review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version. | negative |
I read Rice's novel with interest, and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths.<br /><br />However, I was simply APPALLED at this disastrous adaptation. The casting was based merely on physical appearance, and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of Peter Gallagher, who was neither blond-haired, or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). The cast's embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a French accent was hilarious, but not in an entertaining way. I found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe, and was surprised I made it to the end.<br /><br />A warning to fans of the novel - stay away from this one. | negative |
This movie was horrible.<br /><br />They didn't develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. It was a definite sleeper. You'd expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but D-Wars surprises you with even a let down in that department. <br /><br />Also, the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. And I seriously mean that.<br /><br />I was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad!!! Please, whatever you do people, don't waste your time and money on a crappy movie like D-Wars. | negative |
Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End | negative |
After watching this film, I thought to myself, they really glossed up Errol Flynn's life! The movie is really nice eye candy. They really got the 1930s and 1940s atmosphere of Hollywood just right. The costumes were great. All the women looked glamorous and all the men looked handsome and debonair.<br /><br />Is this a serious film about Errol Flynn's life? Nah! It's a fun movie based on all the scandalous stuff he did in his life.<br /><br />Why am I critiquing this film? This is a film that had a lot of promise but failed to deliver. Duncan Reagher was really good as Errol Flynn. He was not as good looking as the original, but he made you believe that Flynn was not just a handsome playboy who did not take himself seriously, but as a man who, although gifted with great talent, was kind of disturbed and unhappy inside. Flynn's love life was a disaster considering he had so many failed marriages. He also lost a lot of good friends during his life. He also suffered from unrequited love for the elegant Olivia DeHavilland. The last scene of the film showed Errol kind of begging for Olivia to stay with him and instead she walks away. He is shown in his tux, looking really empty and slowly walking around the pool as he pours his drink into the pool. It was a sad way to end the film but kind of fitting because everyone knows by now how he eventually fell apart from his alcoholism and his dissipated lifestyle.<br /><br />This film could've had much more depth, could've been better well-written. Sure they showed all the scandals but they never showed Errol Flynn's human center. Surprisingly, Duncan Reagher was able to put some emotional depth into the character of Errol Flynn even though the film writing didn't put any depth there.<br /><br />I'll probably never see this film again but I can still remember after viewing this film, "Gosh, this could've been so much more.....!" I give this film a D+. | negative |
this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3 | negative |
George Zucco was a fine actor, often playing gimlet-eyed villains with a lascivious intensity. However even he couldn't save this dull and flat-footed B flick.<br /><br />Zucco plays the usual mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron, who believes that wolf's blood, injected into humans, can create an invincible army of wolf men who can win the World War II (go figure!) Experimenting on Pedro the handyman(Glenn Strange) Zucco creates a werewolf that looks rather like the ones Dave Allen used to play in his comedy sketches! Pedro is obviously based on Lennie from Of Mice And Men, and you almost keep expecting him to say "Duh, okay, George!" There's one startling moment when the werewolf kills a child by reaching in through the window and grabbing it, but for the most part this is a routine and pedestrian - very pedestrian - 77 minute tread through all the old clichés that are done far better in other movies.We also get the revenge motif from the Devil Bat worked in, in itself a borrowing from Son Of Frankenstein!<br /><br />Zucco is wasted, and you only have to see him in films such as Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy's Hand and Dr. Renault's Secret to see how wasted. A few atmospheric swamp scenes are all it has to offer, really. And the scene where Zucco demonstrates his wolf-man technique to those who doubted him (again shades of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) is unintentionally hilarious.<br /><br />Not one of the better 40s B movies. | negative |
This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the "Final Solution" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.<br /><br />The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave "legal respectibility" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered "I'll remember you" and Firth replies "you should! I'm very well-known!!" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed. | negative |
My two daughters (ages 11 and 13) and I were lucky enough to see a screening of this movie last night. We were all pleasantly surprised to see how entertaining and funny this movie was. David Duchovny was very appealing as the male lead and Minnie Driver gave her usually competent performance. Some of the scenes are laugh out loud funny - especially one scene Minnie Driver has with a fellow "transplant" donee. I liked the fact that it was a movie that I could watch with my children and I wasn't embarrassed by any scene whatsoever. Everyone in the movie theater was laughing and enjoying themselves. Thumbs up Bonnie Hunt! | positive |
Continuing his comeback, John Travolta played a mildly twisted angel in "Michael". He may be a messenger of God, but he's not the nicest guy, as reporters Andie MacDowell and William Hurt discover. When I first saw this movie, it was before I had started watching "All in the Family", so I didn't recognize Jean Stapleton as Edith Bunker. Now that I recognize her like that, I try to imagine Archie snapping at her for harboring an angel (whom he would probably rank alongside blacks, Jews, etc).<br /><br />I know, that doesn't really relate to the movie. But I just like to associate things that way. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting movie. Also starring Bob Hoskins, Teri Garr and Richard Schiff.<br /><br />What John and Paul said... | positive |
Although the word megalmania is used a lot to describe Gene Kelly, and sometimes his dancing is way too stiff, you have to admit the guy knows how to put on a show. In American In Paris, he choreographs some outstanding numbers, some which stall the plot, but are nonetheless amazing to look at. (Check out Gene Kelly's "Getting Out Of Bed Routine" for starters)<br /><br />Gene Kelly stars as a GI who is based out of Paris, he stayed there to paint, soon he is a rich woman's gigolo, but he really LOVES SOMEONE ELSE! Hoary story sure, but the musical numbers save the show here! I really loved Georges Gu¨¦tary's voice work in this one. His 'Stairway to Paradise' and his duet with Le Gene on 'S Wonderful' is 's marvelous'. Oscar Levant and Leslie Caron I can take or leave. All in all, a pretty good, but not dynamite movie. | positive |
Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen. Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would have other people. | positive |
It's refreshing to see a movie that you think will end happily just like almost every other American movie, and then be surprised when that doesn't happen. I like a happy ending as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's better to portray things in a more realistic manner, and I thought Brokedown Palace did this very well.<br /><br />The ending, with one friend basically sacrificing herself for the other, thus redeeming her earlier poor behavior which got them into the situation in the first place, was very moving. I almost rather would have done without the last line, which proved that she didn't actually do the deed she confessed to, because that would have made the movie more about the friendship between the two girls, and less about the crime. Whether she did it or not wasn't that important.<br /><br />The story itself bordered on the cliché, but the actresses kept my attention with their excellent performances. Very realistic, very captivating.<br /><br />7 out of 10. | positive |
I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her. | positive |
