculous? The terrible special effects, the camcorder cinematography & the terrible acting from everyone involved that makes it even more of a pain to sit through.<br /><br />The Fanglys is straight-to-video crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever & it's low IMDb user rating score is fully justified, it's one of those films that within half an hour I was looking at the clock & wishing the thing would just finish. | 0 |
10,969 | [
700,
800
] | 671 | 771 | CUJO is a movie adaptation of a novel of the same name written by Stephen King.<br /><br />I've never read the novel but just scanning the comments page has given me some insight. I noticed a reference to the change in the ending.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is as follows - a St. Bernard dog gets bitten by a rabid bat and goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />The plot sounds quite worn now, having been done in various movies. However it might have been something new when King wrote the novel. Or perhaps King's novel put a twist on the story that was never shown in the movie.<br /><br />Anyway, the first 40 minutes of this movie have nothing at all worth mentioning other than the dog being bitten. Nothing else happens - nothing scary, nothing funny, nothing to add depth to the characters and nothing interesting in any other respect. I found this section difficult to sit through and was constantly shouting at the TV, "come on, get started!". The events that I was seeing on the screen were reminiscent of a TV movie of the drama genre or an extended episode of a TV soap opera. Unfortunately, there was only one family in the movie given any focus so it couldn't even work on a soap opera level. The dog was the best character in the movie, but it didn't get enough screen time in this section. There was nothing to indicate why this dog would go on a killing spree later.<br /><br />After the 40 minute mark point, something finally happened. The dog suddenly transformed from a lovable pet into a vicious killing machine. It began attacking some people. There was also an interesting cat-and-mouse chase when two characters became trapped in a car, unable to leave because the dog would attack them. Even in this overly long second half, the suspense would build up well before dying again. It was just a stop-go situation repeated over and over again until the movie reached its conclusion.<br /><br />Without giving the ending away, I can tell you it was very formulaic and unworthy of a Stephen King story.<br /><br />The suspense scenes when they are on the screen are exciting to watch. Some great camera angles add menace to the dog's vicious nature when he attacks people. This is particularly important because as others have mentioned a St. Bernard dog is nowhere near as scary as, say, a Rottweiler. Unfortunately, the movie fails to utilise suspenseful music to support the images on the screen. The music is far too melodramatic rather than suspenseful. This may fit a TV movie but it looks incredibly out of place in what should be a dark-toned movie presenting a living nightmare to the viewer.<br /><br />This brings me on to a wider problem with this movie - the photography. The camera-work and especially the choice of colours make this seem like a very cheap TV movie one would expect to see as the daytime movie on Channel 5 here in the UK where I am writing this comment from.<br /><br />The top two actors deliver good acting performances that help to breathe life into the movie's dull segments. Dee Wallace and Danny Pintauro should be given credit for doing a great job with the poor material they are given. I could forgive a few brief moments of overacting by paying closer attention to the dialogue, which could not have allowed any other interpretation in my opinion. I won't pass judgement on the other actors because they are given virtually nothing to do.<br /><br />As someone who is a fan of SALEM'S LOT and STEPHEN KING'S IT, both movie adaptations of famous Stephen King novels, I had high expectations for this movie. But it turned out to be a massive disappointment.<br /><br />Overall, I do not recommend fans of Stephen King or horror movies in general to watch CUJO. This is one of those moments where I have to recommend the book rather than the movie. Hopefully it brings the story to life in a way that the movie failed to do. | 0 |
11,009 | [
700,
800
] | 646 | 774 | OK, so I'am chilling in my room when mom knocks on the door. I open the door and what do I see in her hands? "SLEEPY HOLLOW HIGH". I thinking it has to be an older horror movie, because there's noway anyone could be stupid enough to name a movie that after The blockbuster hit "Sleepy Hollow" starring Johnny Depp. But to my surprise the movie is at least two years older then the original. That alone should have stopped me from putting it into the V.C.R. But no I had to take a chance, I had to believe that this movie could have one small ray of hope. Little did I know that the rays where no where to be seen.<br /><br />Number one, the story line is so ridiculous that it's probably true in some country bumpkin town. Two, the actors seem more like people real life people who just happen to wonder on the set when the director yell cut. Three, just about any movie starring the director is always awful. But the funny thing is that this is yet another movie directed by Kevin Summerfield. I've become to rely on his movie to bring me to the floor with side splitting laughter.<br /><br />Where to start on this movie? I know, let's start with the jogger in the woods. The camera lighting was so bad that I lead to believe that the jogger was standing still and the camera man was running. I love how the woman's stop to eat a candy bar. I mean it's just about dark, or just about light, who could tell with the camera lighting. And she stops running to eat a candy bar, I mean a CANDY BAR WHAT THE HELL. So she ends up being the first victim because of stupidity, and already I'am ready to break the tape, find the director, burn his little hands.<br /><br />Then out of nowhere some guys like trying to fix a car that probably been broken for some years now. Then in come the fake Mack 10 and a very real prostitute, who happen to be part of our main charter cast.<br /><br />The some of the movie is about a group of kids who all get into trouble. And are given the choice to pick up trash in the Sleepy Hollow park or face suspension forever. There sent in the woods with one of the teachers(Mr.E or a.k.a Kevin Summfield) who suppose to watch over them and make sure that all goes accordingly. The funniest thing is how undeveloped the charters really are. I mean what is with the fake Mack 10 dude and who's ever heard of Hacker trying to kill themselves. And some how one of the students has had an affair with the teacher Mr. E, before all of this community service crap had even came up. Yet the school still thought it was a cool idea for them to let him go. Also there's one student named J who purpose in the movie is to keep annoyingly popping up out of no where trying to make the audience jump, when all he really does is add to the cheapness of the film. The sound was so horrible in this movie. I mean there was one seen when two guys are fighting, and the guy punches the other guy in the stomach, and out of the T.V. comes this sound effect that sounds like someone punching a stale wooden box. It began horribly and ended dangerously stupid, even my taste. I will say this though, the music in the back ground made the scenes look some what tolerable. But not that much tolerable. My conclusion is this, if you want to left at yet another movie that Kevin Summfield took serious buy "Sleepy Hollow High.<br /><br />P.S I'am still thinking about shooting myself to remove those images of the fake Mack 10. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH | 0 |
11,100 | [
700,
800
] | 649 | 778 | Oldboy is set in Korea & starts as a drunken Dae-su Oh (Min-Sik Choi) is bailed out of the police station by his friend only to be abducted, Dae-su wakes up & finds himself in a small room which he will be imprisoned in for the next fifteen years. Dae-su is fed & looked after by his unknown captors but is never allowed out of the room, Dae-su begins to train himself to avenge himself after he gets out which he intends to do by scrapping away the cement from the brickwork with a chopstick. However before Dae-su finishes he is gassed & rendered unconscious, when he wakes up Dae-su finds himself free on the roof of a tall building dressed & all moneyed up. Dae-su instantly sets about trying to find out who imprisoned him, after meeting the pretty Mido (Hye-jeong Kang) the two fall in love & together with her help Dae-su finally finds what he is looking for but the truth comes at a price...<br /><br />This South Korean production was co-written & directed by Chan-wook Park & has gotten any number of glowing reviews (the sort that distributors can pick quotes out & plaster them on the video box) & even won the Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes while it was also nominated for the Golden Palm so surely Oldboy is a true classic? Well not for me it isn't since as I can't understand why it's so liked & I would go as far as to say I pretty much hated it apart from one or two isolated moments. For a start I couldn't get into the story at all, I just didn't like it as I thought it was slow & boring & while many out there would have you believe Oldboy has the bestest most shocking twist ever I thought it was rather plain & not very well executed either. The ending in which Dae-su goes to the New Zealand Alps to be hypnotised feels tagged on as well almost as if the makers wanted some sort of happy ending. At almost two hours I almost fell asleep I was so bored, the violence is tame & it's the thought of what's happening that I would imagine most people have a problem with rather than what is actually shown. In fact Oldboy has a very low body count of about seven & one mild sex scene, it's really not that graphic or memorable. I didn't warm to any of the character's & while I accept Oldboy has an alright concept & premise it fails to deliver & it's one film that I will never understand why so many people seem to like.<br /><br />Based on a Japanese Manga of the same name Oldboy the film looks alright, there's one or two nice visual moments here although while everyone raves about the hallway fight that takes place in one continuous shot I was pretty unimpressed & thought the fight choreography was quite dull. The actual on-screen gore violence amounts to very little, Dae-su eats a live Octopus which is apparently quite normal in Korea anyway, there are some fight scenes, a severed hand, someones teeth are pulled out & there's a bit of blood at the end.<br /><br />The budget was supposedly around the $4,000,000 mark which is actually a fair bit, filmed in South Korea & New Zealand. The acting looks alright but it's hard to tell when actors are speaking a different language.<br /><br />Oldboy is a film that I found an absolute chore to sit through, I don't mind subtitled films or foreign films or paying attention to the plot as I followed the thing perfectly but I just didn't like any of it & it's as simple & straightforward as that. Apparently the second in director Choi-wook Park's revenge trilogy which also includes Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) & Lady Vengeance (2005). | 0 |
11,158 | [
700,
800
] | 618 | 766 | The first time I saw this was when I was with a date, and she thought it was an awesome movie. I didn't.<br /><br />The second time I saw this was last night on TV. It still sucks.<br /><br />As a love story this sucks. As having Julia portray a street hooker, this is repulsive. To me she was a librarian with a miniskirt and heels. She had no tough shell to her. She wasn't tortured, anguished, enraged, starving or anything else. Her "HOOKER" character was so flawed, like comparing a cubic zircon to a diamond. The two simply don't fit, no matter what they look like.<br /><br />The ONLY cast I felt was worth watching was the 2 bitchy saleswomen, whom were excellently cast. They did such a fine job that I hated them for the few seconds that they were on screen. They had real definition, for the minor roles. OK, so the movie wasn't entirely trash...the two ignorant saleswomen saved the film.<br /><br />Aside from those two women sales people, the rest of the cast...including the big names was just crap. Either everybody was an ass-kisser or had absolutely no reason to fill any dialog in the movie aside from just complimenting Julia Roberts or kissing ass to Richard Gere.<br /><br />This was a movie about how when you walk around in high-heels and a tight skirt in Beverly Hills, people leer at you and guys who work in hotels gawk as if they just had a baseball bat struck to their face.<br /><br />While in reality, the women who are dressed to the nines in Beverly Hills are hookers and prostitutes to a higher degree, but since they aren't wearing the gaudy Madonna looking jewelry or the patent boots, they can look down on the others who do.<br /><br />The hotel cast was sickeningly sad to watch, and anybody who had any real character had less than a minute of screen time.<br /><br />This is an insult to romantic movies, comedies, dramas and even to prostitutes who face wealthy customers on a daily basis with hopes of having their lives work out perfect.<br /><br />The story is about Julia Roberts being PIMPED (yes PIMPED) by a multimillionaire in a business suit and limousine.<br /><br />She is still owned, still told how to act, how to move, what to wear, what to say, where to go and what to do. He is more controlling than a street pimp, but the folks at Disney/buena vista butter it up to make it easier to swallow.<br /><br />Had Richard Gere been a black man with a gold tooth and an AK-47 at his side instead of an attaché case, this movie would be about how a woman has to struggle to get away from the harshness of prostitution. Same story, different characters will make a very different outlook.<br /><br />Oh yeah, change the white man for a black man or Asian or Spanish, have the land business deal be changed to a deal of weapons or narcotics and the entire concept of romantic comedy is thrown away.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Pretty Woman is still trash, dressed with ribbons and bows.<br /><br />I didn't like it 15 years ago, when I didn't understand it and was led by the Hollywood hype. I hate it now that i can see past the pretty decorations that is called "love".<br /><br />This movie is NOT a romantic comedy. It's a story on how to control a woman as long as you have the means and income to do so.<br /><br />This is an insult to strong women, weak women and women in general, as well as to my television screen.<br /><br />Do I hate it? Yes. Does it suck? Yes Would I recommend it to you? NO...well maybe if I really hated you.<br /><br />Will this review get posted? We'll see.<br /><br />Anywayz, that's all for now. | 0 |
11,190 | [
700,
800
] | 619 | 733 | Ask a thousand people what the greatest unintentional comedy of all time is, and they will almost invariably tell you Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 From Outer Space. They're wrong. American Ninja has those two turkeys beat down for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a script that was quite clearly not thought through. While I fully support the B picture industry for keeping slobs like Michael Dudikoff in work, a little work on the product would have gone a long way.<br /><br />For those who give a rat's posterior, my next few paragraphs will give away significant parts of the plot.<br /><br />First of all, when we are given some background information on the titular hero, we are told his date of birth, next of kin, parents, and so forth, are all unknown. I don't know about you, but I expect the US army to take fact-finding about its personnel a little more seriously. They also manage to screw up the continuity of dates quite effectively, although I don't remember quite which dates were screwed up and when. This is actually one of American Ninja's less obvious flaws.<br /><br />It has been pointed out before, but a common failing of many martial arts films is that when our heroes are confronted by large numbers of antagonists, said antagonists attack one at a time. More recent films such as The Matrix Reloaded defy this convention, but just about every film from the 1980s has the audience screaming, "hey, why don't you attack all at once???". Martial arts films tend to be a lot more impressive when the fights are more extensive than one-on-one.<br /><br />The central premise was originally a joke, but in light of recent events where the US army cannot crush a mob of insurgents simply because they won't delegate to the specialists, it seems strangely ironic. Phillipino renegades are stealing weapons from the US army's local division for sale to wealthy clients. Never mind that such a theft would prompt the army to give the local businessmen responsible, or even believed responsible, an aerial rectal exam, this is a cheesy 1980s action film, after all.<br /><br />By far the funniest part of the film is the climactic battle, however. As Joe and Jackson turn combining posing and fighting into an art form, evil Ninjas start to explode for no readily apparent reason. I agree with one previous commentator in that this film should have been called Ninja Holocaust, because I'm willing to bet a total of at least three hundred evil Ninjas bite it during the film's running time. On top of that, the Black Star Ninja starts fighting with rocket launchers, laser beams, and all sorts of ridiculous implements that are not only poorly thought out, they're flat-out poorly executed. You'll never see a laser beam effect that looks cheaper.<br /><br />What tops it all off is that the film takes itself so damned seriously. During the scene when Joe is meeting up again with his old mentor, I dare the viewer not to laugh at the hideous dialogue. Not that I know any modern practioners of Ninjitsu, but the logical part of my imagination has a hard time believing that they have spoken like this at any time in their history. During this mentoring scene, I half expect the old guy to tell Joe he must prove his manhood by cutting his own head off with a blunt plastic spoon.<br /><br />In all, I gave American Ninja a 1. This is a special score in my system in that it is reserved for the worst, most appalling, most offensive films I've ever seen, or films that make me laugh without even bothering to try. American Ninja is definitely an example of the latter. | 0 |
11,198 | [
700,
800
] | 636 | 750 | Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the "film noir" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) "dupey" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is "sore" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; "Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet." Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do). | 0 |
11,284 | [
700,
800
] | 630 | 730 | While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible "Atomic Twister"), "Meltdown" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.<br /><br />Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment. <br /><br />The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.<br /><br />As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread. <br /><br /> From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.<br /><br />Overall, 3/10 | 0 |
11,445 | [
700,
800
] | 649 | 790 | Michael Bassett's film 'Solomon Kane' (based on the character of the same name created by Robert E. Howard) is a disappointing Fantasy Action-Adventure film, that despite having a few scenes of genius falls flat with its awkward pacing, poor characterisation and general dullness. Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) is a mercenary of Queen Elizabeth's army fighting in Africa, where he comes face-to-face with the Devil's Reaper a demon who collects the Devil's debts i.e. souls refusing to go to hell just yet, he evades the Reaper and starts a new life in an English monastery. With this new life, Solomon has left-behind his culture of violence and bloodshed and instead now embraces the values of peace and non-values. But once he is expelled from the monastery due to the fear of the Devil's Reaper returning, he must travel back to his home in Devon and along the way he befriends a travelling family of puritans heading to the New World. On their journey through the British counties, the family is attacked, and their daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is abducted by the evil sorcerer Malachi's army, which is lead on the front lines by the mysterious Masked Rider. Now a man of peace, Solomon must go back to his former life as a man of unrepentant violence and destruction to save Meredith.<br /><br />Despite having great source material to work from, and build upon to create potentially an exciting and enduring medieval action-adventure film, the film fails in three key areas. The pacing of this film is terrible, which may have a lot to do with its incredibly short run time of only one hour and forty minutes (and this is most likely a consequence of the fact that they wish to turn this film into a trilogy). Constantly jumping between of drama and self-characterisation to that of action and muddy bloodshed, somewhat kills the excitement of the action sequences. Instead of keeping the audience on the edge of their seats frothing with the eagle-eyed anticipation, the film instead feels incredibly subdued and, this follows on the next piece of criticism, dull. Despite being touted as an 'action-adventure' film or in some circles an 'action-epic', 'Solomon Kane' is almost most certainly not. The action is mundane and dull, and is generally finished before you have the chance to admire the beauty of a decapitation. Finally, aside from Solomon himself, there is very little characterisation within this film. For example we know little and because of this, care little, about the young woman that Soloman sets out on his journey to save. And I imagine again the filmmaker would refer this criticism to the fact that there is most likely going to be a second film which will hopefully touch upon these aspects that this film surely missed.<br /><br />It isn't an entirely terrible film however. James Purefoy is gives a fantastic performance as Solomon, the mercenary who must decide whether or not to fall back on his conscience or his blade, and how his decisions will impact not just upon himself, but those around him as well. While respect, admiration, and acknowledgement must also go to Bassett and his crew as well, for creating vivid locations that beautifully reflects the period in which they are filming. At times, it is hard not to get carried away with admiring the beauty of the locations, shot composition and mise-en-scene at show here. Which certainly shows that a lot of time and effort has been placed into this film, unfortunately however that is not to say the same for the story and characters at hand. 'Solomon Kane' certainly had the potential to be something more than simply an 'action-epic,' however it seems that once again the lack of any real depth in the story and characters has resulted in Michael Bassett creating nothing more than a one-dimensional look at swordplay during the Medieval period. | 0 |
11,538 | [
700,
800
] | 542 | 707 | Let's get things straight. I was raised Catholic, and in a very religious family, and spent as much time at church and talking to priests as at home. That was useful for two things: to make a convinced Atheist out of me, and to give me deep, insightful knowledge about the Church and its dogmas. And I say: if a Catholic priest witnesses a murder, and clearly sees the face of the killer, he CAN report it to the police, even if the murderer has confessed to him afterwards. He can not reveal what he's told in confession, but he CAN talk about anything he sees outside that, and confession is useless to keep his mouth shut. So, here we have a movie entirely sustained on a lie. And another lie is there's no absolution for murder. According to the Catholic Church, there's absolution for any sin as long as there's sincere repentance. So far, the biggest plot holes in this weak thriller.<br /><br />As people frequently say, this movie would have improved if Bob Hoskins and Alan Bates had switched roles. Hoskins is naturally suitable to play gangsters (I will never lament enough that he lost Al Capone in favor of one of De Niro's weakest performances in "The Untouchables") and Bates' features would have been perfect as the priest with a gray past. But above that, I think the film would have been much better had real-life Ulster native Liam Neeson (back then mostly unknown to big audiences) played Mickey Rourke's part. Not only his face is perfect to play tormented characters, but he'd make us believe the character as real, something Rourke just can't. Back in the 80s, Rourke was not a bad actor (afterwards he seemed to lose his talent along with his looks), but he was one of those performers, like Brad Dourif, who's as good as the director he works with. And as a former IRA terrorist, Rourke's acting comes across more like a pimp. Sad to think that, had this movie been made just some three to six years later (when Neeson achieved moderate celebrity status in 1990 with Sam Raimi's enjoyable "Darkman", and superstardom in 1993 with "Schindler's List", while Rourke became pretty much of a forgotten has-been), Liam and Mickey could have switched parts to greater benefit (Rourke would have been effective in the supporting role of Docherty, but just can't carry this movie along as the lead). Yet another missed opportunity, and yet another film with the potential of being a classic, that became instantly forgettable fare.<br /><br />Ironically enough, the often criticized score (by underrated composer Bill Conti) worked for me. I didn't find it overly-melodramatic, but suitably gritty and beautiful. It reminded me of Howard Shore's score for "The Silence of the Lambs". Here's to Mike Hodges' talent, who made "Get Carter", yes, but don't forget he's the mastermind behind "Flash Gordon" as well...<br /><br />It seems the film was massacred in the cutting room (it shows, as some parts are really choppy and confusing, and others just don't glue) and a Director's Cut is waiting to see the light. OK, but I seriously doubt that will make it a great movie, as we'll still have the bad casting and the false premise there. 4/10. | 0 |
11,565 | [
700,
800
] | 588 | 718 | This was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the "screwball" pictures of the 1930s.<br /><br />Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.<br /><br />First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous the "ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.<br /><br />Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table but such moments are few and far between.<br /><br />Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where "Queen of Screwball" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.<br /><br />The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well. | 0 |
11,567 | [
700,
800
] | 567 | 706 | First: a warning.<br /><br />I recently saw this movie on DVD in the Universal 'Hitchcock Collection' series. The source print looks to be in immaculate condition, but the image is a bit soft, suggesting it might be a second generation copy straight from video. The framing is far too tight, so all the compositions are terrible. Even the title of the movie is cropped. I gather from other IMDb reviews that there is a much better version available.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is just a footnote to Hitchcock's career.<br /><br />In his lengthy interviews with Francois Truffaut in the Sixties, Hitchcock gave a comprehensive overview of his whole body of work, but all he could say about this picture is that he did it as a favour to Carole Lombard and that he didn't understand the characters so just photographed Norman Krasna's screenplay.<br /><br />In truth, there is not much more that needs to be said.<br /><br />It is a screwball comedy out of the same mould as It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday and Philapdelphia Story. Carole Lombard is a typically feisty wife who learns that her marriage is technically invalid, falls out with with her husband on the flimsiest of pretexts and spends most of the picture being 'adorably' unreasonable.<br /><br />Robert Montgomery does well enough as the put upon husband, but it is hard not to lose patience with him. Long before the end of the movie the audience is saying: "dump the silly cow, she's not worth it."<br /><br />Gene Raymond plays the best friend with whom she becomes engaged. He is supposed to be a courtly, 'old family' Southerner, although this is not obvious from his accent and only really becomes apparent in the drunk scene (which he otherwise plays very well). He is an honourable, generous, teetotal gentleman, so of course he is bullied and patronised by Robert Montgomery and made the butt of many of the jokes - although he is not as badly treated as the similar Ralph Bellamy character in His Girl Friday.<br /><br />This movie feels like it was made by people who only knew of screwball comedies by reputation, but hadn't actually seen one. For example, a good screwball comedy has a strong central idea with a number of on-going comic threads that continually intertwine and overlap. Here, all the comedy elements are just strung out, like beads on a necklace. This is screwball comedy by the numbers.<br /><br />It is the same with the direction. Typically, these comedies race along at an ever increasing pace that rises to near hysteria by the end. Hitchcock doesn't get this. His direction is somewhat lethargic and the picture becomes a stately succession of scenes that all seem slightly over-written (but under-nourished) and slightly too long. He was never a particularly good director of actors so he just lets the cast get on with it. They do OK.<br /><br />Hitchcock had a good sense of humour, which he frequently used in his thrillers, but he had no feel for comedy as a genre. His later Trouble with Harry was also a misfire, for similar reasons to this movie, but at least he was involved in that picture. Here he is just going through the motions.<br /><br />All the people connected with this movie were good solid professionals so it is not especially bad. It just feels a bit derivative, over-familiar, over-long and ultimately rather flat.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is one for Carole Lombard fans and Hitchcock completists only. | 0 |
11,630 | [
700,
800
] | 594 | 729 | Princess Warrior is a science fiction action movie with a pretty thin plot-essentially on the death of their queen mother two sisters, one evil and one good, fight for control of the throne. The good sister is being beaten so she escapes to Earth where she appears buck naked in a strip club in the middle of a wet t-shirt contest. The rest of the movie is basically one long chase scene, as the evil sister tries to find and kill the younger good sister. But the younger sister is helped by Bob, a good-hearted DJ, and everything is complicated by police involvement and the good sister's ignorance of Earth customs and culture. The older sister catches up to her younger sibling several times but the latter manages to escape and go on the run again. Throughout all of this action, there is a cult of women on the home planet having some kind of a space age séance to bring the good sister back. Sadly a good portion of this film seems to be rather boring car chase scenes as they drive around Los Angeles (and what was that sound effect when the police car crashed???) The film culminates in another physical fight between the sisters with a predictable ending.<br /><br />It seems to borrow elements from Star Wars (the light sabers and the look of the girls' home planet in the opening and subsequent scenes), Dr. Who (the phone booth like means of transportation) and some of the costumes (from the cult on the home planet) could have been taken from Star Trek episodes.<br /><br />Ms. Dana Fredsti (the evil sister in the movie) in another user comment mentioned "the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent." I couldn't state it any better. The only thing I would add is that the music in this scene is just plain annoying.<br /><br />Most of the acting is pretty over the top, but that seems to suit the whole style of the movie. The actors playing Vinnie and Vito were just too much for me-I just found them annoying. Ms. Fredsti (Curette) seemed to be enjoying herself and not taking the whole thing too seriously, in contrast to Sharon Lee Jones who acted decently but seemed to be taking everything more seriously. All of the police were portrayed as bumbling idiots, presumably to add comic relief, which is a bit unnecessary, given that the whole movie was rather comical.<br /><br />From a ratings perspective, this film had a lot of foul language; some topless women and others scantily clad in thongs, but not enough skin to satisfy those who are looking for nudity; one sex scene that was portrayed in a non-graphic arty dreamlike fashion; and little violence-while there were threats of violence throughout, the scenes of both sword fighting and brawling were exaggerated, and too camp to be "offensive", though it looked like the actors were having a lot of fun with it.<br /><br />I have to wonder who came up with the character names? Ovule (a small egg), Curette (a surgical instrument used for scraping and cleaning), Exzema (suspiciously similar to a disease characterized by scaling skin and pruritus), Bulemia (an eating disorder with binging and purging) and Rickettsia (another disease)? <br /><br />Overall, this is a bad, low budget, campy, sci-fi action movie, but it did keep me entertained, though I might need a few drinks before watching it again. | 0 |
11,671 | [
700,
800
] | 641 | 751 | I know that the original Psycho was a classic and remaking it was a mistake, ESPECIALLY a shot-by-shot remake. I think that that has been more or less proven by the rest of the comments here. But there's far more wrong with this movie than just that.<br /><br />The first problem is the color. The original film was shot in black and white but, what few people realize is, the original was shot AFTER color film had been invented. The choice of black and white film was partially a budget concern, but it was also a stylistic choice of Hitchcock's. Now, this is not to say that the remake should have been redone in black and white, but the colors of this movie are all too wrong. The most predominant colors in the film are orange and green, particularly on Marion who is not supposed to be a flashy character. The bright colors make it look like a happy movie and, when horrific events take place in these color schemes, it looks like a cartoon more than anything and the audience is inclined to laugh rather than scream.<br /><br />The second problem is the lighting. This is a dark dark tale which should be highlighted by dim lighting, but this remake seemed not only to fail in this but seemed to go in the OPPOSITE direction. Most of the scenes are very brightly lit, even at times when it is illogical to do so because it's at NIGHT!<br /><br />Another obvious problem is Vince Vaughn's performance. Yes, he does pull off Norman Bate's awkwardness and madness quite well, I don't deny him that. But there is one element to the character that he failed to show: the softness. There should be a certain deceptive friendliness to the character, at least at first, which then fades away once we realize the truth about him. Beyond being a character trait of Norman Bates, this is a recognized character trait of ALL PSYCHOPATHS!!!!<br /><br />There are a few good aspects of this film. Some of the performances are great. As I said, Vince Vaughn came very close to pulling off a decent portrayal of Norman Bates. Viggo Mortensen and Juliane Moore were great together and their chemistry was very different from the characters in the original, which was a welcome change. Anne Heche may have been atrocious but, unlike Janet Leigh who was untruthfully advertised as one of the biggest stars of the film, Anne Heche was given last billing in the opening credits.<br /><br />I read on the cover of a copy of the Psycho novel that Gus Van Sant claimed this was not a remake of the Hitchcock film but rather a new adaptation of the original novel. I now wish that I had bought that book and saved the comment because, after seeing this film, that comment is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen. There was no attempt in this film to disguise the fact that it was a rip off of the original, and it would be far more believable if Van Sant had tried to tell us that he was really a three ton ape from the planet Zafroomulax. So many shots were copied exactly without any actual thought as to why Hitchcock had composed the original shot in that way. Such as the scene in which Sam and Lila are talking while their faces are entirely covered in shadow. Hitchcock covered these actors' faces in shadow because he thought they were bad actors and wanted to hide their faces so nobody could see their awful performances, not because of any artistic or stylistic purpose.<br /><br />In other words, my review is about as pointless as the movie itself in that it replicates something that's already been said. Like everyone else here, I reccommend you don't waste your time on this film and get the original. | 0 |
11,716 | [
700,
800
] | 609 | 762 | The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.<br /><br />To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's "The Real World: Tudor England!" <br /><br />Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was "that girl" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY! <br /><br />Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product. <br /><br />The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.<br /><br />*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage. | 0 |
11,976 | [
700,
800
] | 649 | 794 | Scarecrow Gone Wild starts as high school teenager Mike (David Zelina) & his mates decide to to give a 'hazing' to wimpish diabetic Sam (Caleb Roehrig) as an initiation of some sort. Mike & his mate decide to take Sam to a corn field, tie him to a cross next to a freaky looking scarecrow & leave him there all night, sounds like fun right? Well, things backfire when Sam goes into a diabetic coma after suffering from a hypo & the vengeful spirit of Sam passes into the scarecrow which comes to life & starts to hunt down the kids responsible for Sam's unfortunate life-threatening predicament. Can Sam's best mate Jack (Matthew Linhardt) & his girlfriend Beth (Samantha Aisling) save the day & Sam's life?<br /><br />Written & directed by Brian Katkin Scarecrow Gone Wild is the third straight-to-video entry in the Scarecrow series & while I haven't seen either of the previous two after seeing Scarecrow Gone Wild I'm certainly in no hurry to change that situation that's for sure. The script actually has an almost decent premise as the wronged soul of Sam seeks revenge & his friends have to keep the real Sam alive somehow but the way it is told is poor & I suppose that basically it's just an irrelevance to the fact that this is a film about a killer scarecrow running around killing people in not very gory or imaginative ways. Having said that there are one or two scenes here which save it from a one star rating, the fart gag in the corn field is funny & something a lot of immature blokes might do (like me), the bit when two guys bury their mate in the sand & then stand over him & pee on him is also rather funny in a laddish juvenile way & a cool bit when some guy starts singing an awful song so the scarecrow throws a pole which impales him! However these OK bits are few & far between & as a whole it's a silly, boring, poorly written teen slasher film with highly annoying character's who irritate. It' also very predictable & has a stupid twist ending which doesn't really feature the scarecrow at all which is a problem as when you watch a film called Scarecrow Gone Wild you expect to see a scarecrow go wild & I have to admit he looks quite cool as horror character's go.<br /><br />Director Katkin does a reasonable job here actually although what on Earth is up with that hospital at the end & all that neon lighting everywhere & the fact there is only one patient there & two members of staff? The cinematography is much better than the usual straight-to-video low budget horror film of late & there's some nice, if totally unrealistic, lighting. The film lacks any real scares or tension & some of the medical terminology used throughout is a bit iffy to say the least & I say that as an insulin dependant diabetic myself. There's not much gore here, there's a couple of scenes where some actor has some fake guts placed on their stomach to represent them being gutted but it looks pretty fake, there's also a burned face & a couple of impalement's but little else. There's a fair amount of naked female breasts on show if that's your thing.<br /><br />Technically Scarecrow Gone Wild is pretty good considering some of the low budget abominations I've sat through recently, unfortunately it's still a poor film overall. The least said about the acting the better.<br /><br />Scarecrow Gone Wild isn't as bad as some of the straight-to-video horror crap that's been turning up recently but having said that it's not that much better & it's still a bad film when all said & done. Not recommended, the two previous entries are Scarecrow (2002) & Scarecrow Slayer (2003) both of which also went straight-to-video. | 0 |
12,202 | [
700,
800
] | 597 | 796 | Spoof films have come so far since Mel Brooks in 'The Producers' (1968) said "Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Come and join the nazi party". It brought us delightful films, such as 'Young Frankenstein', 'Airplane!', and even 'Naked Gun'. But the good die young. Luckily, the genre managed to make it all the way up to the end of the 90's. And then... the Wayan's Brothers unleashed the apocalypse: 'Scary Movie'. Suddenly the word spoof was an innuendo for crude sex jokes. Most movies claiming to be spoofs since then have followed suit, including 'Scary Movie 2', 'Date Movie' and the film to kill the genre 'Epic Movie'. Sure, there have been some reliefs. There was 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'. Will Ferell has become a vehicle spoofing close to every sport imaginable. Also, the Wayans Brothers quit the 'Scary Movies' and they have been made by the dependable Zucker Brothers. While these films have held some value in the rescue, the genre is tragically doomed to be films only loved by prepubescent males who just discovered what an erection is. People who haven't explored the term 'spoof' and cut and paste movies together for a quick laugh. No heart, no brain, just cheap glue. Sadly, 'The Comebacks' has been added to the list. Dave Koechner (Who starred in 'Anchorman' alongside Ferrell) leads a teams of underdogs to win against a coach (Carl Weathers of 'Happy Gilmore' fame) who got him back into coaching. Koechner has shown promise as a supporting actor, but as a lead in this film, he just sounds scripted. He sounds too much like he's doing a cold read passionately. Also, the jokes about being a washed up coach, who through the course of the movie encourages the team to fail in school and later runs from the police in his underwear, have been done before. Yes, this is a spoof film. But let us remember that even spoofs can have quality. Give the characters dignity and a sort of sophisticated view on modern society. Also, the reliance on stereotypes is not going to get us any more laughs (who knew one movie with jive-talking people could lead to gangster stereotypes (not really, but you see)). While I will admit to laugh at least a few times... it wasn't on par. The football team within itself had a lot of stereotypes, including a Mexican, a cocky jock, a fat guy, the scrawny nerd, and the mentally handicapped aid. Even the only female on the team got reduced to stereotypical female humor, being mostly scantily clad and giving off innuendos. In fact, her character, as well as most of the others, never developed. It's a sad state of affairs for this movie. If only it wasn't so reliant on stupid sex jokes, it could've made something for itself. In fact, this movie will probably be the butt of jokes alongside 'Epic Movie' for time to come. Koechner really deserved better. The script in general was poorly conceived, even naming the championship 'The Toilet Bowl'. So yes. spoof movies are dying. There is a movie called 'Meet the Spartans' (be ahead of the trend, boycott now!) coming out that includes a spoof on Britney Spears' breakdown. So let those kids keep getting erections... but people grow up and lose them. We need sustenance. One day, they will learn to stop spoofing spoofs and restore them. Hopefully, one of the heroes will be 'Get Smart', made by the master Mel Brooks, coming out next year. <br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5 (Stars) | 0 |
12,284 | [
700,
800
] | 532 | 740 | Okay, I guess I'm pretty much a fan of spindled, mutilated, and destroyed Stephen King stories (when they reach the 'Screen') as any of us sad Masochists out here. I KNOW full well that most of them are done poorly. I EXPECT it. I PLAN on it. I humbly allow for it...<br /><br />But, THIS time... GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ... Okay, so I THINK I saw this thing a number of years ago..., fine. I THOUGHT I remembered that it was pretty good... WRONG... Like I'm saying (granted in a wordy, annoying, roundabout way : ) I really wasn't trying to be snobby or expect much, but what was this thing, a Mini-Series? I have only ONE thing to say: D......R.....A.....W......N O.....U.....T How can you POSSIBLY justify dragging the thing out minute by minute, scene by scene of friggin' ENDLESS, completely MEANINGLESS, and mind numbingly SLOW dialog? I mean EVERY bl**dy scene is two people 'DISCUSSING' how they feel and back and forth and D...R...A...G I...T bl**dy well O...U...T After about an hour and a half, which I THINK is about 1/2 of the running time (I didn't check, sorry : ) I FINALLY got totally fed up! After an hour and a half what had happened OTHER than the original accident...? They were running away while the 'Shop' guy was killing eye doctors, news photographers, and LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of meandering dialog.<br /><br />I'm sorry, I promise that it is not that I have to have non-stop mindless action; I love LOTS of films where not much happens, but in them at least when they DO talk and such MEANINGFUL things are being said and characters are being deepened, thoughts are being conveyed... SOMETHING!!!??? Okay, I admit that the actors in and of themselves were not too bad (except Stephen King, of course : ) I liked the Shop guy, I thought both of the 'older' people were fine. I liked the General and the main woman. It's just if they could have cut out all of the HOURS of filler, that's all I'm saying. I mean, it's SUPPOSED to be a Sci Fi Thriller, sort of..., right? you know what really took the prize when the Shop guy was needlessly making one of his MANY time filling telephone calls, this time he is talking to God knows WHO getting all emotional (for him anyway) and acting like he can't handle it... WTF!!!??? The guy has clearly been shown to be a cold blooded, efficient killer. What the HELL was THAT about??? So, just multiply that by about 500 and that is basically why I finally turned if off about half way through; it was either that or hang myself, I swear! I mean there are other King 'adaptations' out there that are lame, but at least they MOVE ALONG...! Oh well, I guess perhaps if you MAYBE are into the 'story' itself and don't mind crawling along and have the SUPREME & DIVINE patience to wait until the end, it might be worthwhile.<br /><br />But, I sincerely and humbly doubt it...<br /><br />I don't write these things very often, but THIS time I just HAD to or I wouldn't be able to sleep at night (like I did DURING the show! : ) | 0 |