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD starts off promisingly, setting up a simple heist that goes awry, told from varying perspectives (in RASHOMON style). At around the hour mark, Sidney Lumet transforms this film into something that is so much more than the sum of its parts; it eventually morphs into a multi-faceted family drama, exploring the full realm of human emotions/relations, as the story comes to its chilling climax.<br /><br />As is the case with Lumet, he manages to coax exceptional performances out of his star-studded cast, without any notion of over-acting or hyperbole. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in one of his best roles, is a complex, mysterious, and interesting character, and oftentimes dwarfs Ethan Hawke, who plays his brother, Hank. That's not to say that Hawke is not bad; in fact he is quite above adequate, in a troubled role that suits his style. Marisa Tomei is excellent for her relatively short appearance (the fact that she bares her flesh adds to this). Albert Finney's character (Andy and Hank's father) is the most intriguing, and in my opinion, he deserved a bit more screen-time. Amy Ryan also performs her job adequately.<br /><br />BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD is not an exceptional movie, but it proves that Lumet is still near the top of his game at the (apparent) twilight of an illustrious career. Many of his characteristics and trademarks appear here, not least of which involves the use of his characters. Infused with a killer script (no pun intended), smart dialogue and pacing, and a decent score, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD is a must-see. A truly underrated gem. 8/10. 3 stars (out of 4). Should just enter my Top 250 at 248. Highly recommended. | positive |
A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish. | negative |
Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. <br /><br />Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). <br /><br />On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.<br /><br />Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.<br /><br />2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.<br /><br />3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. <br /><br />4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.<br /><br />5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.<br /><br />6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.<br /><br />Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984. | negative |
"The Quickie" tells of a decadent Russian mob family who lives in Malibu and...well, frankly, this awful attempt at drama isn't worthy of commentary.<br /><br />Jason Leigh introduces herself to Mr. Mob-guy as being from "Pacific Exterminators" with huge letters in plain sight on her back which say "West Coast Exterminators". Eventually the mob-guys get suspicious because she was exterminating in a bedroom. (duh).<br /><br />In another scene Mr. Mobguy plays Russian roulette giving a hooker $4000 to bet whether he'll live or die. She has 5 chances out of 6 of keeping the money if she bets "live". Well, she bets "die". (double duh) Later she complains it wasn't fair and wants to play again. (Triple duh).<br /><br />The list of flaws just goes on and on while this intelligence insulting film stinks and sinks in a quagmire of lousy music, mediocre camera work, poor direction, boring story, etc. Pass on this loser. (D)<br /><br />Note - The barebones DVD which I rented had no English same language subtitles or closed captions. | negative |
Alone in The Dark is one of my favorite role-playing-games of all time. I remember spending whole nights facing the PC screen, trying to escape that mansion and actually being startled at times when monsters came surprisingly charging in. Now, mind you - I am weary of "computer-game-generated" movies. I don't remember a single success story in this new Hollywood genre, although some are entertaining enough to be watchable. And yet, I am such a big fan of the game that I couldn't resist. My rationale was that if the movie had a plot that so much as resembled the game's, it would be OK. <br /><br />Man, those were 90 minutes (which seemed like 300) of my life that I'll never get back. If I had that chance, I would have gladly spent them rearranging my sock drawer instead. This isn't even in the "so bad it's funny" category. You would think even Christian Slater had a bit more sense than joining this stink bomb. Now, Tara Reid... I'm not complaining about her presence. However, if the purpose of putting this chick in a starring role is to have a sex scene, - which I totally understand and support (hey, I'm a guy!) - I've seen more of her body on press conferences.<br /><br />There is no plot to speak of. Won't waste your time pitching it to you. The credibility of the story sinks below 'I did not have sex with Ms. Lewinski'. The acting is but a few notches above 'Street Fighter', which, by the way, being one of the worst movies I've seen, I would recommend OVER this one.<br /><br />Kids, I recommend the Video Game. It has far better story, acting and much more thrills. As for the movie, here's a spoiler - it STINKS! Wait for the porno version. | negative |
Admittedly, Parsifal is not an opera that can appeal to everyone, although it is a favourite of mine, Knappertsbusch, 1951, in particular. Syberberg's entire approach is so static. Whenever the music suddenly begins to swell ... Syberberg keeps the cast moving at the same pace. The takes on Amfortas and Klingsor are endless. Whatever happened to film editing? The result is physically exhausting to watch. The viewer is never spiritually transported. Your impulse is to rush home and play a recording again to confirm that Wagner got it right, Syberberg got it wrong. And that set decoration with those "clever" reminders of Wagner's anti-Semitism -- will there ever be a viewer of this film with no prior knowledge of Wagner? | negative |
"Nothin'. There ain't nothing' in Room 237. But you ain't got no business going' in there anyway. So stay out. You understand? Stay out." <br /><br />Never has there been such a feat of psychological horror as this film achieves. This is the highest rated horror film of all and rightly so. Jack nicholson is a superb actor and this is one of the greatest performances in cinema.<br /><br />Its about a family moving to an isolated and deserted hotel for 5 months over the winter. Then the father (Jack) becomes almost possessed by the horrors in the hotel.<br /><br />Kubricks direction is nothing short then perfect. The tense tracking shots, agonising music, mystical messages and perplexing plot makes this the best horror film ever made.<br /><br />Throughout the film there is constant references to danger, death and horror. Red is used in EVERY scene. Is the red purposely put in by Kubrick? Of course!.<br /><br />This is a definitive Kubrick classic and this is the third of his films I have given 10/10. He is a perfectionist in his direction and you can see it in all his films. He loves to perplex his watchers in everyone of his films.<br /><br />I will be talking about this film for months to come. It has infinite depth.<br /><br />In conclusion, this is the cornerstone of horror and tension. A masterpiece of terror 10/10 | positive |
This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.<br /><br />Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable. | negative |
Why do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding "The Truth":<br /><br />Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.<br /><br />Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.<br /><br />Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.<br /><br />I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:<br /><br />"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests."<br /><br />It's English Jim, but not as we know it. <br /><br />The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).<br /><br />The film was set in "England". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.<br /><br />Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud "crunch! crunch!" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon... | negative |
I liked nearly all the movies in the Dirty Harry series with the exception of the one I think is titled "Enforcer". "Deadpool" was a bit weak in areas too, but I still enjoyed it. This one is one of my favorites of the series, if nothing else for the great line of "Go ahead, make my day". This one also features an interesting albeit familiar plot of someone killing those that have done her wrong. Just think "Magnum Force" with less mystery about who is behind the killings and you have your plot. Granted there is a bit more than that as this one does feature a very nice final showdown at an amusement park. It also features Dirty Harry getting a bulldog as a gift and it tripping up Sandra Locke in a rather humorous scene. The only question that remains is why Clint Eastwood had to have the rather mediocre actress Sandra Locke in so many of his movies. She brings the score down a point every time even when overall the movie is enjoyable to me. Granted she is not to bad here, but her character could have been so much better by someone else. Another problem with this movie and other Dirty Harry movies, at times they almost seem to be advertisements for guns. I like guns as much as the next person, but do we really need scenes of him explaining all the different strengths of his newest weapon and how many bullets it holds? Still, very nice entry into the Dirty Harry series of movies. | positive |
It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10! | negative |