12,286 | [
700,
800
] | 540 | 707 | I went to see this film because it was recommended to my wife and she wanted to go.<br /><br />We were both trying to look at our watches well before the film ended, in order to see how much more we had to endure. Two hours and six minutes long, it is. It's divided roughly equally between battle scenes (about a dozen of them, all more or less interchangeable), and plot development.<br /><br />One would have thought that with the subject being the son of a minor tribal chief who conquers half the world, plotting would have been relatively easy. There's a fair bit of raw material there from which to make a pretty good story. However the writers fluffed it completely. We get no real history. We get instead a Hollywood version of history.<br /><br />What sustains young Temudjin through his long -- almost endless, actually, or so they seem to the viewer -- tribulations? Why, the love of a good woman, of course.<br /><br />How does he get out of prison? Well, an old monk, who recognizes his innate goodness and greatness, sets out across the continent to take to this good woman a talisman that symbolises Temudjin's love for her, dropping dead just close enough to her for her to find him as he lies there, talisman in his hand. And of course she then goes and, having (inexplicably) become rich and powerful, rescues him.<br /><br />How does he escape from the shackles? Well, he goes off to the shrine of the great wolf-god Tengri (or some such name) and Tengri sets him free by magic. Yeah, right.<br /><br />Why does he want to become ruler of the Mongols? The wolf-god again, apparently. Off goes Temudjin to ask for guidance, and -- surprise! surprise! -- he gets it. "Laws," he says to himself. "What the Mongols need are laws. Good, simple ones." Golly, it was impressive.<br /><br />And then finally, how does he win the decisive battle against his rival's more powerful forces? Better tactics, certainly, but also through the aid of the good old wolf-god again, who sends a storm at the height of the battle. All the troops cower as the thunder rolls and the lightning flashes (Mongols are scared of thunder, you see) -- but not our Temudjin. The troops, completely wowed by his bravery, acclaim him king! <br /><br />I don't know what induces people to keep producing this kind of garbage. The funny thing is it's interspersed with all sorts of gritty realism: lots of slurping of milk, dirt and violence. It's as if the producers of this movie wanted to get the trivial things right so that viewers wouldn't notice how infantile some of the big stuff is.<br /><br />There's heaps of violence in graphic close-up: slashings, impalings, spouts of blood, sprays of blood, clouds of blood -- the blood guys had a great time, actually. Despite the realism, it's impossible to take seriously.<br /><br />I must mention the ludicrous CGI final battle scene. How anyone can think these things look realistic is beyond me. They don't. Oh, and it's all shot in the standard Hollywood style -- breathtaking panoramas for the spectacular scenery, and the super-close-up Stedicam stuff for the battle scenes. And the standard Dolby super-sound-effects of whumps and thumps and the constant low-frequency hum to sustain tension.<br /><br />Tedious.<br /><br />Avoid. | 0 |
12,335 | [
700,
800
] | 650 | 785 | The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.<br /><br />The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: "ooh blood on her" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: "He's a cold blooded murderer!" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.<br /><br />One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has "a great twist ending that's shocking" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the "Hitchcockian thrills" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.<br /><br />I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity. | 0 |
12,422 | [
700,
800
] | 547 | 719 | Yet another version of mother of all gangster flicks-the Classic "Godfather" and yet another case of over-hype due to media circus. Sarkar, the 13th Hindi film of Ram Gopal Varma as director is also the weakest in his Underworld trilogy including the other two being the excellent-Satya and Company. The Charisma, the magnetic persona of the two Bachchans playing father-son duo on screen for the first time is definitely a treat to watch out for. Not just strong performances but their perfect chemistry is the biggest scoring point here for which Varma should be applauded. However, the same equation of the duo is missing with the other characters in the film. Reason-the other characters look more like cardboard caricatures esp. the villains represent the typical Bollywood baddies. A character who attracts attention is elder son played by Kaykay but again not able to hold due to half-baked characterization. . The Drama and conflict is brought alive by the excessive use of Close-shots, which brought a claustrophobic effect rightly needed to construct an ambiance. The haunting Score (Amar Mohile) and the sound design (Kunal Mehta, Parikshit Lalwani & Anup Dev), together with dark, murky background overlapped by shinning powerful images (camerawork by Amit Roy) contributes to Visuals so typical of Ramu's style. But there is an overuse of Music though fortunately no songs are there in the film. But can interest of today's "intelligently growing" audience be sustained just on shoulders of two performers and strong Visuals ? I don't think so. Surely, audience "maangey more" and here film fails to deliver. In any adaptation, in order to add a new dimension, the biggest pre-requisite is the Screenplay, which is sluggish here not being crisp at places, and therefore the pace slackens quite often. What finally audience is subjected to is a highly predictable, very commonplace drama with very little surprise elements. Top Stunt director Allan Amin Ghani is also not in his best form. Some scenes which require a different treatment includes- a Minister is talking foul about Sarkar and the son is overhearing; a very amateurish shoot out in the jail on Sarkar, Sarkar Jr. escapes from the clutches of his enemies, a Son easily motivated to kill his own father, a son is secretly entering his father's room to kill him, a police commissioner slapping Sarkar Jr-all this requires a more realistic, hard-hitting approach which is the back-bone to create the required conflict. The dialogues are weak for eg. look at an amateurish line where a CM says to Sarkar Jr. "Wo jo Police Commissioner tha na usay maine hata diya".. The women folk take on Sarkar's working is completely ignored. The uninterrupted negotiations about criminal activities while Sarkar is with his family also look slightly out of place In fact, the film follows a graph quite similar to Ramu's own production-Ab Tak Chhappan. In depicting the battle between good and evil, the other side of life-the law, police, administration, politics is completely ignored. Certainly, more is expected in content. Here the film definitely falls short and could not rise above an average fare. Dear Ramu, agreed that now you are laughing your way to the bank, you definitely need to take some drastic overhauling measures in your film production factory, before it is too late. | 0 |
12,432 | [
700,
800
] | 558 | 704 | Hailing from 1988, Touch Of Death is probably the most frustrating Fulci film I've seen to date, prompting me to join the chorus of horror fans who generalise that his films get worse as you get later into his career. Considering the plot synopsis, I was expecting some bloody bad-natured fun with this one, but for all its bizarre flourishes, it feels tedious even at a running time of just 80 minutes, and suffers from nauseatingly shabby production values and film-making craft (or lack thereof).<br /><br />El Story: A gambling addict widower wines and dines rich (and strange) women he finds via lonely hearts columns before offing them in gruesome fashion - sometimes eating them or feeding them to animals - and stealing their money to keep his debtors at bay. Sure, it's unlikely that just one man would be the host for so much screwed-up pathology all at once (addict, psycho/sociopath, cannibal), but this is Fulci!<br /><br />Touch is actually the cheapest and sparsest looking Fulci film I've seen. There's almost nobody in it, even in the background of shots out on the street, for instance. A newsreader who keeps appearing on the film's televisions to warn the non-existent cast about the maniac's latest doings operates out of the most pathetic TV studio on the planet. He never even gets to look at the camera because has to read all the headlines off misaligned sheets of paper.<br /><br />Some scenes just go on and on with the protagonist muttering to himself about what he's done or what he's about to do, but the acting is nowhere near good enough to sustain this kind of thing, so the main outcome is viewer boredom. The film also looks bland and ugly in general. I've read that it was intended to be an Italian telemovie (did it ever screen in that venue? With the amount of gore involved, it seems unlikely), and it does reek of crappy old telemovie production values.<br /><br />This is also Fulci's first foray into outright black humour, but he's just too graceless a director to make it work. Sometimes conspicuously cheerful or 'wacky' music is used to play against a gruesome scene, for instance while the hero/villain is carving up a dead body in his basement. The effect isn't really chilling or funny or ironic anything that you'd like it to be - it's mostly just hamfisted and crappy.<br /><br />There are of course some redeeming moments of gore (that you'll be waiting for while trying to stay awake), including the eventual murder by oven(!) of a woman who just won't quit life, even after her face has been totally bashed apart with a bloody great club, and a homeless guy who gets a car run back and forth over him about five times. The most outrageous element of Touch, however, is all the physical deformation on the widows courted by the crazy guy. Beards, hairy moles, messy harelips - it's not like he sought out women with these features, it's just the way all lonely hearts widows are, apparently. There are plenty of shots of Mr Crazy secretly grimacing while he's smooching up these women. The black humour of such garish misogyny might have some staying power or resonance if the film wasn't so poorly executed in general. In the end, Touch Of Death just seems like a really lazy, inarticulate mess. | 0 |
12,515 | [
700,
800
] | 590 | 773 | 'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy. <br /><br />'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.<br /><br />International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship. <br /><br />Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language. <br /><br />Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two. | 1 |
12,551 | [
700,
800
] | 584 | 748 | I suppose I like this film as well as any I know; it is not perfect, but under the title "The Americanization of Lily" this charming and memorable semi-musical satire might I suggest have been appreciated more, and still loved by those who recognized its special Blake Edwards'-produced spirit of gentleness, clever humor and solid narrative. The improbably but delightful story-line follows Lili Smith, a fringe-type spy for the Germans in a much simpler and less black-and-white war; Lili Schmidt passing as Smith is helping her Uncle who is patriotic too, for Germany but neither cruel nor political, merely opportunistic. Lili's target is William Larrabee, a charismatic U.S. squadron leader who can supply her valuable information. The plot thickens comes when Lili falls in love with Larrabee, has her eyes opened to the consequences of her playing spy, and sees the effects of combat on wounded men at a hospital and realizes what it might mean to his men whom she has met and likes. She gets jealous of a rival for Larrabee's affections, then realizes she can no longer do what she has been doing and gives up the spy business. The logical end of the film comes when after the terrible WWI has ended, as she sings the theme song of the film, "Wishing" in a darkened theater, one by one the members of Larrabee's squadron appear, including her lover himself, indicating they have forgiven her and their former opponents; and even Uncle Kurt enthusiastically joins in the singing of "It's a Long To Tipperraree", to indicate all is well with the world again. This is an audacious and sometime brilliant story idea, written by director Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty of "John Goldfarb" fame; and it is a delightful narrative. Larrabee's squadron, including an inebriate who keeps crashing and other lovable types populate this lively film; and the feel of this stylish and glowing film is almost epic, both in its scope and realization. Credit must go to Jack Bear and Donald Brooks for their costume creations, Reg Allen and Jack Stevens for sets, Fernando Carrere for another beautiful production design, Henry Mancini for his sensitive and appropriate musical score, and to Russell Harlan for his shining cinematography. In the beautiful footage, the principal actors are Julie Andrews as Lili, Rock Hudson as Larrabee, Keremy Kemp outstanding as Lili's Uncle Kurt, Michael Witney, Lance Percival as the inebriate pilot, gorgeous Gloria Paul as Lili's stripteasing rival, and many other fine actors in smaller parts. It is hard to say enough nice things about the pace, or the cleverness of the just-this-side-of broad comedy; this element is introduced by Edwards to leaven the horrors of actual warfare, to example the almost comic-opera approach with which men made war back in a more innocent-minded era of human civilization.. This comedy also helps prepare the way for Lili's conversion from uncritical acceptance of a duty to the German state to acceptance of the reality of what she is doing and potentially what she may be causing. This is a rare "sense-of-life" film about Lili's "Americanization", her assertion of herself in the real world and then among others before tragedy can happen. It is haunting, I find, and beautiful in many ways. I consider it to be Blake Edwards'masterpiece of directing; and under the title "The Americanization of Lili" I believe with hardly any changes it might have been recognized as the polished sapphire of a film it is by every standard I know. | 1 |
12,574 | [
700,
800
] | 632 | 734 | This movie was very good, not great but very good. It is based on a one man play by Ruben Santiago Hudson..yes he played most of the parts. On paper it looks like stunt casting. Yes let's round up all the black folks in Hollywood and put them in one movie. Halle Berry even produced it. The only name I didn't see was Oprah's ,thank god because it probably would of ended up being like a Hallmark movie. Instead this movie was not some sentimental mess. It was moving but not phony, the characters came and went with the exception of her husband, Pauline and the writer in question. The movie revolved around the universe of Nanny, Mrs Bill Crosby and how she raised the writer and took in people. Now being a jaded New Yorker when he said she took in sick people and old and then we see them going to a mental institution to pick up a man, I'm thinking looks like sister has a medicare scam going. Getting folks jobs and taking the medicare/caid checks But no she explains to Lou Gosset she just wants 25 bucks a week and did not want the money ahead of time. I think that part was put in the movie just for us jaded New Yorkers so we know she is not scamming the poor folks.(g) It was written by a New Yorker so he knows the deal(g).. She almost seems angelic and looking through a little boys eyes I can see why. She is married to a ne'er do well who is 17 years younger and fools around on her. Terrence Howard was born to play these type of parts. He was good but I would like to see him play something different. Markerson who plays Nanny is also very good. But for some reason the person who stood out to me was a small role played by Jeffery Wright. Where is this mans Oscar? He already won a Emmy and a Tony. He was in Shaft and he stole the movie. I did not even know who he was in this movie. He is a chameleon never the same. I never seen him play a bad part yet. This was a 5 minute role and he managed to make me both laugh and cry. I re-winded the scene few times ..one time because I didn't know who he was. His wife Carman Ejogo was excellent. I have seen her in roles before mostly mousy stuff. But she is so good here. I actually know people who act just like her. So it was very real to me Macy Grey who had one of the bigger parts was also very good. I was very happy that they did not kill Nanny off. I thought she was a goner in the beginning of the movie. BUT she was able to go home and start her old routine of taking care of people. There are women like that in most of our lives. People we might know or even lived with. Thank god for them, I do not know how they do it all of the time. I have a friend who lost 2 children and been through a lot of stuff but whenever I am feeling selfishly sorry for myself I call her and she always puts me in a good mood. THis movie is a tribute to all of those people. I only wish they they told us what happened to some of the characters like the the one armed man, Paulines boyfriend who is played by one of my favorite actors on HBO's The Wire, Omar, Rosie Perez's character and Richard the lesbian and Delroy Lindo's one arm man, he was mesmerizing in another small role. | 1 |
12,603 | [
700,
800
] | 594 | 761 | "Sir" has played Lear over 200 times,but tonight he can't remember his opening lines.Sitting at the mirror,his eyes reflect the King's madness. His dresser prompts him gently,mouthing the words.There is an air of desperation about both these men.The great actor knowing his powers are slipping away,his valet cum major domo cum conscience cum surrogate wife - aware of his boss's decline into madness and knowing he is powerless to do more than ease his passing. "The Dresser" is really a love story between the two.Over the years they have become mutually dependent on one another to the extent that neither can conceive a future without the other. Set during the second world war,it concerns the fortunes of a frankly second - rate touring Shakespearean Company comprising an equal number of has - beens and wannabes led by "Sir", a theatrical knight of what might kindly be called "The Old School".Whatever part he is playing he grabs centre - stage and bellows out over the footlights,bullying his audience into applause.But,somewhere inside him,buried most of the time deep beneath the ham he regularly dishes out,there still remains an occasional glitter of his earlier greatness.It is to catch a glimpse of this that his audiences fervently hope for. Mr A.Finney very cleverly concentrates on the ham,often to the point of caricature,and,just when you are ready to dismiss his performance as mere hyperbole and bluster he will produce a moment of exquisite subtlety and vulnerability that makes you realise that a great actor is playing a great actor. The same goes for Mr T.Courtenay.It's easy to write off his portrayal<br /><br />of Norman as an exercise in stereotyping.Here we have a middle - aged effeminate rather than camp theatrical dresser sashaying his way through life,enjoying the company of "The Girls" and loving the wicked Insider gossip rife in "The Theatre".There were - and I strongly suspect still are - many men just like Norman in The Profession.Infinitely kind and patient,knowing more about the plays than many of the actors,they run backstage with wisdom and affection.I believe the vast majority of them would hoot with approving laughter at Mr Courtenay's portrait. I saw "The Dresser" on the London stage where,against the perceived wisdom,Mr Courtenay's "Norman" was rather more subdued than in the movie."Sir" was played by the great Mr Freddie Jones to huge acclaim from the audience.It was a memorable performance that overshadowed Mr Courtenay's,reducing him rather to an "also - ran" as opposed to an actor on level - billing.The idea that "Sir" and "Norman" might be almost incomplete without each other went right out of the window. "Norman" was reduced to being his puppet,which I'm not sure was what Ronald Harwood intended,but made for breathtaking theatre. Messrs Finney and Courtenay redress the balance in the movie,restoring equality to the relationship. Both men have come a long way since their early appearances in the British "New Wave" pictures when they became the darlings of the vaguely Leftish,"middle - class and ashamed of it" movement.When the British cinema virtually committed Hari - kiri in the 1970s they quietly concentrated on the theatre apart from a few roles to keep the wolf from the door.With the renaissance of more substantial movies,they re - appeared,blinking in the unaccustomed bright light.<br /><br />"The Dresser" marked their return,still fizzing with energy and talent, shouting to the world at large "We're still here".It's not a big movie but is assuredly a great one. | 1 |
12,637 | [
700,
800
] | 560 | 727 | This is one of the best musicals of the 1940s. The glorious Technicolor shows off Rita Hayworth's beauty and spectacular hair. She should have made more movies in color, but then Columbia was hardly in a position to splash out money for Technicolor spectaculars.<br /><br />Rita is a WOW as Rusty Parker - she more than keeps up with Gene in some of the most sparkling numbers ever. She also looked beautiful in turn of the century gowns, so she was given a chance to play her own grandmother.<br /><br />The film opens with "The Show Must Go On" - it looks great to me - but Danny McGuire (Gene Kelly) is not impressed. His motto is work, work, work!!! One of the dancers, Maurine (Lesley Brookes) is determined to better herself and is going to audition for Vanity's Golden Wedding Cover Girl Competition. Rusty just happens to find herself at the auditions as well. In a very funny scene Maurine has just had a so so audition and seeing Rusty, gives her a few tips on how to impress the judges!!! "Don't be shy and demure - chatter and sparkle". Rusty does so with gusto!!!<br /><br />They decide on Maurine and go to the show to see her but John Coudair (Otto Kruger) sees Rusty - she reminds him of someone from his past. Cornelia (Eve Arden) is still having nightmares over Rusty's audition. "Whose Complaining" features Genius (Phil Silvers) and the dancers, dressed up as working girls - (Rusty is a cabbie).<br /><br />John is remembering a long lost love (Rusty's grandmother, Maribelle Hicks) the first time he saw her singing "A Sure Thing" - set at the races. Meanwhile Danny, Rusty and Genius are looking for pearls at their local diner. They then launch into the happiest song of the 1940s (in my opinion) - "Make Way For Tomorrow".<br /><br />"Put Me to the Test" is a spirited song and dance number featuring Danny and Rusty. In the meantime Rusty has been chosen Cover Girl and Danny McGuires' is the place to be seen. Lee Bowman appears as Danny's romantic rival and puts a damper on things. Lee Bowman is probably the most boring leading man ever - so Danny never needs to worry.<br /><br />Rusty (dubbed by Martha Mears) sings "Long Ago and Far Away" and it is danced beautifully by Danny and Rusty. The gowns that Rita wears are stunning. Travis Banton and Gwen Wakeling designed them. Danny wants the best for Rusty but is afraid he will lose her. Gene Kelly is also fantastic in the "Alter Ego" number where he dances with himself.<br /><br />"Poor John" is another look back to the turn of the century - it was written in 1906 and is an extremely funny song poking fun at rich relations - Hayworth looks gorgeous in an amazingly quaint outfit. Look for Al Norman in both "Poor John" and "A Sure Thing". He was an amazing eccentric dancer, who appeared in several early musicals, including "King of Jazz" and "Paramount on Parade". He was easy to spot.<br /><br />The "Cover Girl" dance is just wonderful. Rita was so talented - beautiful and a great dancer. After a bevy of beautiful models parade through covers of America's top magazines, Rusty bursts through in a beautiful gold gown dancing down a ramp to the very catchy "Cover Girl" song. Gosh I just LOVE this movie!!!!<br /><br />Highly Recommended. | 1 |
12,674 | [
700,
800
] | 615 | 775 | 1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs, and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died, or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious. <br /><br />During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting, introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic, suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova), reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE in the 40's. <br /><br />This film featured brilliant, breathtaking, and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime, battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film features the famous line, "You can dream when the war is over." In the final sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing "cranes white and gray floating in the sky." <br /><br />The film was released in 1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, "the silence in the theater was profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the doors." <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | 1 |
12,687 | [
700,
800
] | 567 | 765 | The aftermath of World War Two almost resulted in the death of Soviet cinema. In the early years of the 1950s, film production came close to a complete standstill {a mere nine feature-films were released in 1951}, and the work of all filmmakers was closely monitored, and often censored, by the government. Following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, filmmakers were given greater artistic freedom with their pictures, though many remained reluctant to challenge the heroic, optimistic and propagandistic stance towards warfare that had been prevalent in previous years. It wasn't until 1957 that director Mikhail Kalatozov and writer Viktor Rozov became bold enough to produce what is widely-considered the first post-Stalin Soviet masterpiece, 'Letyat zhuravli / The Cranes are Flying,' one of the finest depictions of war I've seen from any country or time period. Not only was the film lauded for its artistic brilliance in the Soviet Union, but international recognition was soon to follow, and Kalatozov's film was honoured with the Palm d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival.<br /><br />'The Cranes are Flying' is both an invigorating visual feast and an audacious, humanistic portrayal of war. Unlike many Soviet war-themed films of the time, it was less constrained by the archetypal figure of the traditional war-time hero, and more concerned with the futility, brutality and, indeed, the inevitability of conflict. Love, as a cinematic concept, is too-often idealised as a notion that somehow conquers all and endures endless hardship, and yet the reality is substantially less romantic. In the film, two lovers, Veronika (Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), separated by the advent of the WWII {widely known in the Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945}, pledge to marry after the war, but tragedy denies the couple their wish. Driven to betrayal by the unending torment and uncertainty of waiting, Veronika agrees to wed Boris' cousin, Mark (Aleksandr Shvorin), a handsome but unworthy youth. The film may conclude with the proud victory of the Soviets, and a patriotic flag-waving parade, but the optimism of this sequence is overwhelmingly eclipsed by the bittersweet tragedy of our young female protagonist, who wanders soullessly through the celebrating crowds.<br /><br />Perhaps the most remarkable feature of 'The Cranes are Flying' is Sergei Urusevsky's inspired and dynamic hand-held cinematography, which realistically and dizzily captures the chaos and confusion of war, not necessarily in the hail of gunfire and the cries of dying comrades {in fact, only one of the film's sequences joins Boris on the Eastern Front}, but from the perspective of the family and friends who are left behind. In one particularly impressive, oft-cited long shot, the camera follows Veronika as she frantically searches for Boris in a crowd of departing recruits and their families. The hand-held camera smoothly follows the girl off a bus, jostles through the crowd alongside her - capturing momentary snippets of loved ones saying farewell to their sons and husbands - before unexpectedly craning above the crowd as Veronika disappears into the dust of a passing squadron of army tanks, a breathtaking movement that offers scope and urgency to the dramatic episode. Urusevsky first acquired his filming experience as a military cameraman during the war, and obviously fell in love with the storytelling possibilities of hand-held photography: "The camera," he once declared, "can express what the actor is unable to portray: his inner sensations. The cameraman must act with the actors." | 1 |
12,766 | [
700,
800
] | 562 | 739 | One of Alfred Hitchcock's three greatest films, along with "Psycho" and "The 39 Steps", "Strangers On A Train" is as brilliantly out-of-control as a merry-go-round in Metcalf, and almost as deadly. It's the kind of film you have so much fun watching, you can't even feel properly guilty about it until you have time to catch your breath.<br /><br />Top amateur tennis contender Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a singularly weird, louche stranger named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Thanks to the gossip pages, Bruno knows all about Guy's problems with his no-good wife Miriam, and rather gaily suggests they do each other a favor: Bruno will kill Miriam and Guy will kill Bruno's father, who wants to put Bruno in an institution. Guy laughs it off, but Bruno ain't kidding, as Guy finds out to his peril.<br /><br />It's a great premise for a murder story, and Hitchcock gives "Strangers On A Train" a run for all its worth, with the help of Walker in perhaps the greatest performance in any Hitchcock film, including Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". While Perkins makes his mark playing tetchily against the grain, Walker as Anthony is one perfectly at home either buttering up old ladies at a swank dinner party or strangling a young woman at an amusement park.<br /><br />What drives Bruno? Many commentators suggest his apparent homosexuality finds a match in pretty Guy. Yes, Bruno lights up the old gay-dar, but Guy seems happy enough on love's rebound with socialite Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Bruno's interest for Guy could just as easily be envy, for someone making a mark in the world while he lives at home, letting Mommy file his nails.<br /><br />"Oh, I certainly admire people who do things," Bruno purrs, looking like a cat eyeing a mouse. "You know, it must be pretty exciting to be so important."<br /><br />Later on, Bruno calls himself a "bum", accurate enough except for our rooting interest in him, even as he wrecks Guy's life with his homicidal meddling. It's the ultimate perverse underdog's tale. There's a sense of integrity about Bruno, in his dogged dedication, which commands our respect and which Hitchcock plays to so brilliantly. When Bruno floats away from the scene of his big crime, am I the only sick person in this world who's actually happy for him? I think not, yet Hitchcock keeps the story on a right-enough path for us to realize how low we have fallen. We don't want Bruno to win, exactly, but we enjoy his élan as he tries.<br /><br />Everything else is so perfect, or at least close enough, to make every shot memorable. Hitchcock always managed at least 2-3 good setpiece sequences per movie; here you get a score of them at the amusement park alone. ("20 Big Shows" the neon side at the entrance says, and they aren't kidding.) Script, camera-work, a gripping tennis match, Ruth Roman's jaw-dropping figure, it's all too much greatness for one film to contain. Even Granger does his callow-youth thing here with more risible plausibility than Gregory Peck ever managed.<br /><br />You can call this a clinic in movie-making, but "clinic" sounds too dull. "Strangers On A Train" is good nasty fun, all the way through, leaving you with a nifty stinger at the tail as you realize you were rooting for the wrong stranger all along. Heck, I'll take that ride over again in a second! | 1 |
12,781 | [
700,
800
] | 618 | 776 | One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then "Prosper Merimee's" well-known story about "Carmen." I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes. <br /><br />From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen. <br /><br />Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies ("A band who put the GYP in gypsy."), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has "spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics." <br /><br />On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that "the mules are the ones with long ears." In case you couldn't tell, I guess. <br /><br />Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as "a brave soldier and lover of women." Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.<br /><br />What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.<br /><br />Soon Carmen enters ("Loved by all men under the age of 96
"), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary. <br /><br />Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.<br /><br />The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work! | 1 |
12,785 | [
700,
800
] | 624 | 779 | *THIS COMMENT WILL PROBABLY HAVE SPOILERS!! I CHECKED THE SPOILERS BOX JUST IN CASE BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SPOILERS, BUT BE AWARE ANYWAYS IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A SPOILER AND I DON'T!* Wow...best game since Super Mario 64. I got this game the first day it came out, and before I got it, I went on some gaming websites to look at its ratings (yes, they already reviewed it before it came out), and I was shocked. I was expecting something like Sunshine because lately all the Mario games have kind of been getting worse and worse. But this one totally beat the other games. The scores on this game even beat Halo 3! It's simply amazing.<br /><br />STORY: Not the best, Mario games are never known for their plots, and this one isn't really much of a difference. Bowser once again kidnaps Peach but this time invades the Mushroom Kingdom on a festival celebrated once every century and gets a flying saucer and it shoots lasers on the ground and then they put anchors inside the ground and rip off the castle and its foundation into outer space.<br /><br />GRAPHICS: Absolutely gorgeous, the best graphics on Wii so far. The water effects are really nice too, if you ever see the water, it looks so real because the effects they put in it.<br /><br />MUSIC: Simply amazing, the music in this game is orchestrated. Not all of it, but even the ones that aren't orchestrated still sound very nice.<br /><br />GAMEPLAY: Very entertaining, keeps you wanting to play more and more, and for me, since usually I tend to be very frustrated with games if I die a lot, I mean, I'm definitely not the only one, but this game for me didn't have that a lot. Now it still kind of did, but not to the point like Mario 64 where I totally go crazy and end up turning off the game because it made me mad, this one never did that.<br /><br />DIFFICULTY: There are two types of difficulty, because you can just technically beat the game with just 60 stars, which I think is kind of easy, but to beat the game 100%, you have to get 120, like always, and that quest is way harder, but at the same time still very fun.<br /><br />LENGTH: Good length, definitely not too short. It took me around 15-16 hours to beat it with just 60 stars, but 120 took me more like 45-50 hours. Now I didn't play it constantly that much, I played first a lot one day, then the next couple of days just a couple hours each day, then the next two days I played it all day. To me though, I think the quest for 60 stars was a tiny bit short, so if you want a long game, I suggest getting all of them.<br /><br />PRESENTATION: Now, the cinematic scenes in this movie are superb. The way they are, it just looks so much like something I would see in the theaters. They are hands down the best cinematic scenes on any Mario game so far.<br /><br />OVERALL: This game is definitely a great game, and I advise you to not wait until Christmas, get it as soon as possible. This game also is a good mixture of old and new, you'll have some sidescroller levels where you move just side to side, or up and down because they'll change on gravity, but even the music has some old classics in it. So this game seems to be like a masterpiece. To me, it's my favorite Mario game of all time, but others may disagree. But it's still a great game. I recommend every gamer who wants to have fun in a game to get this. | 1 |
12,798 | [
700,
800
] | 558 | 716 | In Sri Lanka, a country divided by religion and language, the civil war between the pro-Sinhalese government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a separatist organization, has claimed an estimated 68,000 lives since 1983. Human rights groups have said that, as a result of the war, more than one million people have been displaced, homeless or living in camps. The impact on children and families caught in the conflict is sensitively dramatized by acclaimed Tamil director Mani Ratnam in his 2002 film A Peck on the Cheek, winner of several awards at the National Film Awards in India. While the civil war is merely a backdrop for the story of a young girl's voyage of discovery, the human cost of war is made quite clear and Ratnam gives the fighting a universal context, pointing the finger at global arms traffickers as the source of wrongdoing.<br /><br />Beautifully photographed in Southern India by cinematographer Ravi K Chandran in a setting mirroring the terrain of Sri Lanka, the film tells a moving story about an adopted 9-year old girl who sets out to find her real mother in the middle of the fighting in Sri Lanka. Played with deep feeling and expressiveness by P.S. Keerthana in a memorable performance, Amudha is brought up by a loving middle class family with two younger brothers after her natural parents Shyama (Nandita Das) and Dileepan (J.D. Chakravarthi) were forced to flee when the fighting broke out, leaving her in a Red Cross camp. In a loving flashback, we see Amudha's adoptive parents, father Thiru (Madhavan) a prominent Tamil writer, and mother Indra (Simran) a TV personality, marry to facilitate their adoption of the darker-skinned little girl.<br /><br />Young Amudha has no idea that she is adopted until it is sprung upon her abruptly on her ninth birthday, according to the parents' prior agreement. While she is playing, Thiru tells her almost in a matter of fact tone that "you are not our daughter" and the response is predictable. Distraught, she questions who her father was, what her mother's name was, why she gave her up, and so forth but few answers are forthcoming. Amudha runs away several times until her parents agree to go to Sri Lanka to help her find her true mother, now a fighter for the Tamil separatists. The family's immersion in the reality of the civil war leads to some traumatic moments and difficult decisions, handled mostly with skill by Ratnam, though a sequence where the family was caught in a crossfire felt amateurish.<br /><br />A Peck on the Cheek is of course a Bollywood-style film and that means tons of music and melodrama. The melodrama did not get in the way because of the strong performances by the lead actors; however, I found the musical dramatizations of songs by A. R. Rahman counter to the mood of the film with their slick, high production techniques and fast-paced music video-style editing. Yet the compelling nature of the story and the honesty in which it is told transcend the film's limitations. Tamil cinema has been criticized by many, even within the country as being too clichéd and commercial, yet A Peck on the Cheek is both a film of entertainment and one that tackles serious issues. That it successfully straddles the line between art and commerce is not a rejection but a tribute. | 1 |
12,802 | [
700,
800
] | 576 | 733 | I finally snagged a copy of Kannathil Muthamittal through Netflix and spent New Yera's Eve watching an amazing drama unfold. It began with Shyama (a winsome Nandita Das) getting married to Dhileepan in the backwaters of Sri Lanka and then a war takes over their romance. Shyama has to flee to India and is in a refugee camp as she gives birth to a child. Several years later we see Amudha, a playful well-loved child (P. S. Keerthana), who is the darling (or burden) of teachers, parents and fellow schoolmates alike, in a very How to Solve a Problem Like Maria sequence. On her birthday she is told by her parents Thiru (Madhavan) and Indra (Simran) that she is not their biological child, she was adopted. This tilts her confident love-filled world and she constantly dwells on why her birth mother left her. Several attempts at truancy later the adoptive parents take her to Sri Lanka to try to find her birth mother. The country is torn asunder by a raging civil war and the trio are inevitably caught up in the mess. But this also leads to their meeting the new Shyama - one who finally is confronted by Amudha and asked why she abandoned her daughter.<br /><br />The story of a child who has to grapple with the fact that she was abandoned at birth, her obsessive drive to reconnect with her birth mother, the unconditional love of the adoptive parents, the demons that drive the birth mother, the normalcy of Chennai and the horrors of terrorism ravaged Sri Lanka - Mani Ratnam made a masterful film that blended many ingredients into a saga that is soul stirring. AR Rahman's music beautifully complements the magical and the poignant moments in the film. The film has excellent performances from Madhavan, Nandita Das, Simran and an absolute stunner role as Amudha - the abandoned one - done by the child artiste P. S. Keerthana. This performance won her a National award.<br /><br />The cinematography is visual poetry - each frame is beautifully crafted and breathtakingly shot. I am intrigued by the connection Mani Ratnam has with terrorism, love and obsessions. I think his exploration of these subjects is absolutely outstanding. Mahadevan's character was quite unique - his passion and idealism did not make him selfish, rather was well matched with how much he cared for the little girl. His one liners were hilarious. The mother played by Simran was also quite multi-dimensional - she was idealistic, loved the adopted daughter but also worried about her biological kids. The shock, angst, and obsession of the child Amudha was outstandingly portrayed by P. S. Keerthana. Her wide accusing eyes did most of the talking. In fact the enigmatic characters were those of Nandita Das, and her husband. Perhaps Mani deliberately made them mysterious so as to not give us overt ideas of why they were the way they were - the enigma of why a terrorist becomes what he or she becomes. It also kept him from being judgmental - this was another conflict in which he took no sides but merely reported while showing the human tragedy.<br /><br />Kannathil Muthamittal is visual poetry and a soul stirring drama - I rarely weep in the movies, but this one left me moist eyed and a little heartsick. This is a beautiful film - a treasure and a keeper if you can find a copy; beg borrow or steal one today and watch the film! | 1 |
12,824 | [
700,
800
] | 569 | 721 | 'Apocalypse Now Redux', Francis Ford Coppola's war opus is probably the most beautiful war film I have ever seen. Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is a Vietnam soldier who is tapped to head a very dangerous and highly classified mission into Cambodia to 'terminate the position' of Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly ranked and highly regarded army man who seemingly has gone completely insane and defected from the army, setting up his own little society and helped by a cultish following of soldiers. Escorting him up the river to Cambodia is a handful of navy men, and along the way, they encounter several interesting people (most notably is Robert Duvall's Kilgore, a badass lieutenant colonel with a few screws loose) and some horrifying situations. <br /><br />'Apocalypse' is less historical war film than a philosophical and psychological study. It is more 'Full Metal Jacket' than 'Platoon'. The running time of 'Apocalypse' is over three hours, but the film is so wonderfully paced and compelling that when the end of the film arrived, I was actually surprised at the amount of time that had passed. The beautiful cinematography is surely what stood out the most for me, however. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Coppola is one of the masters of light and photography in film history. The 'Godfather' films were all tinged with an almost sepia tone, and shadows created the feeling of a Baroque composition. With 'Apocalypse', there is an incredible usage of natural light, and the shadows, particularly in the scenes involving Brando and Sheen, almost become a living character, they are so pervasive and effective. Another gorgeous scene was when Cpt. Willard and Jay Hicks (Frederic Forrest) were in the jungle looking for mangoes, and come across a tiger. The sheer enormity of the surrounding foliage (leaves as big as a house) made the characters almost Lilliputian, but the colorization of the scene was incredible. While everything else was almost a muted grey, the leaves were an incredibly vibrant green, an effect that was particularly striking. Another really minor positive moment in the film was the great scene when the helicopters carrying Duvall and company attack the small village while playing Wagner. This could have just been an ultra-dramatic underlying soundtrack to the scene, but instead Coppola turns the song into an actual part of the scene, with Duvall mentioning that he likes to play it while they are approaching to 'scare the hell out of them'. <br /><br />The performances in 'Apocalypse' are first class. Much has been made of the amount of money Brando earned for the film, and the amount of trouble he caused. Regardless of this, he turned out a powerful performance for a relatively short amount of screen time. Sheen is completely outstanding - this is the first time I have seen him really unleash in a film and Duvall is a lot of fun to watch as the loony Kilgore. 'Apocalypse Now' is a film that is so pervasive in pop culture by now (most know several choice lines from the film, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' et al) but I knew little enough about it that there were plenty of surprises left to experience. I have not seen the original cut of 'Apocalypse Now' so I cannot compare it to this newer cut, but this is a film that should most certainly be experienced. 8/10<br /><br />--Shelly | 1 |