A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.<br /><br />Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the "deserted island" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing "Dogma 95" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous "Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity" correctly, proclaimed that "genre films" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film "movement" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word "dogma" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)<br /><br />Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clichés attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. "Is this the promised end?" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your "movement" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. "Artisan" and "artist" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical. <br /><br />Contemptible. 1 star out of 10. | negative |
I had recently been watching Johnny Test in an attempt to find humor in it. I failed, horribly. Cartoon Network usually has a tendency to make their shows enjoyable by all audiences, but Johnny Test is "entertainment" in it's lowest form. The writing is incredibly predictable, and the running gags aren't much gags at all. Kids will love it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Now, this isn't to say that it's all bad. The original opening theme was actually pretty catchy, but for some reason they took the skeleton of it and figuratively smashed it with a figurative aluminum bat. It's a shame, because that was really one of the best things it had going for it.<br /><br />Some of the characters could be very interesting, in theory. With a little work, the characters could work well together, but they're too one-dimensional. Then again, this makes it easy for the kids to follow. <br /><br />The pace is a bit too fast as well. The episodes are too busy, leaving little time for clever writing. This is a real shame, because there are so many interesting concepts that the show brings forth. On the upside, however, the fast pace will stop the kids from losing interest, and that's really the entirety of the target audience.<br /><br />Overall, the show looks very good on paper, but just doesn't succeed in being funny or interesting. This is a show I want to like, but I'm incapable of it. There's just so much potential that isn't realized. Kids will enjoy it, but that's about it. | negative |
When this initially aired in 1984, my wife and I taped it on our very first VHS recorder. I still have that aging tape, which I try to watch annually. It was the year my first child was born, and seeing A Christmas Carol in this incarnation brings back fond memories of happy times -- many hours of which were spent with this film playing in the background. I finally broke down this year and ordered a DVD, which prompted me to take a moment to write this brief reaction to the movie. Charles Dickens' story is captured in outstanding fashion here. George C. Scott is absolutely amazing and totally believable as Scrooge. The supporting cast is equally spectacular. This is, to my mind, a flawless production. Little details add much to the enjoyment. The game "similes" Scrooge's nephew and wife play with their party guests is a neat item. (I've since re-created it with my high school English students as a brief respite from class work!) Honestly, I can think of few ways to entertain myself over the holidays I enjoy more than indulging in this CBS production, which was originally sponsored by IBM. (Incidentally, it's fun to watch the old tape with the original IBM commercials ... which show just how much computers have evolved in 21 years. Amazing how things have changed!) Bottom line: A Christmas Carol is a timeless story, and this rendition is a timeless classic. Enjoy ... and God Bless Us, Every One! | positive |
I am sitting here watching the film, Tango and Cash. IT led to a discussion about other great late 80s movies. The ridiculous Tunrer and Hooch, K9 connection came up.<br /><br />Granted I have never seen K9PI and if I still value my life, I never will. Joshua quotes this as his movie of the year. Wow. Wow. I am utterly astonished that this movie exists. But so much more than that the fact that Joshua likes this move disturbs me to the core. I think Joshua is one interesting guy <br /><br />K9<br /><br />K9 | negative |
I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more. The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that "Talk Radio" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out "JFK" or "Salvador." This is not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless. | positive |
Pulling in 2.6 million viewers, one has to wonder what everyone's opinions on the storyline/plot is.<br /><br />Reading the run down over at lifetime, I was led to believe that this would be an edge-of-your-seat thriller about a single mother being stalked and finally confronting the stalker. Sadly I was mistaken. While the main plot is interesting enough - Single mother run off road one night, then is stalked by same guy, the reasoning behind the stalking left nothing but a really bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />Laura Leighton plays the victim, and she does it well. Whether it was all those years on Melrose Place or not, she does well in this movie, playing a mother who would do anything to protect her son from harm, and she's looking pretty good too these days.<br /><br />Leighton is really the only good thing about this movie. I think many people will identify with the main character, after discovering why the stalker is stalking, it will be a view-only-once type of movie. | positive |
This was really a pleasure to see; the dialogue was - for the most part - absolutely outstanding (I thought the women's roles were a little better written, which is a nice surprise). The performances were uniformly very good, too. Frank Gorshin overdoes it a little when he goes into his various cons, but this might be his overcompensating for what I see as weaknesses in how the character is written; he's VERY good otherwise. Harry Groener does similarly well with a slightly underwritten character (Tony), overdoing some of the character's angrier scenes slightly. Ursula Burton is excellent as Sister Theresa, really carrying the film through some of its weaknesses. Seymour Cassel and Louise Fletcher are a little underused here, though I liked their work as always. Shirley Jones, Wendie Malick, Jill Eikenberry and Faye Grant are very good also (I couldn't help thinking Grant reminded me a little of Catherine O'Hara here); Cloris Leachman rather tears into her role, with reasonably good results.<br /><br />I wish there had been more of a sure hand behind the camera, though. Sometimes the framing or staging seemed a bit off, or awkward. The closeups seemed overused (or erratically used) to me. And we don't always go from scene to scene as smoothly as we'd like. Some of the "tough guy" approach to the federal agent (music, costuming) was too over the top for me as well. And the few fantasy sequences didn't really work. But there are things that were VERY well done; the opening sequence set in Buffalo around 1970, for example. And, frankly, all of the scenes regarding Theresa's church work (I suspect the writer and actress liked the character a lot, which helps). The scenes between Malick and Eikenberry are VERY good.<br /><br />The plot is probably a bit overcontrived - there seem to be a few too many schemes going on at once to keep them all straight at times, and the coincidences got to be a little too much. And I was a little bothered by the ending (should we REALLY be rooting for their biggest con yet to succeed?), but the ride along the way is very enjoyable. It would be nice to see more independent movies like this one made.<br /><br />7 of 10 | positive |
I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.<br /><br />Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.<br /><br />In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.<br /><br />I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.<br /><br />The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities. | negative |
OK. Who ever invented this film hates humanity and wants to see them all slit their throats. This "film" was absolute and utter filth. What the heck was up with the weird old bags eyes? Seriously, was she on some sort of horrible drug and then she like just thought she could control people? She was running around with her freaking evil eye and it was like what? Do I have a booger hanging out of my nose? What are you staring at? Are you like the sea witch or something? All and all though I thought the graphics were top notch old chap. For that alone I would give it a ten. But just cover your ears when you are watching it. The pure and complete evil that comes from that film will make your ears bleed and your eyelids fall off. Who knows? You might even get a knot in your small intestine. You better watch out fools. | positive |
I don't know what it is exactly, but the film is happily sitting on my shelf, with no thought of ever leaving me...Fulci has crafted one of the most ridiculous, bizzare, cheez-infested and well unique movies I've ever seen. Not sure what else to say about it, but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! The steak tartar scene is absolutely uproarious, and the whole nazi torture orgy fiasco is strangely hilarious...I'm not sure what Fulci was trying to do, but has anyone heard that, based on this film, Fulci accused Wes Craven of ripping him off with "Scream"? "Cat in the Brain" is a must for bad movie lovers everywhere...Yes I'll definitely say it's not a "good" film, but I guarantee certain scenes will stick in your mind forever! This is an exercise in craziness, people...I guess if I were a "serious" critic I'd give it a 3, but on sheer enjoyability (again I can't really explain my affections) I'd give it a 7....Really whacked out flick... | positive |