12,837 | [
700,
800
] | 611 | 743 | I decided I need to lengthen up my review for my all time favorite film. Unlike other war films that focus on the event, Apocalypse Now takes the viewer into a psychological head trip. The sheer surrealism makes the body uncomfortable, yet you can't lay your eyes off of it. Based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, Apocalypse Now slowly descends its protagonist, Willard (Martin Sheen) into madness, most likely the same way Kurtz plunged into insanity. The production of this film is notorious for its delays provided by the monsoon season and for Brando's unprepared performance (he read his lines from cue cards). There is a documentary titled Apocalypse Now: A filmmakers Apocalypse which shows the hell everyone went through in making this.<br /><br />The opening sequence is one of the most famous and popular in any film. As the blade of the helicopters are heard in slow motion and napalm is dropped in the trees, the song "The End" by the Doors can be heard. The next shot is of Willard in his bed with the fan on, so the noise of the helicopter coincides with the fan. We are informed that he does special missions for the military, mostly assassinations. When his next mission is given to him, he is baffled. "Charging a man with murder here is like giving a speeding ticket in the Indy 500." The man he has to kill was a respected colonel that has gone insane and isolated himself along with tribes people. Kurtz is ordering atrocious acts that are carried out by these people and he must me stopped. Willard does not go alone however. He is carried on a boat with several soldiers and they come across several battles. Along the way, they meet Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "Hoorah" about the war. Willard ponders that if Kilgore is that crazy, what could Kurtz be like. There are many scenes that portray Willards plunge into insanity: The tiger attack, the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese, the nonstop rain, the piled dead bodies scattered about, and the deaths of his crew members. When he reaches the Kurtz compound, he is greeted by the village people and a hippie photojournalist (Dennis Hopper). Instead of assassinating Kurtz right away, Willard begins talking with him and his conscience begins to doubt what he should do. Kurtz, on the other hand wants to die. He is tired of the war and wants to go down as a soldier. Willard kills him with a machete while in unison, a buffalo is sacrificed with several machetes by the people. Once they realize their leader has been slain, instead of killing Willard, they hail him as their new king. Willard rejects the offer and leaves them.<br /><br />The cinematography here is absolutely breathtaking. The colors are grain free, something that is rare in older movies. I can watch it muted and admire the beauty of the scenery.<br /><br />The acting ensemble is terrific, with everyone playing their parts well. Many criticize Brando for some reason, but I think he nails his role as a depressed lunatic who is beaten up by the war.<br /><br />The soundtrack and the score are haunting, and provide the mood for the film. I am wondering what instrument they used in that guitar-like sound when the credits roll? There have been many parodies of this film, but my favorite quote comes from Marge Simpson when she explains to Homer why a character with the same name on a police show is behaving like an idiot: "Your character provides comic relief for the show, like um, Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now." Those who have seen the movie know why this is hilarious. | 1 |
12,884 | [
700,
800
] | 633 | 745 | It seems to me that a lot of people don't know that Blade is actually a superhero movie on par with X-Men, Daredevil, Punisher and the likes. What all these heroes (and in the case of X-Men hero group) have in common is that they were all conceived in the magical world of Marvel. Blade was originally a normal person (in a blue outfit) who chased vampires because of a personal grudge and eventually facing of with Dracula himself and he was for lack of a better word boring. So boring in fact that the character was shelved and in fact never used in the Marvel universe. At least until he was reinvented.<br /><br />David Goyer did a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman like darkness. Snipes is pretty good as the title character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the character. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for one film (which is clearly seen from the inferior sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German, Udo Kier, should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best screen villains I have perhaps ever seen.<br /><br />The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since Robert Rodrigues' From Dusk Till Dawn) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a comic book feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it. A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. Including the effects which are pretty good for their time. I found the vampire "dustings" to be a very nice touch. In stead of adding a lot of blood when a vampire dies Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously com-bust which looks great. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.<br /><br />As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the following Blade movies. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense dark atmosphere which works great in tune with the main character and story. Along with the visual style the music which also works fine and adds a lot to the atmosphere of the movie.<br /><br />All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should probably have had an 8 from me but a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie, suffice to say, many of them are located near the ending of the film) does that the film must settle with a high 7.<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
12,919 | [
700,
800
] | 587 | 737 | The 1980's 'My Dinner with Andre,' with Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, is essentially a dialog about the world and how it affects and can lift the spirit. 2005's 'You Are Alone' demonstrates how common worldly events can shatter the soul. <br /><br />The story revolves around three principal characters. There's Daphne, a pretty teenage student who frets about virtually every decision in her life. Then there's the prostitute, or paid escort, Britney, as self-confident as Daphne is self-conscious. What makes them interesting is that they share the same body, if not the same personae. Part of the magic of this film occurs in one of the early scenes where Daphne approaches a door of an aged hotel room. She halts and is obviously torn by the decision of whether or not to knock on the door but it is Britney that effortlessly glides into the room when the door is opened.<br /><br />On the other side of that door is Buddy, a middle-aged nobody with few, if any, personal qualities that anyone would find attractive. He goes so far as to be confrontational about Britney's chosen profession as soon as she enters the room. However, we soon learn that Buddy is Daphne's next-door neighbor and has watched through the years as she grew from little girl to womanhood. This complicates things for the audience. Is Buddy just being a concerned neighbor or does he want something else?<br /><br />If it's sex that Buddy wants, here it is. Britney loves sex. Her definitions may be Clintonesque but that doesn't lesson her enthusiasm. She prefers older men and wears a rainbow of plastic wristbands that her clients are invited to chose from. Each color band denotes a specific act that she'll perform but exactly which act isn't revealed until after the band is broken off her wrist and the choice is irrevocably made. <br /><br />Britney is, or believes that she is, in control of every encounter. Even when blindfolded and bound, as she is by one of her regular clients, she imagines her arms and body being stroked by multiple men but her legs and pubic area being caressed by a woman in blood red lingerie. The film's imagery just keeps coming.<br /><br />Buddy's pathetic life is one of acceptance. He's lost his wife, his dog, even his fantasies of the pretty teenager next-door. It's no coincidence that he's lured Daphne or Britney to this particular hotel room. There's a painting on the wall of a dinner plate with only a fish head left. This is a perfect metaphor for Buddy's life; all of the good parts are finished. So it's here, where he brought his wife when they were still college students, that he makes his stand to regain some control of his own life, to make his statement.<br /><br />The director of 'You Are Alone,' Gorman Bechard, knows his craft. The principal action in the hotel room serves as a solid anchor for the film, assisted by a myriad of inter-cut scenes that add dimension to the characters, their circumstances and conflicts.<br /><br />As the film progresses, Britney asks Buddy if she should get undressed. He says yes, but she strips only to her underwear. An actual prostitute would probably remove all of her clothes (one of the profession's five gets). But it isn't Buddy that's being teased, we are. As the film concludes, we find that there are far deeper human emotions and motivations in play. A tease doesn't work unless it actually delivers. Britney does, so does 'You Are Alone'. | 1 |
12,922 | [
700,
800
] | 621 | 755 | You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.<br /><br />The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour "schoolgirl" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.<br /><br />Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.<br /><br />Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.<br /><br />After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.<br /><br />Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the "things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about perhaps argue about afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.<br /><br />I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.<br /><br />To everyone involved: bravo. | 1 |
13,001 | [
700,
800
] | 606 | 751 | I enjoyed this film, which offers a variety of interesting subplots and complex love-hate relations, along with interspersed action scenes and some lighthearted moments in which the mountain men counter harsh army discipline. All the main characters are well cast. True, John Wayne or Robert Mitchum could probably have done the starring role just as well, but Victor Mature certainly comes across as a headstrong brawling Tarzan of sorts. Reminds me of his film role as Samson, another difficult, but not impossible, man to tame.<br /><br />The mountain men in the opening scene are certainly an anachronism, as the era of pure trapper mountain men pretty much ended 20 years before, with the collapse of western beaver populations as well as the fashion market for beaver pelts. This story supposedly takes place in Oregon just before the end of the Civil War. Judging by the volcano in the background of the opening scene(probably Mt. Lassen), the fictional fort was located somewhere in a remote section of the Cascades, as we never see any other civilians. However, there is plenty of conflicting evidence that it actually takes place in the mountains of Wyoming or Montana! Red Cloud, the war chief who threatens the trappers and soldiers in the fort, is the namesake of a very famous Sioux war chief who led a very successful campaign in 1865-66 to exterminate the newly built army forts in Wyoming and Montana. Fort Laramie(eastern Wyoming)is mentioned as being not too far removed from the fictional fort. The plains tribe of Assiniboines is mentioning as joining Red Cloud. This aspect of the story, then, bears a general resemblance to historical fact.<br /><br />It may be of interest to note certain resemblances between the plot of this story and that of John Ford's "Fort Apache". In both cases, we have a fort commander who was recently assigned to his first frontier post with Native American problems. He underestimates the military prowess of his adversaries, regarding them as little more than cannon fodder to promote his career. In both films, he pays dearly for his inexperience in dealing with the enemy.. Also in common, the greenhorn commander resents a subordinate who has long experience with the local Native Americans and wants to tell him what is wise to do and not to do. In both films, we have a budding romantic relaionship between a woman very close to the commander's heart and a subordinate, which the commander does everything to squelch. Clearly, the commander must be eliminated to allow these romances to proceed to completion.<br /><br />I also see certain resemblances with "The Misfits". The soldiers, as a whole, including the commander, are misfits of a sort((as one of them admits): mostly they have "problems" or are raw recruits with no experience fighting Native Americans. The commander's wife apparently is the only woman in or anywhere near this fort, thus is inherently a misfit, with a husband who is very uncertain of his future in the army. The trappers, in turn, are also misfits, not really wanting to accept army or civilian discipline, yet cut off from their previous free spirit lives by the recent army-generated antagonism by Red Cloud. <br /><br />Finally, we can also compare this story with Anthony Mann's later film "The Far Country", starring Jimmy Stewart. In Stewart's case, he can choose to return to being a loner cowboy, at the end. But Mature's character doesn't come up with an appetizing new way of being his own boss. Red Cloud has made life outside of the army in this region too dangerous to contemplate. Besides, he has an obsession with the Commander's wife. | 1 |
13,203 | [
700,
800
] | 602 | 766 | "The Desperadoes" (1943) is a genuine classic, not for its story (which is fairly routine), but for its technical production elements. This was a landmark western, the biggest ever at the time of its release and all the more unique because it was a Columbia production-a lightweight studio with a bottom feeding reputation. Only Fox's "Jesse James" (also starring Randolph Scott) from a few years earlier gave anywhere near this lavish a treatment to the genre. Although it would be eclipsed in a few years by "The Searchers" and "High Noon", "The Desperadoes" was a ground breaking effort and a historical treasure. <br /><br />In 1863, the economy in the town of Red Valley, Utah is based on rounding up and selling wild horses to the Union Army. The script gets a little messed up here with references to the railroad (which was several years away in Utah's future) and Custer's Last Stand (Custer was busy fighting Stuart in Pennsylvania at the time) but these are not important plot elements. <br /><br />Red Valley has an honest sheriff, Steve Upton (Scott), but the banker and several citizens are corrupt; robbing their own bank each time the government pays for a herd of horses. The town is visited by Cheyenne Rogers (Glenn Ford), a famous outlaw who is an old friend Steve's. He wants to go straight, especially after falling for the pretty livery stable owner Alison McLeod (Evelyn Keyes). Cheyenne's partner "Nitro" Rankin (Guinn "Big Boy" Williams) is mainly there for comic relief as are Uncle Willie McLeod (Edgar Buchanan) and the town judge (Raymond Walburn who models his character on Frank Morgan's "Wizard of Oz" crystal ball faker). <br /><br />Taking no chances with their huge budget Columbia packed this thing with tons of action and every western movie element but Indians and covered wagons. There is the best wild horse stampede ever filmed, a spectacular barroom brawl, an explosive climax, romance, and three-strip Technicolor. All this stuff doesn't necessarily fit together but who would have cared back in 1943. Unity is a problem as it tries to be both a serious action western and a comedy. <br /><br />The cinematography was probably the best ever at the time of its filming. The indoor scenes are solid but it is the naturalistic outdoor photography that is truly impressive; both the lyrical static shots and the moving camera filming of the action sequences. <br /><br />Scott and Claire Trevor were top billed, but the studio clearly wanted to promote Ford, who would soon be their biggest star. And Director Charles Vidor utilized the film to showcase his new wife Keyes (whose portrayal of Scarlett's sister in "Gone With the Wind" had connected with audiences more than any small part in the history of films). <br /><br />The Ford-Keyes dynamic is "The Desperadoes" most unique and important feature. Rather than go for the cliché "love triangle" with Scott and/or Trevor (which it first appears will happen), the entire romantic focus is on the two younger actors. This was probably the best role Keyes ever got and she makes the most of it. Playing a tomboyish but extremely sexy young woman who looks great in both leather pants and dresses, and who rides and fights like Kiera Knightley's character in "Pirates of the Caribbean". This was revolutionary at the time and coincided with the 1942 formation of the WAAC for WWII military service. <br /><br />"The Desperadoes" is one film that has been well taken care of and the print looks like it is brand new. Unfortunately there are no special features on the DVD. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | 1 |
13,245 | [
700,
800
] | 612 | 793 | OK, so the following review is more of a synopsis more so than really containing any spoilers, but better safe than sorry so as to avoid being blacklisted, right? Right! Consider yourselves officially warned, and read on...<br /><br />In this parody/tribute to the greatest time in horror movie history - the 1980's - a group of stupid teens are getting together to host a seance in the house of the notorious Murder McGee, who butchered his entire family a few years back and buried them in the back yard. As I'm sure you can guess, things go from bad to worse faster than you can say "Where's the beef??" and in typical 80's horror movie fashion the deaths are bloody, the dialogue is cheesy, and beautiful women are taking off their clothes every chance they get. Good times...<br /><br />No clique or 80's horror movie clichéd characterizations are left unrepresented here. In fact, no stone was left unturned at all we have the cool hero, his innocent girlfriend, the Goth chick, the tough thug (think John Bender), the hot blonde who keeps losing her shirt, the shy dork in love with the hot blonde that keeps losing her shirt, a couple of gorgeous half-naked lesbians, and two big geeks.<br /><br />As you can plainly see, the cast is pretty big. Usually, larger casts are where things can fall apart quickly, with one or two sour apples buggering up the whole barrel. Not in this case though. Not a single cast member left me disappointed. The acting was very well done. Everyone from the cool hero in his Thriller jacket played by Jovan Meredith to the grooovy Goth chick played by Renee Dorian to Geeks One & Two played by Cory Assink & Jonathan Brett they all played it straight, brought their A-game, and knocked it out of the park. If you're a fan of Gary & Wyatt in Weird Science, you'll immediately fall in love with the geeks.<br /><br />Director/co-writer Jeff C. Smith is a guy to watch for in the future, trust me on this. If this is what he can do with a low budget, there are nothing but good things ahead for him when he gets more money for future projects. The characters were dead on; the atmosphere was perfect; the laughs were huge; the blood flowed, and squirted, and sprayed beautifully it was just like watching a horror movie from the 1980's. Call this one "THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets NIGHT OF THE DEMONS"!!! The tag line says it all, and says it honestly - "EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE; GRATUITOUS NUDITY; ZERO BUDGET" - no false advertising here, folks! As fans of this genre, we have to look to the indies and support these hard-working folks who are busting their humps out there bringing us original tales, lest we forever get stuck in a world filled with big studio watered-down PG-13 'horror' or pointless remakes like The Hitcher. No, thank you - no more of that for me.<br /><br />In closing, I honestly have to say that STUPID TEENAGERS MUST DIE! is by far one of the best indie flicks I've gotten the pleasure of watching this year. It's a bloody good time, and holds up on repeat viewings. From the dialogue to the characters to the wardrobe...even the closing love theme over the end credits (which if that doesn't bring back fits of laughter recalling mid-80's power ballads by REO Speedwagon - over-pronounced R's on every word starting with the letter 'R' - then I'll eat my DVD right now)...bottom line is, if you're a fan of 80's horror or horror in general, no more hesitation - this flick deserves to be in your collection!! | 1 |
13,281 | [
700,
800
] | 558 | 738 | Jewel Thief is a rare breed of film - completely noir in its story but nothing noir about the presentation. A young man Vinay, superbly played by a newly face lifted Dev Anand at age 40+, is estranged from his police officer Dad and finds a job in a jeweler's store. Soon random people come up to him and call him Amar. Using just a few pithy moments the presence of a "doppelganger" is established. Then a woman Shalini (Vyjayantimala) comes forward and claims to be engaged to said doppelganger. She is accompanied by her loving brother (Ashok Kumar) who is so convinced that Vinay is actually Amar he makes him take his shoe off and prove that he is not Aamr, the 6 toed one. The jeweler's super cute daughter Anju (Tanuja) is completely enamored with Vinay. Amidst all this confusion there is a Jewel thief on the loose and he is stealing at will. Slowly we learn from Vinay's encounter with a super hot night club singer (Helen!) that the thief is Amar the doppelganger. Many many good looking women (Anju Mahendru, Faryal) are after the hero. The police force, including Vinay's Dad, are completely befuddled. Vinay is slowly falling for Shalini/Shalu and her brother seems to bless the union. The action moves to Sikkim as that is where Amar's next heist is to occur. The rest is for you to watch - the duplicate, the girls, the men who hang on to Vinay's every word thinking he is their boss Amar, the loving brother sister duo - nothing seems quite right, and it takes the deft story telling (and direction) by Vijay Anand to conclude this tale in a highly entertaining manner. The movie has numerous moments that you will wonder at until they deliciously weave into a grand finale at a dance in a palace in Sikkim.<br /><br />I was not a big Vyjayanthi fan but she is quite competent here, although at her chubbiest. She is able to add to the confusion in the story in a subtle way, but is best when she is sorrowful or dancing. Tanuja is cute as a button and I loved her in this film. I so badly wanted her to get the man. Dev was, well, Dev. If he were not walking like a man with a congenital shoulder defect (one shoulder always lower than the other) I would wonder who they had found to imitate him! Yet his style, charm and charisma were unfailing. In the song Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara, only Dev could look cool carrying a fishing rod to which a large plastic fish was attached! Ashok Kumar was simply awesome - Dada Moni did not miss a beat the entire movie and turned this into one for the history books.<br /><br />SD Burman spun magic with numbers like Baithe Hain Kya Uske Paas (Helen in a blood red rooster imitation dancing on a bar top), Aasman Ke Neeche, Rula Ke Gaya Sapna Mera, and my personal favorite seductive number Raat Akeli Hai Bujh Gaye Diye.<br /><br />If you are craving a great story, with more twists than a pretzel, wanting to be kept guessing, yet amused and entertained - then go buy or rent Jewel Thief. Better to buy it, then you can go back and see it again with your buddies. This one is a keeper. | 1 |