On October of 1945, the American German descendant Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) arrives in a post-war Frankfurt and his bitter Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) gets a job for him in the Zentropa train line as a sleeping car conductor. While traveling in the train learning his profession, he sees the destructed occupied Germany and meets Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the daughter of the former powerful entrepreneur of transport business and owner of Zentropa, Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold stays neutral between the allied forces and the Germans, and becomes aware that there is a terrorist group called "Werewolves" killing the sympathizers of the allied and conducting subversive actions against the allied forces. He falls in love for Katharina, and sooner she discloses that she was a "Werewolf". When Max commits suicide, Leopold is also pressed by the "Werewolves" and need to take a position and a decision.<br /><br />"Europa" is an impressive and anguishing Kafkanian story of the great Danish director Lars von Trier. Using an expressionist style that recalls Fritz Lang and alternating a magnificent black & white cinematography with some colored details, this movie discloses a difficult period of Germany and some of the problems this great nation had to face after being defeated in the war. Very impressive the action of the occupation forces destroying resources that could permit a faster reconstruction of a destroyed country, and the corruption with the Jew that should identify Max. Jean-Marc Barr has an stunning performance in the role of man that wants to stay neutral but is manipulated everywhere by everybody. The hypnotic narration of Max Von Sydow is another touch of class in this awarded film. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Europa" | positive |
If the themes of The Girl From Missouri sound familiar it should. That's because Anita Loos who wrote the screenplay here also wrote the classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Unlike Marilyn Monroe in that film, Jean Harlow will accept any kind of jewelry from men of means.<br /><br />And it's men of means that Jean Harlow is after. She leaves the road side hash house run by her mother and stepfather because she's decided that the best way to gain the easy life is to marry it. Her talents as a chorus girl are limited, but she'll be able to trade in on that beauty.<br /><br />Her odyssey starts with her and friend Patsy Kelly getting an invitation to perform at a party thrown by millionaire Lewis Stone. But unbeknownst to Jean, Stone's just having a wild last fling before doing himself because of the moneys he owes not owns. Still she wrangles a few baubles from him that fellow millionaire Lionel Barrymore notices. <br /><br />Lionel's amused by it until Jean sets her sights on his playboy son, Franchot Tone. After that he is not amused and he looks to shake Jean from climbing the family tree.<br /><br />The Girl From Missouri went into production mid adaption of The Code so it went under peculiar censorship. I've a feeling we would have seen a much more risqué film. Still Jean Harlow as a younger and sassier version of Mae West is always appreciated. What a great comic talent that woman had, seeing The Girl From Missouri is a sad reminder of the great loss the world of film sustained with her passing three years later.<br /><br />Ironically enough the casting of Patsy Kelly with Harlow was no doubt influenced by the successful shorts Kelly was making with another famous platinum blonde, Thelma Todd. Harlow and Kelly have the same easy chemistry between that Patsy had with Thelma. Todd would also die a year later in a freak accident/suicide/homicide that no satisfactory explanation has ever really been given. <br /><br />Don't miss The Girl From Missouri, it's bright and sassy, must be from all that sparkling jewelry. | positive |
My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.<br /><br />I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.<br /><br />The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.<br /><br />This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM! | negative |
I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than pretty.<br /><br />This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws: <br /><br />1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average soldier <br /><br />2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production <br /><br />But all this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a villain, I just love him when he's so pagal<br /><br />A must-see (along with Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate) | positive |
Not even Goebbels could have pulled off a propaganda stunt like what Gore has done with this complete piece of fiction. This is a study in how numbers and statistics can be spun to say whatever you have predetermined them to say. The "scientists" Gore says have signed onto the validity of global warming include social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. Would you say a meteorologist is an expert in neuro-surgery? The field research and data analysis geologists are involved in do not support Gores alarmist claims of global warming. As one of those geologists working in the field for the last 40 years I have not seen any evidence to support global warming. My analysis of this movie and Gores actions over the last couple years brings me to the conclusion that global warming is his way of staying important and relevant. No more, no less. Ask any global warming alarmist or "journalist" one simple question- You say global warming is a major problem. Tell me. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be? | negative |
This was a shockingly bad movie and I literally gasped the first time seeing the Blue Screen puppets. Imagine the worst Blue Screen special effects you ever saw, make it somehow far worse, and then combine this with poorly made, rubber and Play-doh puppets that look like something from a semi-retarded pre-school art class. Then add some screeching, Yngwie Malmstein-esquire, melodic-metal guitar solos stuff that is way too loud and lasts way too long. The overall film is absolutely awful and makes "Feeders" look like "Rashomon." Its one of the worst movies I've ever seen, with every quantifiable metric spiraling dismally downward, much like a waterlogged turd in the perpetual, slow whirlpool of a broken Rest Stop toilet. Still, though, a film like "Actium Maximus" is not to be missed by the bad movie conesseuirs out there, even if only by looking up clips on YouTube or someplace. This movie is a bit of an eye opener, if you can stomach the ride. I think this director may be mentally ill, though, which is a bit debasing. Watching him discuss the project, you get the sense that he truly believes that he's created something wonderful. I guess he's the "Star Wars kid" of gonzo filmmakers. What a mess. :-) | negative |
If you don't have anything better to do, then go ahead and rent this movie, it's intelligent, funny it will sure have your attention busy for a while.<br /><br />I discover it by surfing channels in a boring Sunday, it was on cable, and for the faces I saw, I thought it may worth the try, it made me laugh and for a movie in a Sunday with nothing else on TV, it was OK. <br /><br />Liv Tyler looks amazing in the movie, even though her acting is not what I expected, it's kind of poor acting and for the rest of the crew, I liked Reba in her role as a Dr. also I found interesting seeing the guy from the sitcom "What I like about you" playing an almost gay lawyer.<br /><br />As for J. Goodman I found it, as always a very good performance, Michael Douglas plays a small role but His characterization was hard for me to identify him..<br /><br />It's also a good movie to watch with company. | positive |
HANDS OF THE RIPPER <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />An Edwardian doctor (Eric Porter) uses newfangled Freudian analysis on a young girl (Angharad Rees) who turns out to be the daughter of Jack the Ripper, and just as deadly...<br /><br />Unlikely Hammer horror, in which a respectable society figure takes charge of a beautiful young waif without attracting so much as a whiff of scandal, even when she takes to murdering all and sundry with a variety of lethal implements (broken mirrors, hat-pins, etc.)! L.W. Davidson's screenplay wanders aimlessly from one murder to another, sacrificing the material's inherent subtext (Porter's obvious attraction to Rees) in favor of commercial melodrama, and the tone remains subdued throughout. Some of the gore scenes are surprisingly vivid, even for Hammer, and these were clipped from the original US release (despite an R rating from the MPAA), though the complete version is now available on home video. Porter and Rees give excellent performances, and the climax in St. Paul's cathedral is a definite highlight, but the rest of the film is strangely hollow and unaffecting. Directed by Peter Sasdy. | negative |