13,327 | [
700,
800
] | 562 | 703 | Since the past couple of days I'm really hooked on the "Female Scorpion" series and I keep hitting myself over the head because I waited until now which is way too long before purchasing the whole box set. "Beast Stable" is the third brilliant effort in a row, and the undeniably main trump of this series is how the writers always came up with something entirely new and different for each installment. Never before, or after, has there been an exploitation series that offered so much variety when it comes to story lines, settings, themes and filming styles. The original more or less qualified as a so-called "Women-in-Prison" flick (but already an atypical one), but you can't possibly categorize parts 2 and 3 as such, since they hardly feature any footage within prison walls. And the overall tone and atmosphere keeps changing with each new episode as well. The first film was harsh and gritty, whereas the second was psychedelic and part three is almost mainly melodramatic. Don't let this last description discourage you, however, as "Beast Stable" still features more than enough exploitative themes and disturbing footage in spite of the dramatic ambiance. The opening sequence, for example, is downright fantastic. Sasori, still a fugitive from the law, literally chops her way to freedom on the subway when there's no other possibility than to cut off the arm of the persistent policeman that handcuffed her. Her run through the city with the cut-off arm dangling on hers while the credits appear on screen, accompanied by the familiar theme song, is just pure and genuine exploitation gold! The story compellingly continues with our heroine desperately trying to lead an anonymous life in the big city, but the poor thing simply can't escape her past or even new types of agony. Sasori befriends a prostitute, though without exchanging dialog, and takes on a job in a sewing atelier. Her own retarded brother (!) impregnates the prostitute, while Sasori gets in trouble with the local pimping and underground crime network. She cleverly prevents a thug from taking advantage of her body, encounters a former enemy from prison and furiously avenges one of the prostitutes when she gets submitted to a barbaric abortion. Meanwhile, the one-armed cop continues to obsessively prowl the streets, looking for retribution against Sasori. Our multi-talented director Shunya Ito formidably criss-crosses all these story lines to a powerful wholesome and never once loses grip on the visual aspects or ingenious filming style. "Beast Stable" features some of the most impressive compositions and ingenious camera angles you can imagine, the editing is flawless and the exterior locations are effectively depressing. Those who know Sasori's character a bit are aware that the film seriously lacks memorable dialogs, but this always gets widely compensated with Meiko Kaji's wondrous on screen charisma and menacing grimaces. There's very little sleaze, apart from the aforementioned incestuous sub plot, but the brief flashes of extreme violence are terrific and the twisted ending is almost too brilliant for words. In fact, I think part three might just be the greatest (or at least, my favorite) one of the series so far. My only small and totally irrelevant point of criticism is regarding the ridiculous sounds one of the birds produces when Sasori is locked up in a cage. That bird sounds like a ventriloquist's dummy with stomach cramps. | 1 |
13,367 | [
700,
800
] | 588 | 725 | I hardly know where to begin in writing about this gem, except to say that it represents young Buster Keaton at the peak of his powers and must certainly rank with the half-dozen best short comedies ever made. THE GOAT is twenty minutes of smoothly paced, expertly photographed, beautifully executed gags; two reels of non-stop comic invention driven by an unmistakable undercurrent of paranoia and yet somehow leading to a happy ending -- which wasn't always the way with Buster's comedies. (See COPS for one case where Fatalism ultimately got the better of him, or ONE WEEK for the victory of Defeatism.) If I had to describe this film in one word I'd call it "effortless," but if I were permitted two I'd call it "seemingly effortless," for surely a lot of hard labor goes into the making of any comic opus that unfolds with such sublime ease. Still, they didn't call him the Great Stone Face for nothing: Buster never let the public see him sweat.<br /><br />A sardonic title card tells us that our opening sequence is set "along Millionaires' Row," i.e. on a bread line in a grim urban setting, where Buster waits patiently at the back of the line and, as a result, doesn't get fed. But it needs to be emphasized that not for one moment does he play for pathos; Buster has our sympathy, but he never asks for it. Before long, through a series of accidents, coincidences and absurd misunderstandings, Buster is believed to be an escaped killer named Dead Shot Dan and is being pursued by every cop for miles around, and yet while he's clearly dismayed by this turn of events there is never a hint of self-pity or even surprise; we get the sense he always knew that this is what life would have in store for him, and that he hasn't time to feel sorry for himself anyway, he has to figure out new ways to dodge those cops and escape from the latest trap.<br /><br />Just as Buster refrains from playing for sympathy he never seems to strain for laughs either, which is especially impressive because THE GOAT must be one of the most laugh-packed short comedies in existence. This is the film that features that iconic shot of Buster riding a train's cow-catcher right up to the very lens of the camera, which isn't a gag exactly but sure is laugh-provoking in its own strange way. Meanwhile, there are gags involving guns, dogs, cops, an incredibly furry mustache, and a clay statue of a horse that melts under Buster's weight (a surreal sight indeed), but some of the biggest boffos are saved for the finale when Buster is trying to elude his primary nemesis, Big Joe Roberts, a rotund cop who also happens to be the father of leading lady Virginia Fox. Trapped in Big Joe's dining room, Buster leap-frogs over him and sails through a transom, turns a phone-booth into an elevator and pretends to disappear, and eventually uses the elevator itself to rid himself of his pursuer and win the girl in time for one last fade-out gag.<br /><br />To say more would be a disservice to first-time viewers. I only wish I could see this film in a theater full of people who'd never seen it before, and float on the laughter. Live musical accompaniment would be nice too; and incidentally the musical score supplied by Kino for their home video/DVD version of THE GOAT is first-rate, serving as icing on an already tasty cake. | 1 |
13,399 | [
700,
800
] | 574 | 788 | Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and<br /><br />raped in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film<br /><br />then flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is<br /><br />harassed by a stranger.<br /><br />Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson and<br /><br />Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious parents,<br /><br />laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home wringing<br /><br />hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated<br /><br />entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in<br /><br />"Three Days of the Condor."<br /><br />Beller, an amateur photographer, begins getting threatening notes<br /><br />stuffed in her locker at school. The film makers wisely give us a<br /><br />whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend, Mattson's<br /><br />boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about that<br /><br />overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be a<br /><br />little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist was<br /><br />because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture of<br /><br />the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that<br /><br />regard.<br /><br />Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins getting<br /><br />harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie then<br /><br />heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up<br /><br />a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student.<br /><br />Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from<br /><br />Beller about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that<br /><br />day and age.<br /><br />The suspense here is very real, without going over the top into<br /><br />scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and<br /><br />Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The<br /><br />film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small role,<br /><br />and everyone is professional.<br /><br />This was made in 1978, and it shows. I am sure no one had any<br /><br />idea that this would be reviewed in 2001 by an overcritical horror<br /><br />movie lover who needs to get to bed and be up early in the<br /><br />morning, but some of the attitudes here are embarassing. The<br /><br />teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to explain what<br /><br />exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school teacher said<br /><br />that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its own.<br /><br />After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as warrants<br /><br />are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case because<br /><br />Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by whom<br /><br />she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with<br /><br />modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously<br /><br />knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is<br /><br />an act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch<br /><br />the attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The<br /><br />problem is the anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an<br /><br />afterthought. Before that, we have a tight little suspenser that has<br /><br />real honest to God characterization. After the rape, everything<br /><br />changes, filmwise, and not for the better.<br /><br />I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who could forget<br /><br />her revealing role in "The Betsy"), but she has not done anything in<br /><br />almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good way<br /><br />back then.<br /><br />I will recommend "Are You in the House Alone?!" based on the<br /><br />acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the first two-thirds of<br /><br />the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV high school life,<br /><br />this is your cup of Tab.<br /><br />This is unrated but contains physical violence, some sexual<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations. | 1 |
13,554 | [
700,
800
] | 566 | 734 | Another of the endless amount of cookie-cutter 'Kickboxers Fight to the Death for the Amusement of Wealthy Scumbags' films that there were so many of in the 90s... Y'know, the ones created by taking the words 'Death', 'Blood' and 'Steel' and the words 'Ring', 'Fight', 'Match' and 'Cage' and putting them in a random generator! Saying that though, Death Match is a pretty good entry in the over-used genre, thanks to its exciting fight scenes and the surprisingly good acting of its kickboxer cast.<br /><br />The story concerns two buddies - ex-Kickboxing World Champion John Larson (played by pug-faced Middleweight Kickboxing Champ Ian Jacklin, probably previously best known for his awful performance as the main villain in Ring of Fire 2) and Nick Wallace (Nick Hill, a likable guy probably best known for the role of street-fighter Sergio in Bloodsport 2) who work the L.A. docks loading crates onto ships. One discovery of a boxful of guns and a brief fight later, our two heroes are jobless and propping up an L.A. bar. Sensible John Larson decides to head North and look for a job; headstrong Nick Wallace has heard of a guy paying good money for fighters to fight in private kickboxing matches. "Why should things change?" says John, " If you need me, i'll be there." Predictably enough, it isn't long before Nick has gone missing and his good friend is fighting in the deadly 'ring of death' trying to find a lead to his missing buddy.<br /><br />Sure enough, there are no prizes for originality here, but like i said before, this films strength lies in its action, its cast of real-life fighters and the fairly good performances it manages to wring from them. Ian Jacklin in particular surprised me. Previously i'd just seen him as the bad guy in Ring of Fire 2 and in bit-parts in tripe like The Steel Ring, and i've always been quite amused at how bad an actor he is (good fighter though!). But in Death Match, he's pretty good! Given a decent script and a haircut, he proves himself to be quite the charismatic leading man! And his friendship with Nick is very well portrayed. Jacklin and Hill have a nice chemistry and you really believe these two characters care for each other. Enough for one of them to lose a job, travel halfway across the country and risk death to save the other - I wish i had a friend like that! <br /><br />It was also nice to see Matthias Hues as a villainous henchman with a little more depth than we're used to seeing from his many 'villainous henchman' roles. However don't be fooled into thinking he's the star just because he's on the video cover (with, it seems, his head stuck on the body of Michael Bernardo from the cover of Shootfighter) - he is good while he's on screen, but he isn't on much..<br /><br />On the negative side, the film is pretty slow when there's no fighting going on, with lots of unnecessary scenes (whats with gangster Jimmie Fiorello's pointless story about his grandfather??), and the end fight is disappointingly short, but on the whole i enjoyed it! Plenty of fights, most of them good. Isn't that all we martial arts really need? And of course eye-candy, here in the lovely form of the very pretty Renee Ammann. All in all, a pretty entertaining kickboxing movie. | 1 |
13,583 | [
700,
800
] | 635 | 797 | I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away. Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite "Company" (which was a very good effort) and "Vaastav" (more focused on the journey of the protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to Satya.<br /><br />When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself "Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now". The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the "encounter" at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their routine.<br /><br />Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie hall.<br /><br />But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues, I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie.<br /><br />The movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi, Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster Oh My God! He learns under the tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him.<br /><br />Prasad Purandhare as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster.<br /><br />Not that I have not been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea it's almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country. It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one.<br /><br />Last but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force to reckon with in the coming years. | 1 |
13,670 | [
700,
800
] | 585 | 740 | This flick was the introduction for a lot of us to the works of K Gordon Murray. That's because it was easy to find. It was on every public domain label in the VHS era, and before that, a late night t.v. cult classic, double knee thigh slapper. Besides, HOW do you resist the title?<br /><br />For late comers, a brief explanation of it's merit: Florida wheeler dealer K. Gordon Murray imported Mexican horror films, dubbed them into English, then made a mint with them at the drive in. The Mexican ORIGINALS were weird enough to begin with; American boundaries and accepted horror film conventions were cheerfully disregarded. Great, great set design and lighting were placed beside weird or laughable special effects. NOTHING in Hollywood was as close as these were to out and out strange. Now, mix in Catholic influenced social conventions, Mexican folk lore, and we are not in Kansas anymore. <br /><br />Add to THAT the English scripts they were dubbed into. Most were written by Reuban Guberman, who wanted words to match movements of the actors lips ON SCREEN, not the literal translation. As a result the American soundtracks tended to run from overwrought to down right loopy. There's even a fan web site for Murray that prints the best, most over the top lines for each movie. First time viewers to the films complain about the pacing, the purple prose, the production values and are told it's SUPPOSED to be that way..while the people laugh with enjoyment over things normally considered fatal film flaws. It all must be very confusing if you don't have a taste for it.<br /><br />This one was made back to back in 1957 with the two previous films in the series; THE AZTEC MUMMY and CURSE OF THE AZTEC MUMMY. All three are now available on the 3 disc AZTEC MUMMY COLLECTION (BCI) and it's about time. It has the K Gordon Murray version on one side, the original Mexican production on the other side. The contrast between the two is fascinating. A lot of the times the original Spanish is not much saner.<br /><br />ROBOT/MUMMY starts off with a nice long flashback bringing you up to speed on the previous episodes, sort of..continuity was tossed out the window in number two, and it's downhill from there, logic wise. You don't even get The Angel back, or any mention of him in this final episode. Names, places, even family trees switch between films. After a while, you start LOOKING for the continuity changes. <br /><br />By now, the series villain Doc Krupp is totally pig biting mad, nearly drooling with dementia and STILL wants to steal the Aztec breastplate. Rosita Arenas is sent back to the past with another nice edit of the AZTEC MUMMY floor show, and wanders out into the dark in her nightie to help find that doggone breastplate again. The mummy isn't any happier with this then he was last time.<br /><br />The robot actually has a production credit. It was made by 'Viana & Co S.A.'. I mention this, because it looks like the grips came up with it between takes on a slow afternoon when the real costume went walkabout. Nope.<br /><br />This was PLANNED. <br /><br />Wait until you see the controller it runs from. X box, where WERE you when Krupp NEEDED you??? The Robot LOOKS crushed to death at the end, but actually came back in two more Mexican made movies..it had a FAN BASE.. <br /><br />All in all, a funny quirky finish to a three movie series. Sit back and enjoy. | 1 |
13,809 | [
700,
800
] | 664 | 795 | On many levels it's very good. In fact, considering that this was a low-budget British indie by a first time feature-director with a largely neophyte cast, it's a magnificent achievement. I don't know how much it cost. The figure of £8,000 was bandied about in publicity but you never know how reliable a figure like that is. The point is that this film looks like it cost a couple of million quid and it clearly cost a tiny fraction of that Great special effects, terrific production design, effective props and costumes, excellent photography, good acting and direction, an impressive score and an absolutely stunning sound mix. Even having said that, much of the script was great. The characters were clearly identified and all had something to do. This is a movie about ten men all dressed roughly the same in one location and it would be easy for them to be nameless, faceless blanks but these were ten characters - mostly that was done through the dialogue and the way they reacted to things. Throughout the middle act, when the plot was developing, the script told the story well and showed how it affected the characters. If the whole film was like the second act, it would be stunning.<br /><br />Before the ship blows up, twelve people make it to individual escape pods or 'e-pods' which blast away from the ship. They're not much more than automatic metal coffins and the poor sods inside are trapped, cramped and have no real idea where they're going - but that makes sense. I like the e-pods - they're an excellent idea done very well and make more sense than a nice, roomy escape capsule. I also like the way that we are specifically told, later, that they are designed for ship-to-ship escape but can just about make planetfall in an emergency - because, let's face it, these guys were bloody lucky that their ship was blown up so close to a planet. That said, it doesn't look to me like there are 116 unused e-pods still on the freighter and you have to wonder how the prisoner is able to get into an e-pod - but in he gets. (And it has just occurred to me: shouldn't the Captain have gone down with his ship rather than being the first guy out of there?) Anyway, the e-pods all land on a barren planet with nothing but sand and sparse vegetation - or at least on a sandy, sparsely vegetated part of the planet which may have icy wastes and lush jungles elsewhere. Nah, it's a planet in a sci-fi movie - it will be exactly the same all over. We have to accept that all the e-pods come down within a few miles of each other so that the ten survivors are able to meet up, firing flares into the sky to locate each other.<br /><br />The Captain, a muscular mountain of a man who could have a pretty good career in action flicks if he gets the right agent, decides that they should try and contact 'Captain Behan' with whom they were intending to rendezvous. But they cannot do this from the planet, they need to get into orbit. The engineer says that if they combine the power units from two e-pods they can probably give one of them enough juice to lift itself on anti-grav doodads high enough to blast above the atmosphere. It can all be done on automatic but it will need a 'pilot' to send the signal. The captain valiantly volunteers for this but in a commendably sensible move the engineer points out that putting the heaviest man into the somewhat dodgily repaired e-pod is ridiculous and that it needs to be the lightest member of the team. That's Kid. I really liked the way that he now points out that his name is David and the Captain starts using it, treating him with dignity and respect. That was good storytelling and good characterisation. | 1 |
13,884 | [
700,
800