It has past almost 25 years since I saw this movie. I would consider this film as an all time classic in a drama category. Anthony Queen gives one of the most wonderful performances ever. In a matter of minutes he takes you from laugh to tears. This movie represents a splendid picture of how humanity changed after the II World War. How a great part of that generation and the forthcoming lost its innocence. It has taken me long time to find this film by its name "the 25th hour". This type of films are not a moneymakers but they are for sure a treasure for some. I am very surprise why this movie is not used for the media in a broaden way in order for more people to enjoy this picture. | positive |
I have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident. The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little brother. <br /><br />(The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a conscience.<br /><br />Old hippies did a great job raising that generation.<br /><br />For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing. Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to date. <br /><br />The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison. <br /><br />Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head. Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character. <br /><br />Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the best! | positive |
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. | positive |
This completely forgotten slasher flick is one of the best horror movies ever made.Very dark at times it reminds me a little famous thriller "Deliverance".Director Jeff Lieberman creates terrific atmosphere of dread and despair.All actors are decent and the climax is really exciting and memorable.So if you are searching for something creepy,try to find this little treasure.My personal rating:10 out of 10.P.S This one is even more chilling than "Halloween". | positive |
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.<br /><br />She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.<br /><br />That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway." (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.<br /><br />Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor. | negative |
A very interesting addition to the Scandavian surrealistic collection. Recommended viewing for those who like their movies complicated. My interpretation of the 'strange' ending would be that Andreas' journey ends in Hell. He dislikes the bland consumer-led emptiness of purgatory; a sort of 'living' but not progressing, i.e. not getting anywhere - even the city's metro trains don't stop at the stations. It has a Metro system, like you should be able to travel, freedom, escape, but you can never actually board those trains. He is unable to reach fragrant, sensory heaven and winds up continuing his bus journey to its final destination. The old Norse version of Hell (Hades, NOT Hell the terrestrial city) isn't burning hot like the British version, its cold, freezing, the land of Niflheim (land of cold and mists). This appears to be where Andreas end up, having just failed to access Heaven through that tunnel. | positive |
Perhaps not Miyazaki's best work, but I couldn't help but love it to death. A five-year old boy finds what he thinks is a goldfish stuck in a bottle. He saves its life and keeps it in a bucket as a pet, but it really is a magical being, the daughter of a human wizard and a sea goddess. Ponyo, as the boy names her, is taken back to the sea by her father, who tries to discourage her from returning to land and becoming human, but she gets into his magic elixirs and does what she wants to do. The story is simple and cute. Where the film really comes alive, though, is in its tremendous artwork. The drawings are more child-like than in any of Miyazaki's other works, but there's beauty in its simplicity. As with all of his films, Miyazaki creates this world of imagination that I was just so in awe of. Seeing it in the theater brought back memories of what it was like when the opening notes of Jo Hisaishi's score for Princess Mononoke washed over me and gave me goosebumps just short of a decade ago (the score here is equally as wonderful). I wanted to live in this world and never leave it. | positive |
A very cute movie with a great background provided by the city of Boston and Fenway Park. As a baseball fan and light movie addict, it hit a homerun for me. Plenty of laughs and plenty of authentic baseball scenes with real ballplayers and real references to past Bosox failures. And how enjoyable was it to watch a movie with a baseball theme without having to endure an overage, over-the-hill, self-serving Kevin Costner attempting to make believers out of a critical audience? Jimmy and Drew did a fine job as a young love-struck couple suffering from Jimmy's Bosox "jones". It was a bit whacky and out of left field, but there really are Sox fans that are that fanatic and live their lives through the fortunes of their beloved team. The movie coasted along at a fast pace and the ending, although predictable, had the charm and sentimentality of so many other popular movies, without being overly pretentious. <br /><br />Also enjoyable was the return of Willie Garson to the screen. I miss the forever-popular "Stanford Blatch" from Sex & the City. He's always funny, even when he does or says very little. <br /><br />So buy yourself two box seats, some popcorn, and get ready for a fun time. "Fever Pitch" is a winner. | positive |
I knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of "entertainment". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I couldn't stand their antics nor did I appreciate that there were just too many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a back seat and fans of these actors will probably be disappointed.<br /><br />The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--and it's really not a horror movie despite the cast.<br /><br />Overall, it's passable entertainment at best. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt cheated having to watch Kyser and his knuckleheads. | negative |
This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.<br /><br />Real Rating, -10 Disgusting | negative |
This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.<br /><br />But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old "I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate" cliché.<br /><br />Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end: <br /><br />1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, "I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret." And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.<br /><br />2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.<br /><br />3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.<br /><br />For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.<br /><br />These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too. | negative |
Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.<br /><br />Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.<br /><br />While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.<br /><br />The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.<br /><br />It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.<br /><br />Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality. | negative |
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this. | negative |
I really really liked this one. I know, it's rampant with what are now cliché plot lines, and plenty of overacting, but it was hell of a lot of fun.<br /><br />In our quest for 70's and 80's horror cheese, we come across many flicks that are so bad they're good. We also have some that are so 'good' they suck, and then, we have some that are so bad they are just bad. This is definitely so bad it's good.<br /><br />Some teens traveling come across an 'oasis' in the middle of nowhere, a forgotten slice of roadside America, and they decide to 'check it out.' They cross every line of inappropriate until it is absurd and they pay for it. They pay dearly.<br /><br />I would not normally give a movie like this a 9, but the girls in this one are the type that we miss from the 1970's: ditzy, scantily-clad and FIT. These aren't the anorexic broads from today's horrible horror; they look awesome in booty shorts.<br /><br />I give it a 9 out of 10, kids. | positive |
Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.<br /><br />The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing "Spot the Villain" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.<br /><br />A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is. | negative |
This was a delightful presentation. Hemo (blood) as a Greek god was so well played by the animation with vanity, arrogance, snobbish superiority and innocent wonder. The quote (or scene) I recall vividly is when Hemo tires of "all this plumbing ... you haven't learned my secrets at all" and threatens to storm out, the Scientist answers him in a single word "Thalassa" -- salt water which horrifies the Fiction Writer but mollifies Hemo and segues so neatly into the chemical aspects of blood. <br /><br />Such a splendid blend of entertainment and information make this a classic as fresh and engrossing today as the day it was released. Stimulating the interest and imagination is fundamental to teaching kids to love learning. | positive |