] | 605 | 790 | GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II.<br /><br />We've had quite a few documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming. Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own.<br /><br />There was CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied Commander.<br /><br />Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man/Author, Jim Bishop was the host/navigator of BATTLELINE.<br /><br />And there was the excellent WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's speaking the words of Sir Winston.<br /><br />It is the 1952 NBC Television Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the cigar, hands down.<br /><br />To begin with, this had to have taken the production several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.<br /><br />Once that was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a series of 1/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture project.<br /><br />The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode descriptions.<br /><br />Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are intricate, full, variable and even "classic" in the true sense.<br /><br />The Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record/cassette tape/compact disk, it has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing to the viewer/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake.<br /><br />* SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers.<br /><br />** We had in additional "Ace in the Hole" in our house in the person of our Father, the Late Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate any of the situations that were depicted in the series.<br /><br />He and our Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister, Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant. | 1 |
13,929 | [
700,
800
] | 584 | 720 | Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!<br /><br />I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.<br /><br />It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended. | 1 |
13,933 | [
700,
800
] | 661 | 797 | Un Gatto nel Cervello, or Nightmare Concert as it's more commonly know amongst English speaking audiences, starts as horror film director Lucio Fulci (played by the man himself Lucio Fulci) goes to lunch after filming a very gory & violent scene, however he orders steak & has a horrible vision relating to cannibalism. The grotesque visions, hallucinations & dreams continue & begin to affect his mental state, Fulci decides to seek help & contacts Professor Egon Schwarz (Dvid L. Thompson) for psychiatric help. Schwarz claims that Fulci cannot separate fantasy from reality & agrees to help him, however Schwarz has a more sinister ulterior motive as a serial killer starts to brutally kill prostitutes & Fulci thinks he might be responsible....<br /><br />This Italian production was co-written & directed by Lucio Fulci who also stars in the film as a horror film director named Lucio Fulci which doesn't really feel like a lot of effort went into it, anyway Un Gatto nel Cervello is gory if nothing else & for that alone I rather liked it. The script by Fulci, John Fitzsimmons, Giovanni Simonelli & Antonio Tentori is nothing more than a threadbare excuse to edit together lots of gory footage from other Italian films. It serves it's purpose well enough I suppose & to see Fulci on screen has a certain fascination if your a fan of his or are familiar with his films, the ending is very rushed almost as if they ran out of money as it just has a policeman telling Fulci they killed the killer & that's it. Another thing about that ending when the two cops put the white sheet over the dead killer in the field & then they walk away leaving it there without any other police presence, I mean would the police in Italy just leave a dead body in the middle of a field on it's own? It moves along at a good pace & if you like your gore then you have to see this although if you don't like gore then you'll hate it with a passion, it all depends on your disposition so the choice folks is yours.<br /><br />Director Fulci was never the most artistically adept filmmaker & it shows here as his footage is bland, flat & looks like it was shot for TV, the footage from the other films (7 in total) doesn't match the stuff Fulci shot & it is obvious that this has been pieced together from different films. If your looking for gore you've hit the jackpot, people are dismembered with chainsaws, put through meat grinders, faces are melted, there are a few decapitations, there are some slit throats, someones body is gorily crushed under a car, a tongue is ripped out, someone has their throat crushed as a wheelchair runs over it, there are loads of stabbings, someone has their guts removed with a hook, there's a rotten corpse complete with maggots, someone hand is cut off, someone has their head bashed in & their eye falls out, a gory death by piano wire as it slices through someones throat, there are loads of severed limbs, gallons of blood splashed around & a scene of some cats eating brains & there's more as well. Having said that some of the special effects are a bit fake & look cheesy.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of around $100,000 it shows, this is pretty cheap looking, it has no visual style or artistic merit but then again why would you want those when you can see a Nazi orgy sequence & wall-to-wall gore? The acting in this is terrible including Fulci.<br /><br />Un Gatto nel Cervello is a top film if your a gore-hound like me, however if your looking for something with a little bit more substance or indeed any substance then this ones not for you. This is the sort of film which divides people straight down the middle, you'll either love what it does or hate it. | 1 |
14,006 | [
700,
800
] | 565 | 714 | The Man with the Golden Arm was one of the first films to have as its main topic (and, in some respects, the message) the tragedy of heroin addiction. It's nowhere near a great film, but its importance lies in Otto Preminger's dedication to making it feel real and on the edge of melodrama and naturalism. What I liked is that it's not so much an expose of junkies (if you want the best expose of that read Naked Lunch, if you can get through it anyway, besides the point), but the nature of the urban environment Frankie Machine lives. He expects after he gets out of prison for dealing to go on the straight and narrow, to become a drummer in a band and make it legit as a musician. But he has his "crippled" wife Zosch, who can't work and needs money and often complains, and then there's the old neighborhood- he can't escape seeing Louie (Darren McGavin), who is still doing back-room card games and, yes, pushing dope. Like Mean Streets, it's hard to escape the minutia unless you leave.<br /><br />But then again, it's hard for Frankie Machine not to try and operate naturally in this urban quarter. It's just that he can't escape the temptation of junk (when he's booked on a phony theft charge with his friend, he sees a junkie freaking out, and it puts back the fear of going back on into his clean self). And personifying Frankie is Sinatra, and I can't see anyone else who could've played him, even original choice Brando. He fits into the neighborhood, and seems like the kind of guy who should be a step ahead of the game. But there's also a vulnerability to Sinatra that he pulls out wonderfully, and by the time we see him going 'cold turkey' in Molly's apartment, it's believable even if it's not the kind of thing those from 'my' generation would think of heroin (i.e. Trainspotting and certainly Requiem for a Dream). If for nothing else, you want to watch the movie to see what happens to Sinatra as this character.<br /><br />The flaws, however, come in some of the other performances, though it's a little tricky. Eleanor Parker seems to be overacting for a good portion of the movie, fooling Frankie that she's really crippled when in reality she can walk and is fooling him for one reason or another. But then it becomes clearer as it goes along- she's supposed to be nuts, and nuts with jealousy, and on that level it starts to get better. Meanwhile, Kim Novak is good, though not Vertigo-worthy, as the possible girl in the side but more like the voice of reason in the story. Then there's a Detective Bendar, who might be one of the most one-note characters/performances, ever. And also Sparrow, Frankie's nerdy friend, and the characters of Louie and Schiefka, and they're all played as one might expect them to (actually, McGavin is better than OK). As far as casting other talent around Sinatra, Preminger doesn't do all that great. And, frankly, some scenes kind of fall flat.<br /><br />But there's a lot of fascination in the Man with the Golden Arm, and not just as some dated piece of sociological interest. It works as compelling drama, and as a message piece conveyed without being preachy or campy. It's a genuine article, just not exceptional. | 1 |
14,052 | [
700,
800
] | 564 | 725 | Shtrafbat - Penal Battalion is a moving, and mostly honest, look at the lives and deaths of Soviet soldiers who were sentenced to wash away their crimes with blood during World War Two. One can almost call it the Russian equivalent of highly acclaimed "Band of Brothers" miniseries.<br /><br />Formed in July of 1942 on the eve of Battle of Stalingrad, the penal battalions were considered expendable units and suffered horrible casualties (sometimes as high as 90%). Prisoners of GULAG (political prison/concentration camps), deserters, soldiers who were captured by Germans but managed to escape, soldiers accused of breaching protocol, were all given a chance to join the Shtrafbat and prove that there were not "Traitors of the Motherland" with their lives. Those who sustained injuries and those who died in battle were considered rehabilitated and were reinstated in the eyes of the law.<br /><br />This miniseries features a look at one such Shtrafbat, under the command of Tverdokhlebov - an honorable officer who was captured by the Germans, was shot and left for dead. It features a colorful and varied group of people, thrust into a situation from which there is no escape. The authoritative yet honorable crime boss Antip "Kulak" (The Fist) and his little gang of unreformed criminals, a young Jewish intellectual who struck his anti-Semite officer, Father (Orthodox Priest) Mikhail who joins the battalion when his parish is destroyed in the house-to-house fighting, political prisoners who hate the regime that condemned them to the GULAG but who are nonetheless willing to fight one last time for their people and country, must all find their courage and their reasons to keep on living, and to keep on fighting.<br /><br />Although set during a war, not every episode features combat, in fact what combat scenes there are, are often chaotic, sporadic, and short - which was probably the intent of the director. In between, the miniseries focuses on various relationships between the cast, their backgrounds, their thoughts and tragedies. The rape of a young woman by one of Shtrafbat's soldier and then his execution, execution for supposed AWOL, periods of boredom on the march, the celebration (and subsequent consequences) of finding a German bunker stocked with food (and champagne), the moral dilemma of officers unable to save their men from their own superiors, cheating on a spouse, and other situations, feature prominently. The camera is unflinching - it does not turn away from the ugliness of war and the ugliness of human nature, nor from raw human emotions. The dialog likewise does not censor out the swearing.<br /><br />The acting is superb and deep, and the script is likewise well written. Everything from rage, to weariness, to resignation, to finding a scrap of joy to hang on to, is rendered almost faultlessly. One complaint might be that some of Russian linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies may not always be understood by someone not familiar with the language and culture. Because it is a history drama in a sense, some of the terms and situations (military rank, mention of other battles, certain historical references) may be lost on some viewers. This understanding is not needed to thoroughly enjoy Shtrafbat, but these references are a nice touch of authenticity. Another complain that could be levied, is an occasional anachronism and bending of history to suit the plot, but frankly this is such a riveting miniseries that one will likely forgive these slight mishaps. | 1 |
14,064 | [
700,
800
] | 614 | 748 | Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model used.<br /><br />So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.<br /><br />Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.<br /><br />The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.<br /><br />Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.<br /><br />Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular. | 1 |
14,175 | [
700,
800
] | 575 | 727 | The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. "But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it," states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, "the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. "Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in "Dekalog 5" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like "I want to live" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion "a crime is always a crime": according to the principle of "par condicio" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do. | 1 |
14,243 | [
700,
800
] | 573 | 729 | Harry Langdon's "Saturday Afternoon" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's "Cops" or Chaplin's "The Immigrant" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.<br /><br />For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of "Saturday Afternoon" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch "Saturday Afternoon" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.<br /><br />But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of "Saturday Afternoon," when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.<br /><br />"Saturday Afternnon" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake. | 1 |
14,245 | [
700,
800
] | 619 | 749 | "Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl. <br /><br />It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives. <br /><br />He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once. <br /><br />Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that. <br /><br />The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in. <br /><br />This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed. | 1 |
14,260 | [
700,
800
] | 605 | 743 | "Landscape after a battle" opens with escaping prisoners over a snowy field full of fences - in rather funny movements accompanied by Vivaldis Four Seasons. A touching opening. But we soon enough learn to know these prisoners as a mob, and when they (also treated humouristic) burry a man alive, the protagonist stops for a moment, but is soon more engaged in finding books from the turndowned camp than caring about his neighbour.<br /><br />The rest of the film is set in an American camp from where the prisoners are not released, in some kind of semi freedom, semi camp. A perfect set for a study of war criminality, American camps, Polish nationalism, Catholisism, grief and human misery in general.<br /><br />Film makes an important turn. In comes women, and with them film changes light, colour and temper. At the same time it turns out that these prisoners were slaves in Holocaust. I think a main underlying political theme of the film must mankind's treatments of Jews under and after the world war, and not only the Nazi exterminations, but mankind letting it happen - and even forcing them out of Europe after the war. On an emotional level the film is about grief and the problem with letting grief come, how environment makes grief difficult, and how difficult it can be to share grief for people with different experiences. <br /><br />But the film is a carpet of underlying contradictions,humour, irony and sudden beauty. A couple of times during the film a gypsy prisoner plays on an harp, an emotional tune brutally rejected (filmatically speaking) by the protagonist. That example picks up an important essence of the film's style and theme. When it comes to humour its very comic how the protagonist constantly looses and finds back his glasses, in crowds, in hay stacks etc.<br /><br />Its not hard to understand Spielberg's respect of Wajda when you see this film. The great treatment of light can be compared with Spielberg on his best. The Grunwald intermezzo speaks for itself. Narrativly it only brings the film out of the camp, but filmatically it brings the film to dream and eternity with profound beauty. Anyhow, there is also another scene I can't let go without comment. Its the Christian Supper. Undoubtly ironical, but simultaneously deeply religious we see the transsubstantiation moment, everybody falling on their knees, while the protagonist is saved from isolation by the priest to serve as a comic altar boy. His bells are mocking the scene, but also gives it emotion and love. When Nina gets her bread, sun light falls upon her and bells ring spheric, its the peak moment of the film.<br /><br />Main actors are excellent in their roles. Olbrychski as the perfect Wajda protagonist - the doubting reflecting mind, unable to put all the aspects of his mind and emotion into life. Beautiful Celinska is with great body acting debuting in a character unable to express all her inner in her proud movements.<br /><br />Those who try to describe everything, often are unable to take nothing in consideration. This is what Wajda manages. His films are either very moving, deep or beautifully shot, but pays attention to life's and society's particularity. A moment of joy for one, is the moment of irony for a second, the moment of grief for the third, a moment of nothing for the fourth.<br /><br />There is at least two reasons to pay attention to Wajdas films of this period. First is the remarkable free expression of deep political impact. This country was the first to overthrow communism twenty years later. Second is the development of a filmatic and narrative language that Kusturica has rose to grandeur. | 1 |
14,416 | [
700,
800
] | 604 | 779 | Ostensibly, Hans ' isolation and despair are caused by a stereotypically frigid bourgeois mother, a nagging wife, and a lover's rejection. And despite the complex portrayal--Hans himself doesn't precisely make these claims--the above must be a substantial part of Fassbinder's thinking as well (his use of Freud and Marx). But the viewer may look no further than Hans' gender and sexism to locate the truer cause of his crushed spirit.<br /><br />First, it's highly unlikely that his mother's lack of love pushed him into signing up with the Foreign Legion. It was far more likely, and is in part indicated, that it was a quest for adventure, male camaraderie (escape from the female world of mother and sister) and male identity itself-- which both the Legion and war offered.<br /><br />Second, Hans loses his successful job as a policeman because of his own sexism. By falling for a prostitute's wiles at work, he not only rubber stamps prostitution as an oppressive institution, but shows that he cannot even control his sexuality in a professional arena--and is even willing to jeopardize a desirable career.<br /><br />Third, he commits serious verbal abuse against his wife in front of his sheep-like male buddies, making no distinction at all between her absence or--when she shows up looking for him--presence. In fact, he is more brutal in her presence.<br /><br />A few hours later, in a violent and drunken state, he beats his wife in front of their daughter, who intervenes on her mother's behalf. The terror he instills in her and his daughter are palpable. But both he--and the audience--move on with nary a whimper of conscience or protest. Why? Because his wife is cruelly characterized as both nagging and sexually promiscuous (yes, this this may be Fassbinder's view of what capitalism does to women--owned, insecure, and a commodity--but this hardly absolves Hans' brutality nor Fassbinder's exploitation of her in the battery scene).<br /><br />And then there is this male role pressure, which Hans could choose to reject and protest, but instead accepts. He's too short for a male and too un-heroic to achieve the worldly success the male role recommends. But how can these be causes of despair when he not only gains his lost love as a mistress but marries a tall woman who is considerably more attractive than himself., Finally, Hans allows Harry, his war comrade, to remain, over his wife's convincing plea to the contrary, on in their house. By this decision, he not only makes it clear that he is more tied to Harry than to his wife, but that male bonding supersedes his love of women. And supersedes, in the end, his own life, because it is Harry's superior competence and spirit around the house that causes Hans' star to fall. Hans, the merchant, may be to a degree, the victim of capitalism, but more to the point, he is the victim of his own allegiance to his own male identity. His inability to let it go, is the ultimate cause for his isolation and despair.<br /><br />This is something that is lost, I think, not only on Fassbinder, but also on Han's sister, Anna--although, only to a degree lost. For Anna's (and Fassbinder's) support of her brother--over her mother, only goes so far. She is quite insistent that only he can save himself--that her support and love cannot it itself end his self-loathing. Unfortunately, she does not offer any of this same support and love for his wife who must be much more embittered than Hans but, who in the end, is able to pick up the pieces, and save herself and daughter, and present a marked contrast to Han's fall. | 1 |
14,419 | [
700,
800
] | 588 | 732 | The Merchant of Four Seasons isn't what I would call a happy movie, at all, or even one that impressed me to the point of praising it to the sky (there are other Fassbinder flicks for that, like Veronika Voss and the underrated Satan's Brew). But it's certainly no less than a fascinating experiment in taking a look at those in a society that you and me and others we know might possibly know, or not really want to know. I imagine in the early 70s in Germany a generation, coming out of WW2, had a stigma to live with but tried their best just to get by. This is a stigma that floats all over this film, and in many instances in Fassbinder's work in general, but especially because with Four Seasons he takes his eye on the middle class, and a particular married couple- the distanced, depressed, angry Hans the fruit seller and his long-suffered wife- that is nothing short than trying for realism in the guise of melodrama. If Cassavetes were a crazy German he might make this film, maybe even as just a lark.<br /><br />The story sounds simple enough, where Hans' drinking gets out of control, he beats his wife (this scene is one of the toughest to take, maybe in just any movie, the way Fassbinder's camera lingers without a cut as his wife is left helpless and their daughter trying to stop him in his frenzy) and then she's ready to leave him. As he stands in the room, her family holding him back, she makes the call for divorce and he gets a heart attack right there. He recovers, his business suddenly starts booming again with some help from some good (or not so good) employees - and yet this only continues his longing, for another woman, and his despair in general.<br /><br />And yet it's in this simplicity that Fassbinder tries, and succeeds for the most part, in attaining a mood of dread, of a tense vibe in a kitchen or in the bedroom or out on the street that you can cut with a knife and bleed out. The weakest part of this all may be the acting... at least that was my initial impression. Hans, played by Hirschmuller, can be a stilted presence, with only the slightest movements in his face and eyes, and for a while it doesn't look like he's much of a good actor. The actress playing his wife, Irm Hermann, and her sister (Fassbinder Hanna Schygulla) fare better, but only cause they're given more to do conventionally, like cry or look concerned. It takes some time to adjust to what is, essentially, a void in his guy Hans, of something from his own psychological self-torment or self-pity that pervades himself and those around him who just want to get on with some sense of normalcy, especially once Hans gets successful.<br /><br />Not everything clicks together in The Merchant of Four Seasons, but enough did to make me recommend it to those looking for a different slice-of-life than you might be used to with more modern American movies. Fassbinder's world here is a combat between the melodrama he loves in cinema and the harsh, crushing sense of humanism that he feels personally and puts into characters that, for better or worse, we somehow identify with. Are the Epps a family you know of? Or could you even be them? Who's to say. It's a methodical study of tragic emptiness in the human spirit, and its goals are all attained. | 1 |