*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible. | negative |
Mark Blankfield (from the old late night TV show "Fridays")plays Dr. Daniel Jekyll, a mild-mannered surgeon who invents a powder that turns him into a drug-crazed party animal. This was not, of course, his intent, he had higher aspirations, but he goes with the flow. This is actually a fairly stupid movie, but it's also pretty fun. Of course, once the good doctor realizes what he's done, he's ashamed, but he's also not above doing it all again & running through Hollywood as a crazed sex machine with frizzed out hair & gold chains. There's a few subplots like Jekyll's fiancée, who is the daughter of the head doctor at Our Lady of Suffering and Pain, Jekyll's employer. And there's Tim Thomerson as a plastic surgeon with seemingly few "real" parts and a taste for men, and a rich old man whose situation is a parody of Howard Hughes, and who is going to make several people rich with a complete set of organ transplants, including testicles. Yeah, the humor is raunchy and silly, and overall the whole thing is fairly tasteless, but if you're not above a quick wallow in the gutter, you'll probably like it just fine. Now available on DVD too, for the first time! Woohoo! 7 out of 10. | positive |
Yeah, there's a "sleeper" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to "24" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, "He's gonna... " and, poof, it would happen... "Guess that van is gonna roll off the... " and there she goes.<br /><br />And so on.<br /><br />And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.<br /><br />This show is no "24". I've watched "24". Sleeper Cell, you're no "24". | negative |
I can honestly say I never expected this movie to be good. I do not like family films. I am far from a fan of Shahid Kapoor. The director's last movie (MPKDH was complete stupidity. And the music was very boring and bland. But there was Amrita Rao, who has become my favorite after Main Hoon Na. There was also Seema Biswas, Alok Nath, and Anupam Kher who are very talented. So a few plus points.<br /><br />I finally saw the movie and I was very impressed. He brings us the young lovers of MPK with a pinch of the HAHK wedding, and we have a winner. The story outline is similar to HAHK, light hearted in the beginning to serious mode at the end. The director also made character that you could relate to. The thing I did not like about HAHK was that the characters were too eccentric. The casting adds to its perfection. Shahid Kapoor surprised me with a good performance. This is a major improvement, and most importantly he suits the role. The best is easily Amrita Rao. In fact, this is her best performance. Her screen presence is so electrifying, you are bound to love her performance. Sameer Soni, Amrutha Prakash, Anupam Kher, Alok Nath and Seema Biswas are terrifically cast. Not one actor feels out of place. <br /><br />The songs were quite disappointing but they will sound better after watching them. Mujhe Haq Hai and Do Anjaane Ajnabi are nice ballads. Milan Abhi Aada Adhura Hai is also nice in watching. The songs aren't colorful and dancey, and they are more like ballads. The exception is Hamari Shaadi Mein which is bound to remind you of HSSH and HAHK. So what was the flaw in the movie? The movie gets quite slow, and the ending is quite stretched. But the movie is still goes at a good pace, making it a perfect family film. | positive |
Larisa Shepitko's THE ASCENT (1976) is an extraordinary, gruelling account of the partisans' fight against the Nazis in German-occupied Belorussia, The Ascent reflects the Russian obsession with the horrors of the Great Patriotic War, but unusually is both steeped in religious symbolism and ready to acknowledge the existence of the less than great Russian collaborator. The true battle is not with the Nazis, who hover in the background as mere extras, but between the Russian Nazi investigator and Sotnikov, the captured partisan who finds the spiritual strength to go to his death unbeaten. With its many references to the Crucifixion, the story takes on heroic proportions glorifying the sufferings of the martyr and his influence on future generations. A remarkable piece of work. | positive |
If you watch this movie you'll be quoting it and referring to it for a long time to come. It's been years since I saw Dolemite and I still quote it to this day. It's a true classic. It is so mind-numbingly awful that it makes a hilarious view. Every terrible line of dialogue is totally amazing. Every wobbly shot a work of art(?). And every punch and kick so woefully executed. You won't believe your eyes. It's all I can say. If I really get into how mesmerizing this movie is I won't be able to stop and I'll go way over the IMDb 1000-word limit.<br /><br />Please, please watch this movie. You'll be in hysterics. Either 1/10 or 10/10, depending on your sense of humor. | positive |
This is one odd film. It seems to be aimed at a younger audience, but is filled with sexual innuendos. The whole premise is rather absurd, not just the idea of some shrunken heads of three dead kids doing some crime fighting, but the same said kids taking on a gang of tough older guys is a little far-fetched, but then again, the parents are mainly absent in the film and there is a lack of authority figures to keep the kids in line.<br /><br />The cast are good though, Meg Foster plays a very butch mafia-like leader, with the handsome A.J. Damato as the leader of the bullies. Aerky Egan and Rebecca Herbst are well cast as the young lovers, though for a comic actress of her talent, Leigh Allyn Baker is notoriously wasted in this film.<br /><br />Overall, the film is unusual, but I don't think that is enough to make up for the poor quality and bumbling execution. The scenery is all rather dull and the "special effects" quite dismal. Sit this one out, unless your in the mood. | negative |
"Uzumaki" takes place in a small Japanese rural town,where people are going mad.They go nuts over vortexes and spirals.The crisis is getting worse,because people are turning into snails and vortexes appear everywhere."Uzumaki" has to be one of the most bizarre and original horror movies I have seen.The plot is really clever and the gore scenes are really funny as the film doesn't takes itself too seriously."Uzumaki" is wonderfully photographed and the use of colors is top-notch.The characters are likeable and there is enough shocking surprises to satisfy fans of Japanese horror.Despite of some hilarious scenes,the overall tone of this film is pretty dark."Uzumaki" is not as good as "Ringu","Ju-on" or "Audition",but if you like Japanese horror movies you won't be disappointed.7 out of 10. | positive |
"Icky Flix" is an excellent starting point for anybody with even a vague interest in the Residents. Most of their classic videos are present (although "Earth vs. Flying Saucers" and "Don't Be Cruel" are curiously missing), and the "concentrates" of their various CD-ROM projects offer tantalizing glimpses into how the orbed ones have been spending their time since they realized MTV was no longer putting them in heavy rotation (or, indeed, showing videos period).<br /><br />All of the videos on this compilation feature striking imagery and idiosyncratic music (with a choice of the original tracks and newly-recorded ones). And two of them -- "The Third Reich 'n' Roll" and "One Minute Movies" -- are in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. Check out this DVD and find out why. | positive |
With its rerelease by ADV Films, I've had a chance to watch "The Giant Majin" for the first time without the deep cuts and unkind words of a late night Horror Chiller Theaters. Guess what? It's a pretty damn good movie!<br /><br />The sets are authentic, the acting in subdued and believable, and the giant Majin is stately, powerful, and unstopable. I loved the subtle fantasy touches (the enchanted wood, luck charm, etc), and the potrayal of the god as a little less than 'good'.<br /><br />This movie is begging for a remake in the new century! | positive |
I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. "The Hurt Locker" has won more "Best Picture" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.<br /><br />There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie. <br /><br />But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.<br /><br />I normally don't care for war movies and "The Hurt Locker" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it. | negative |
This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!! | positive |