14,477 | [
700,
800
] | 580 | 714 | An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder. <br /><br />Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic. <br /><br />A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled "TranscendenZ". Also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the "game", which then they fear is real. <br /><br />The game creator, the god of the system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is "real" but the point is clear (to me anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality. And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own fascination with violence.<br /><br />Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very much against the "Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the 'real' level." Seems that Cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination -- the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them, but a critique that is unable to "transcend" the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is "imaginative" and radical. Yet the film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview. | 1 |
14,478 | [
700,
800
] | 602 | 736 | eXistenZ is an exploration of reality and virtual reality, wherein characters run from realm to realm, landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the goal of or exactly where it's leading them. Within that virtual reality game is more layers of virtual reality games, calling into question which reality they arrive from is the "real" one.<br /><br />Of course it's not spectacular at hiding the fact that it's not going to reasonably answer to a true reality, instead tossing the idea of whether it's real or a video game into question even up to the end. I'm not even sure Cronenberg pretends that twist won't be there, it's so incredibly obvious in a sense it's kind of disconcerting.<br /><br />The problem with this film though is its base nature, in a sense. Cronenberg is questioning reality AND criticizing game play. Yet the same things that he uses to criticize game play makes him revel in it: the violence, the discontinuity, the lack of focus and in a sense, the pixellation even if there isn't such pixellation in the film. I have once heard someone state that Cronenberg's violence is actually a criticism of hyperviolence in media, but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans, animals, and amorphous piles of biological sludge.<br /><br />What IS brilliantly written and done about this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what you want to say during cut scenes, relative lack of surroundings or surroundings that don't make sense, only a few people around where it feels there should be many and vice-versa, all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. It definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that's nauseating and absurd, but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal "pods" of biological matter that squirm and shift and are, frankly, disgusting to the one of the most horrifying degrees. For what it's worth, this film causes a reaction in you.<br /><br />But what for? It criticizes virtual reality, but it's a movie: it is its own virtual reality. It seems to criticize the banality of video game plot lines and character design, yet it maintains that banality. It definitely seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life, and yet I say again, it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people, objects, beasts, things, and organisms into bloody shreds.<br /><br />So whereas it has a key focus of angst, it doesn't really do anything with it, not really. Only what it does do is present that angst in such an original way it can't really be denied its own moment of splendor.<br /><br />In a sense, it'd be much easier to just hate this movie for being gory and violent, because there's no good reason I can see for loving it and yet I can't disregard it as mediocre or bad. It'd be easier to simply not be able to take it, but since I can, there's nothing I can really do with it. I do believe it is a little excessive, it really didn't need to go as far as it went, but Cronenberg's intentions are so mixed up and confused I don't know if that was Cronenberg's flaw or Cronenberg's point, and I don't think there's really any way to figure it out except maybe ask him directly.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1 |
14,582 | [
700,
800
] | 579 | 733 | I've been a fan of Heaven's Gate since its first release. I've seen it at least half-a-dozen times and have long thought of it as a masterpiece. So, it was with excitement and a sense of anticipation that I took myself off to see the restored director's cut.<br /><br />To my surprise, I was disappointed on seeing it again and have since revised my estimation of the film. Heaven's Gate touches upon greatness in parts, but overall, lacks the thematic and narrative consistency and the passionate urgency characteristic of a truly great film.<br /><br />Firstly, two technical problems: The sound quality is diffuse throughout the film, verging on inaudibility at times. Some of this, perhaps, is intentional - a way to mimic the chaos and confusion of history as it is unfolding. But at key points, one is unable to register what it is the characters are saying.<br /><br />The cinematography is similarly diffuse. The images lack sharpness and particularity of detail. The result is a certain graininess and lack of pictorial sharpness which succeeds in blurring foreground and background.<br /><br />Structurally, the narrative is off-key throughout, as if Cimino can't quite make up his mind as to the effect he is after. He wanted an epic, for sure. But a pastoral or dramatic epic? The film sits uneasily and unconvincingly between styles, and perhaps even genres. At times it reminded me of Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven' or even 'Elvira Madigan' in its languid pace and elegant scene painting. At other times it threatens to turn into a robust 'western' more akin to 'The Wild Bunch'. In fact the latter film offers an instructive reference point for an assessment of 'Heaven's Gate' as it shares the same period concern and employs a similar tone of ambivalent nostalgia for a darker yet more heroic America. <br /><br />This structural and thematic uncertainty isn't helped by the poor-quality script which often sounds forced and jarring to the ear. The result is an inauthentic sense of period speech. <br /><br />The near-greatness of Heaven's Gate resides in its set pieces. The roller skating sequence, in particular, is astoundingly beautiful, one of the most evocative scenes ever put to film.<br /><br />Another set piece which works very well in terms of unifying theme, mood, and setting occurs when Kristofferson and Huppert go riding in the new rig to the lake and she washes herself while he naps in the shade. The languid pacing, evocative music and monumental scenery combine in this scene to convincingly portray the love story which might just lie at the heart of the film - and which could have been its saving grace if pursued more convincingly.<br /><br />Some critics have complained about the length of the film. This in itself doesn't bother me. A good film can't be long enough. The restored minutes are critical in restoring the motivation and characterization absent from the cut version, and they are full of pictorial interest.<br /><br />Perhaps the chief glory of Heaven's Gate lies in the achingly evocative soundtrack. The repeated waltz motif and its different scorings throughout(full band, guitar, solo fiddle etc,)lends a haunting quality to the foreground action and establishes a thematic consistency lacking in the narrative itself.<br /><br />Despite its obvious flaws, most notably the absence of a compelling narrative, there is a sense of grandeur about the film. One leaves the cinema with a rueful sense of missed greatness and a wish that Cimino could revisit the film -with the wisdom of time and hindsight, to put right what is so badly amiss. | 1 |
14,588 | [
700,
800
] | 664 | 777 | So many of us who are devoted to the "art" of the motion picture will disregard or forget that movies are also business ventures. Most of the time, they are far too costly to produce to be anything else. In light of this, it often seems a miracle to me that really great ones do get made every now and then. Once in a while, the film-makers will go so far over budget in producing a film that the businessmen responsible for funding the enterprise will be badly hurt financially and will of course become very angry about this. I'd like to know precisely how it happens that this has often led to both the big studios and some major critics "gunning" for the picture when it is at last released. Terrible expectations are generated and often what people expect to see clouds their perception of what they are viewing.<br /><br />You can see this phenomenon at work in the imperfect, but magnificent '62 re-make 0f "Mutiny on the Bounty", and you can definitely see it in the reaction to "Heaven's Gate". Cimino took too long and cost United Artists way too much money in making this picture. The company was fatally wounded by his excesses and, no doubt, powerful people were out to see his reputation forever ruined when this strange, mammoth epic was finally released. There are always many film-goers who dislike long, weighty pictures. The storytelling in this film is not accomplished with great economy or a brisk pace. Like Stanley Kubrick, Cimino often chooses not to spell out the particular statement he is making with a given scene. Rather, he draws it out in such a way as to make the viewer feel like they are living in the moment, providing time for his own imagination to participate deeply in what is being presented. A lot of folks don't react all that favorably to this approach. They want the story to move quickly and clearly and they easily become impatient and confused by this sort of film. These factors doubtless contributed to the box-office failure of "Heaven's Gate".<br /><br />By nature, a film editor, I am deeply frustrated by two problems with this film. Here and there, a scene is clearly too long and could easily have been trimmed without harming its effectiveness. Then we come to the massive, drawn-out battle scenes at the end of the picture. Where these are concerned, the clarity of the storytelling is indeed damaged. If you liked the film up to the point where these occur, your understanding of what is supposed to be happening is likely to become unclear and this is indeed a frustration. Not having seen all the rough footage, I can not tell if actual re-shoots would have been needed, or whether some critical plot elements might have been made clearer by careful re-editing of some moments. Given the time and money that were poured into this picture, more care and thought should have been given to this problem.<br /><br />There are other problems, some occasional weak acting, some dialog that doesn't ring true, but these are really minor concerns. The reason I am so troubled by the problems stated above is that, like so many these days, I too feel that in all "Heaven's Gate" is so splendid to behold and so magnificently deals with major historic, political and sociological issues that it is just short of a masterpiece. Despite its shortcomings, it is so dramatically and visually powerful that it stands head and shoulders above most other Hollywood films I have ever seen. I'd like to re-mix a lot of the sound. I'd like to re-direct and re-edit the scene where Ella is killed, but the greatness of this picture is such that these considerations really do become trivial when compared with the value of the total production. I should add that it should always be seen on a giant wide screen to achieve the glorious effect that it is so capable of delivering. | 1 |
14,630 | [
700,
800
] | 656 | 770 | Finally! Third time lucky. This film has been always been on my mind, but my first viewing I forgot about it and only caught the second half of the film. Then only a couple months later I had the my second chance of watching of it, so I decided I would record it. Only to discover that my timer went off late and again I missed the first half of the flick. I wasn't going to allow that to happen again. So, when it came on TV again, I thought bugger it I'll wait until it comes on, then I will record it. And it was a good choice. I would have just watched the film, but they always put on weeknights around midnight. <br /><br />After discovering a hole in their crowded cell, nine prisoners escape their confinement to track down the key of the universe, which a fellow prisoner known as the Counterfeit King said he had hidden. They think that this key could be an opening for a hidden loot of counterfeit bills. On this journey they naturally see this as an opportunity to pick up their lives before they were gaoled. Although things don't turn out the way that they intended to, with most of the criminals plans going astray. <br /><br />"9 Souls" is an perky spiritual journey from Japanese director Toshiaki Toyada, which flung it's viewers into a film of two totally different halves. The first half of the story plays out more like a psychical comedy with the criminals bonds and the situations they find themselves being the selling point, but all that makes way to a moralistic and consequence drama-packed second half, where the real trouble begins with some quite nasty and bloody moments replacing the goofball tone it started off with. While, the first half is quite amusing with its on the road, screwball doodling and offbeat banter. But it's really the genuinely haunting latter half with it's peculiar turn of events that hit you so hard with some surprising touches that make you really sympathise for these very human characters. Even though they are not truly innocent from their crimes, you just become entrenched by these flesh-out characters in the first half that when you see them spiral into their downfall, you know it's an effective drama when you become shell-shocked in the dramatic change. The nine characters get enough screen time to truly understand their personal story and what weakness would eventually bring them down. The way the plot works out is that Michiru and Torakichi are the lead characters and we mostly see it from their perspectives. The escapism tale is an unquestionably engaging character study that's clear in it's goal and puts to you many questions on society and the path you choice to take to escape life and free yourself from these restraints. <br /><br />While, the symbolic story is full of clarity and vividly told. The visual element doesn't go by unnoticed, because there's just a dreamy and trance-like vibe that channels itself into the unique atmosphere. What HIGHLY contributed to that factor and gave the film a lift was the sweepingly, moody instrumental rock soundtrack. The mellow atmospheric gel it was able to create in many scenes left me rather breathless with the everlasting emotions it was able to provoke. Simply beautiful and downright powerful control on that front. The pacing for such an long film ( 2 hours ) seems to breeze by and editing is swiftly done, because we are just so wrapped up in it all. The hypnotic photography is crisp in detail. While, the performances by the cast as a odd bunch of criminals are that of high quality with each one providing enough personality and features to separate themselves. <br /><br />I found "9 Souls" to be a pleasing and quite an amazing surreal film that stirs up the emotions and then it smacks you with an almighty wallop when it changes direction. Highly recommended. | 1 |
14,689 | [
700,
800
] | 592 | 719 | Redo the Oscars from 1992, and this film might get nominated, or even win. It was SO good at capturing its era and dual cultures that it belongs in American and Japanese time capsules. If you wanted to know what living here or there was like back then, this film will show you. As an American, you'll feel like you tagged along for an extended Japanese vacation, and by the end of the film, you'll be a die-hard Dragons fan, as you accept the injection of Japanese tradition and culture into their baseball, much as we have done with our culture in our own game.<br /><br />Jack Elliot (Tom Selleck) is a slumping, aging Detroit Tigers' slugger who is traded to the Dragons, perennial runners-up to the dynastic Yomuri Giants, Japan's answer to the Yankees. The Giants are admired for their success, yet that success also has everyone wanting to surpass them, something which is rarely done. The Dragons' manager recruits Jack as the final piece of the pennant-winning puzzle, and we're left with what could have been Gung Ho on a baseball field, but instead was much more.<br /><br />The casting was outstanding: Selleck proved that with a good script and a character that suits him, he can carry a film as well as he did his television show, and the Japanese cast was equally good, down to Mr. Takagi from Die Hard back as the image-conscious owner. The other actors, including the one who plays the love interest (also the manager's daughter), strong and independent yet simultaneously a believer in Japanese traditions, beyond what was forced on her. She is a proper and supportive girlfriend for Jack. Even her father never tells her not to see him, almost sympathizing with Jack for what he endures from her, and a bit relieved he at least knows the man she has chosen to love.<br /><br />The baseball scenes are great, bolstered immensely by a pre-fame Dennis Haysbert as another American ex-patriate and Jack's western mentor. The usual fish-out-of-water elements are there, and you can almost feel yourself stumbling right along with Jack to fit into a country that doesn't speak our language, and doesn't practice our ways, yet copies everything we do, including our national pastime. one of the funnier scenes occurs when Jack, clutching a magazine, informs his manager that he has learned of the tradition in Japan where you can get drunk and tell off your boss, and it can't be used against you, and exercises that right very humorously. The plots and subplots are tied up neatly at the end, but not too neatly, and nothing concludes unrealistically.<br /><br />To call this a comedy is misguided: it's a pure comedy-drama, or even a drama with good humor. The plot is too deep to dismiss it the way it was by critics as an actor out of his league trying to carry a lightweight film. The situations were amusing, but in their place against a far more serious, profound, and precisely detailed backdrop that results in one of the best films I've ever seen. The baseball cinematography rivals that of For Love Of The Game, for realism.<br /><br />Some say the film is about baseball, or about Japan, but more than anything it seems to be about the workplace, and how people arrive at work from totally different origins, with different agendas, and somehow have to put their differences aside for the good of the company, or the team.<br /><br />A truly great film that never should have had to apologize for itself the way it did when it was in theaters. | 1 |
14,735 | [
700,
800
] | 555 | 718 | Age of Steel follows up the previous episode, Rise of the Cybermen, which was excellent in some respects, lacking in others. RotC had some positive elements, the most important being Tennant's excellent portrayal of the Doctor. Indeed, his sort of daft giddiness bears, to this writer, the shadow of Tom Baker's Doctor, with his sort of subconscious asides (as when ticking off time periods when Mickey is holding down the button in the Tardis), yet brings his own aloof superiority a la McCoy's Doctor as he lets events coalesce around him. Some reviewers and fans whose pieces I've read seem a bit dismayed at having such a young actor portray someone who must by now be over a 1000 old, but I disagree. Tennant's Doctor does indeed "bear the weight of the world on his shoulders" as he points out in this episode, and one can see this in his almost smug characterization, as when he finally confronts Lumic/The Cybercontroller in the climax. His world-weary, eyes-rolling "anothermaniacherewegoagain" sort of attitude is refreshing, especially after Eccleston's excellent pseudo-working class, bada** interpretation of the character, more the man of action than Tennant's fresh-faced pseudo-doofus. Tennant's best moment is perhaps after the end when he is restoring the Tardis with his big goofy Baker-esquire grin as the Tardis re-starts. Here we begin to get a feeling for this new Doctor, a character who is little more than the average person's different personality facets split up into 13 different people; some contradictory, some more likable than others, yet all forming part of a whole. This aside, these two episodes were passable, but weak. The concept of reviving the Cybermen is much welcomed, and they look fantastic, but the plot involving a parallel Earth where this action takes place doesn't seem to work right. True, the allegory here of humans' reliance on technology and their need to serve it, as the Doctor points out, is outstanding, but this could easily have been placed on contemporary Earth or thereabouts. Some other weak spots are, as others have pointed out, the ease with which the Doctor and Co. get out of the tight spots, viz. the death ray from the Tardis component, the seemingly endless array of uses of the Sonic Screwdriver (my wife laughed when they were using it to burn through the rope ladder at the end; she has barely watched Who, so I had to explain that it was used traditionally as a plot device to extricate the characters from situations from which there is no other escape! Used here sadly). Some of the acting was wanting, especially Mickey, who really needs his due, and some of the supporting cast. Lumic was creepy, as he needed to be, his voice even sounded Cyberman-esquire. The score was horrific, though, with the music's volume often swamping out the scene. Overall, I found Rise of the Cyberman more entertaining, though the second half was passable. The build-up to what we knew was inevitable plays out well, however the resolution was disappointing. Too many unlikely escapes, no development of the supporting cast, and not enough Tennant in my opinion. This new show is outstanding, and Davies is taking it in a good direction, but the dialogue (beyond the Doctor's) needs to be tightened up, as Mickey's farewells illustrate, which were pure ham. | 1 |
14,780 | [
700,
800
] | 571 | 730 | The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect: Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on: They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society, and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the cast moves smoothly through the clichés of the love story perfectly, except for Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here. Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s '40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to society waltzes to Gilbert/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions, and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. "Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street." | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.