As a modern Marco Polo, from Venice to China, here we come Amelio, again, taking on the task to render us the grey area in the middle of two worlds in solid colors. Eroded by globalization's collateral damages, the pessimistic vision of Europe is mutual with Chinas. <br /><br />The view of that charming but puzzling country is dealt from below, devoid of any claim to learn or impose opinions. Reality, nonetheless, is harsh. Abandoned and exploited children, beehive-homes, backward areas is the OTHER china we ignore. Vincenzo (Castellitto), a technician of a steel factory, is one of us. His voyage to China is a pretext to understand, to learn from the inside a country where progress and third-world problems live together in an infamous balance. It's not exactly clear if Vincenzo knew by the first time that the mechanical component was already been fixed, I think so; anyway is a minor aspect. Liu, the Chinese girl, is the key of the whole film. She carries on her back a lot of difficulties, she's got the strength to overcome, but how could she fight with little money and little help ? <br /><br />The realistic and unbiased view of the facts by the girl, refusing Vincenzo's money, touched me a lot. A pack of bank-notes can't get back her husband, her baby (forced to treat like a stranger for the Law), protect her by scorns. Liu knew his intentions were benign and kind, far from a cold charity act. Their friendship is beautifully narrated, the way it grows step by step, dignified and formative, unique. A priceless legacy to keep.<br /><br />Some scenes are stunning, either for the acting (Vincenzo crying on the ferry) or by the dialogues (at the restaurant, on the railroads). Besides a careless editing and a pretty lazy start, "La Stella che non c'è" is brilliant and sharp just because chronicles the untold verities.<br /><br />In competition at 63rd Venice Film Festival, plenty bet on Tai Ling for the Mastroianni Prize, dedicated to emerging stars. She definitely deserved that award.<br /><br />[8/10] | positive |
When I went to the video rental store, back in the days when DVD was yet next to unknown to me, I had seen all the movies at the store that I was interested in. Or so I thought! The man behind the counter told me he had something for me that I definitely would like. He gave me "Plunkett and MacLeane". At first, I doubted it to be any good, but I trusted his advise and... man, I sure am happy I did take this jewel along! This is one of the best adventure movies in years, if you ask me! Of course, with Robert Carlyle as a major part, how bad can a movie get? Surely, Liv Tyler does once more what she's good at and nothing much more: being pretty. But still, you can very clearly sense that the cast apparently had a lot of fun, making this movie. | positive |
"Slaughter High" is a totally ridiculous slasher flick about a high school nerd Marty,who gets pick on all the time by some pranksters.The prank goes wrong and he ends up getting savagely burned.Five years later his tormentors all attend a reunion-just the ten of them of course,and low and behold Marty murders them one after another.British actress Caroline Munro("Maniac")leads the cast as the heroine(who dies anyway!).The acting is completely awful,there's also no suspense at all.Plenty of grotesque death scenes to satisfy the gore-freaks:a guy's stomach explodes,another female victim literally gets an acid bath,a couple having sex in bed get electrocuted,a guy is crushed by a tractor,one girl is drowned,and a doctor gets a hyperdermic needle in the eye.The killer wears a decent and rather creepy jester's mask and the setting(a beautiful old English castle)is really nice.However the dream finale is utterly pathetic.All in all it's true that "Slaughter High" is a piece of garbage,but I enjoyed it.Only for fans of truly bad slasher flicks. | positive |
I didn't see such a movie where the creators put so much heart's blood into their work and paid attention to the finest details for a very long time.<br /><br />Everything was well thought and perfectly put into reality. Camera-work, editing and compositing worked so good together it was just amazing. The titles were so fun and so perfectly choreographed.<br /><br />This movie just blew me away.<br /><br />The "Showdown" could have been cut down by 10 or 15 minutes though.<br /><br />It's a near to perfect homage to early silent noir Films story, acting, scenery and costumes were perfectly fitting and believable to have com from the times of silent film-making. | positive |
one of the worst excuses for an irish accents i've heard. from a truly great actor too. its a bad irish accent not to mention a dublin accent (which is completely different) anyway the film is loosely based around the story of ganglord martin cahill and its done much much much better with brendan gleeson in the title role in THE GENERAL | negative |
Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.<br /><br />Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.<br /><br />What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.<br /><br />A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well. | negative |
It is inconceivable to me how ANYONE could have enjoyed or laughed at this movie. I'd say it's the worst movie I've seen in years and I see a lot of them. Maybe I've forgotten junior high? It's also very hard to believe that this is the same Jeff Daniels to did such a brilliant performance of George Washington in The Crossing. Seems like ever since he did Dumber, he's gone into the tank. Can you believe he even wrote and directed this junk? | negative |
How can they from Joe Don Baker (as Bufford Pusser in the first sequel) to Bo Svenson (as Bufford Pusser in the second sequel).Why did they do that for.Just Because Bo Svenon look more a like to Bufford Pusser they still should'nt of changed it because the first sequel it was Joe Don Baker as Bufford Pusser and that one of the thing i wanted to see in the second sequel.<br /><br />I would've given this movie a 7 out of 10 and i would've given it a 1 out of 10 if the story did'nt have anything to do with Bufford Pusser's life but it did and that why i had given this movie a 3 out 10.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that anyone who is planning on watching this cheese i suggest don't and watch the first sequel instead. | negative |
This may actually be the worst movie that I have ever scene. Incoherent would be a compliment. Even the end made no sense but it was a tremendous relief that it was finally over. I watched it with a kind of fatalistic fascination to see if it could continue to deteriorate and it did. By the end of this mess I was sorry any of the characters survived and I wasn't feeling too charitable about the actors either.If you want to watch a train wreck, I recommend hanging out at a train station. Even waiting on a deserted train platform beats this mess. Apparently I haven't vented enough to fill up my prescribed ten lines so, at the risk of redundancy, I will say it one more time. This movie is a zero and it would be less if I had a word for an even lower rating. How about minus zero? | negative |
If you hit your head with a shovel, write the script with your feet, you may come close to the intelligence level of this movie. There is nothing in this movie that hasn't been done a thousand times in other gangster flicks and done much better. Those who think "Scarface" was some kind of hero to be looked up to or saw "Goodfellas", "Menace II Society" or "Dead Presidents" and thought MMM "That's the life for me!" will like this movie. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, since the premise was perfect for a prequel. I should have known better after seeing Mario Van Peebles and Sean Combs were involved. Anyone above a 4th grade education, see the original with Pacino, a real actor, and be satisfied. | negative |
I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar! | negative |
I saw a screening of this movie last night. I had high expectations going into it, but was definitely disappointed. Within 5 minutes of the opening, Williams is already campaigning for his presidency. And he becomes president in the first 40 minutes. So there goes all that aspect of the movie. The first half hour are hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its moments. But after the first half hour, it takes a turn for the worst. It becomes less of a comedy, and more of a thriller/drama/love story...which is pointless. the movie goes nowhere and stands still for a good 30 minutes. there are laughs interspersed here and there, but the consistently funny part is in the beginning and only the beginning. at one point, the biggest cheer i heard in the audience is when a person in the crowd yelled 'boooo' during a very confusingly emotional scene. Williams gives a great performance, right on par with his comedic style. Walken also delivers a strong supporting role as only he can. I think the one character that goes underrated is Lewis Black. Consistently vulgar and political, its funny to see him tone it down for a PG-13 rating. Overall, I would not pay to see the movie. Afterall, I saw it for free and even I was disappointed. The first half hour is solid, and its all downhill from there. Not really fitting into a category, the movie realizes half way through that it should not have been anything more than a one-hour comedy central special. 4.5/10 | negative |
This is a film that has garnered any interest or praise it has received simply on the merit of being a lesbian interest piece. The performances are mostly emotionless compared to better films in the GLBT interest genre. The entirety of the film's watchable value is garnered through modest suspense over whether and when the partners' family members will say something discouraging about their lesbian relationship. The best element of the film is likely the beautiful New England scenery, although much of the film is set inside. It is hard to envision how any viewer watching this film and not seeking affirmation of their GLBT lifestyle or wishing to see that of others affirmed, even through poorly realized drama, could appreciate Treading Water in any significant way. It is a terrible movie. | negative |
The movie had so much potential, but due to 70's technology constraints and also a weak script killed the main plot of the film. The book version of the film was much better, and well conceived. If it had been done right in the beginning with sources from the book, it could have been a very cool classic. | negative |
This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.<br /><br />Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.<br /><br />You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his "almost accident" comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.<br /><br />Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.<br /><br />Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.<br /><br />Tom Willett | positive |
The kids I took to this movie loved it (four children, ages 9 to 12 years; they would have given it 10 stars). Emma Roberts was adorable in the title role. (Expect to see more of this next-generation Roberts in the future.) After being over exposed to the likes of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, it was refreshing to see a girl who didn't look like she worked the streets. Also enjoyed seeing a supporting cast that included Tate Donovan, Rachel Leigh Cook, Barry Bostwick, and Monica Parker (with a cameo by Bruce Willis). Final takeaway: Cute film.<br /><br />(Note: I did not read the book series, so my comments are based on the merits of the film alone.) | positive |
Hollywood has turned the Mafia in to a production line of output ranging from the banal to the excellent and despite some good acting and a reasonable script (much of which is - for a change - true!) this "home entertainment" effort has to fall slap bang in the middle.<br /><br />The script is not only obvious (all of the checklist boxes end up being ticked), but spends a lot of time trying to create a pastiche of the best of other people's work. The Godfather being the most obvious, but there are other references too. I won't bother naming them. Nevertheless it is a good taste borrower! The producer seems to set a quota for gunshots and murder (one at least every twenty minutes?) and the ending is weak and "so what?" I am told there are various versions of this production so that maybe that is just the version I have seen.<br /><br />Gangsters don't make money they take money. Usually by fear. Some seem more in to the murder and mayhem side of the business than making money. They were the ones that were the first to go (in real life and here). "You can't make money with a gun in your hand" says Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano at one stage. One of the smarter gangsters, although all things are relative. He was a skilled white slave trader and a drug dealer before being bundled home to Italy.<br /><br />The old school "moustached Pete's" were picked off by the new bloods who wanted the power and the money for themselves and to break free of the straight jacket of Italian/Sicilian power (rarely doing business outside themselves). The young Turk knew they needed to be allied with other groups (most notably "the Jews" who knew how to launder money) and this is at least referenced and acknowledged. What isn't made so clear is that most immigrant groups had their own Mafia's - but most of them made their money and went legit. And why not? Who wants to die in jail?<br /><br />Joseph Bonanno was a ruthless man prepared to kill if needs be , but not an unfair or stupid one. His story was tragic in that he could have made money in the over ground world and he showed a special skill in avoiding getting killed. With a little bit of luck attached, naturally.<br /><br />Despite the range of respectable names and three actors in the title role (Bruce Ramsay, Martin Landau and Tony Nardi) there isn't the charisma or the talent to bring us in and feel anything. We are - merely - passive observers in a life we are glad not to have lead. The people shown here were born in to a cruel world but their only mark was to make it crueler.<br /><br />If you can't get enough of the gangster genre that will be better than watching Godfather 1 & 2 for the tenth time and it is even better -- as basic entertainment -- than the horrible misfire that was Godfather 3. | positive |
Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson. | negative |
Stay away from this movie! It is terrible in every way. Bad acting, a thin recycled plot and the worst ending in film history. Seldom do I watch a movie that makes my adrenaline pump from irritation, in fact the only other movie that immediately springs to mind is another "people in an aircraft in trouble" movie (Airspeed). Please, please don't watch this one as it is utterly and totally pathetic from beginning to end. Helge Iversen | negative |
Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.<br /><br />The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter. <br /><br />The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way. <br /><br />The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets. <br /><br />However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost). <br /><br />While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder. <br /><br />A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.<br /><br />7.4/10 | positive |
Relish every moment of this languorous spectacle with music to match (Mahler's 5th is gorgeous, but listen to the vocal portion of the 3rd symphony so beautifully utilised in this film). There are many aspects to this film, but the main subject is the overpowering force of beauty, its spontaneous nature, absence of logic for love and adoration. I am also an ardent fan of Bogarde and believe he was rarely as wonderful (try him in "The Servant" however). Note: I recommmend multiple viewings. | positive |
The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.<br /><br />The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! <br /><br />So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk. | negative |
I totally disagree with the comments of one of the critics before me who bashed the film. Having read the book, being impressed by it although this is a kind of literature that you cannot really LIKE (similar to Hubert Selby's writing) I expected being shocked but the effect was more subtle than this. Isabelle Hubert is a brilliant actress who manages to convey a multi-layered character. There are many scenes that totally focus on her and her subtle changes and I can imagine few actresses who would do so well, with so much disregard for their own reputation or image. There is this coldness, distance, cruelty and at the same time there's this helplessness, hurt and pain. There's a person who's in control and controlled at the same time. Maybe this is not realistic - although when you read the newspaper you'll read about much worse than this - but there's a truth to it that is very difficult to bear. I think it's an excellent film but I did not enjoy watching it.It's not boring but there are times when I wished it would end. BTW, her male counterpart is very well acted as well (and I think well chosen, too). | positive |
Jamie Foxx is fun but this movie has been done before. The bad guy plays a "malkovichian" character from "In the Line of Fire". The cops will do anything to find the bad guy - and of course the good guy has two sets of bad guys and one set of cops after him - all the while he is just trying to turn over a new leaf... | negative |
I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.<br /><br />In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."<br /><br />Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10. | negative |
You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention. What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself, which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir. | positive |
Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on clichés and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance. <br /><br />I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart. | positive |
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already. | negative |
I watched this in July and even with the Christmas theme, found it touching and sensitive. It is not for someone with a reality-mind as it is full of fantasy and lovely moments that sometimes don't make sense. William Russ did a grand job as Hank. I have only seen him in the remake of The Long, Hot Summer where he played a weak character. But in this one, the expression in his eyes throughout, as Hank considered the things that were happening to him, was wonderful and tender. Valerie Bertinelli was excellent and lovely as usual and very believable in this role. And Peter Falk as Max was splendid and always brought a smile when he appeared in a number of important scenes. There were many special scenes, including the one where Hank realizes who Max really was in his life. It's not for everyone.....especially those who aren't into 'feel-good' movies and this is definitely one! If you like everything to be perfect and make sense, avoid this one. But I think it is well-worth re-watching, which is why I taped it. (Yes, some of us still have VCRs. :) | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.