review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The Reader is an exceptionally well done and very sweet short. Every element of the piece assists in eliciting a pure emotional response to the script. Well acted, directed, shot and written. I was surprised to hear that there was no rehearsal before shooting, not even a read through. The performances stand as testament to some fine instinctual acting in response to a well written script. The actresses work was excellent and there was never an indication that their work would slip into the purely sentimental. Less is much better in this case. This film is a prime example of how these low budget contracts benefit actors as well as film makers.
|
positive
|
This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.<br /><br />If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..<br /><br />Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see
|
positive
|
There is nothing in this that the viewer could point to and call "good". The acting was dull and sedated. The sets and cinematography look like they were developed by someone grew up in a Starbucks and tried to make the perfect Gap commercial. Characters have no drive, motivation, or reason for us to care about them. There's such a lack of interest and tension that it's hard to follow the banal action and dialog. And the plot... if anyone finds it, I'm sure it would be as boring as everything else.<br /><br />This isn't funny, it's not romantic, it doesn't reflect on the human condition. If you want a good stoner comedy, watch Half-Baked; if you want a good stoner drama, watch Trainspotting. The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of one is because it's kind of fun seeing some familiar faces in the mid-late 90's cast. Which is a shallow reason to give the film even one star, but, then again, this is a shallow movie.
|
negative
|
But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.<br /><br />I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.<br /><br />On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.<br /><br />Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.<br /><br />In short, this is dreck.
|
negative
|
Marvelous film again dealing with the trials and tribulations of World War 11 England. What makes this film so good is the touching of the human element.This film is definitely in the tradition of such British line classics such as "Mrs. Miniver" and "Hope and Glory." As is the case with this film, we see the desperation of people in the time of war.<br /><br />The performances are outstanding here especially by the embittered John Thaw, who is assigned a child who has been evacuated from the London bombing.<br /><br />We soon see why this child wets his bed. He comes from a lunatic mother who has abused him terribly.<br /><br />The old man takes to the child and brings happiness into his sad life. When the child is returned to his mother, the old man goes to London and seeks him out only to find tragedy. He literally kidnaps the boy and is able to convince a higher up that the child is better off with him than being in a boy's home.<br /><br />The picture is so good because it deals and builds on endearing relationships.
|
positive
|
I just saw this at the 2006 Vancouver international film festival. The synopsis in the festival guide sounded pretty good so we decided to check this one out. I'm sorry to say I was very disappointed.<br /><br />Besides being poorly written, it was boring. I won't take away from the actors as there is not much they could do with this bad script.<br /><br />First bite was cliché without being ironic, over the top seriousness without being funny. The movie would have been better had Hunt Hoe went with a campy horror feel. Instead he took himself to seriously and this resulted with a boring film. I can't recommend this film. It felt too long and all in all just plain weak.
|
negative
|
A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.<br /><br />Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.<br /><br />This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.<br /><br />ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.<br /><br />One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.<br /><br />Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.<br /><br />That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.<br /><br />Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.<br /><br />FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch! <br /><br />Highly recommended.
|
positive
|
While it's generally acknowledged one of the first martial arts movies to play here in the West, it's real impact comes in retrospect. Lo Lieh is VERY low key throughout and many of the fight scenes, while often hailed as innovative (which they were at the time of the movie's initial release), are a tad tame compared to what came after (particularly after Bruce Lee, who became the instant standard by which all others will forevermore be judged). That's not to say that FIVE FINGERS OF DEATH/KING BOXER is anything less than a classic in its own right, because it is. Like many of the leading characters in many martial arts movies, the character Lieh plays lays low through most of the movie for a reason- but, when he cuts loose, he effectively cleans house. You can't ask for more than that.
|
positive
|
Not a bad film. Somehow I was made to actually root for the Iranians to win the game played in the movie even though I don't know anything about soccer and am not a fan. The ending on the bus was exhilarating.<br /><br />The film itself deals with the issue of women in Iran, and how they are not allowed to go into sporting arenas amongst men because their swearing is inappropriate for women to hear. Despite this law, some women try to sneak in, but many of them get caught and detained. It's really astonishing that any society could still have such antiquated notions of gender. In an interview, Panahi says his films are documents of history and its injustices, and that one day in the future we can watch these movies and see how Iran once lived. One hopes that future will come sooner rather than later.
|
positive
|
This movie had some andrenaline kickers, but it's an old story that simply could never happen. Navy protocols could never break down that much that a crew much less an XO could ever go that far against the Captain. I'll take Dr. Strangelove any day if I wish to see this plot. Sidenote--the US Navy did not support this film.
|
negative
|
The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!<br /><br />The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk.
|
negative
|
Before watching this film I had very low expectations and went to just see the cars. Eventually I even regretted going for that reason. Plot is almost non-existent. Character development is non-existent. So many clichés and so much jaw-dropping cheesiness existed in the movie that I could only stare and wonder how it was even released. If not for the exotics, I wouldn't have even rated this movie a 1. An attempt at a coherent story line is destroyed by the sheer absurdity of this elite racing cult and the laughable characters that make up its members. In fact, the movie's plot is so predictable and simple-minded that an average child could foretell the majority of the storyline. Bad acting, bad plot, bad jokes, bad movie.<br /><br />Don't see it. Play Gran Turismo HD instead and it'll satiate your thirst for fast sexy cars without leaving a bad aftertaste.
|
negative
|
In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.
|
negative
|
Hi all I am a chess enthusiast since the age of about 6. I supposed I am quite obsessed by chess, but hopefully not as much as the central character in this film.<br /><br />In this film, the central character reflects a real chess player called Curt von Bardeleben who committed suicide in 1924. He is famous for a game he played against Steinitz, where a beautiful combination was played by Steinitz. Instead of resigning, he simply walked out of the tournament hall, never to return.<br /><br />The social ineptness of the central character is unfortunately a treat of some of the more serious Grandmasters you sometimes get in chess tournaments. Chess I suppose is a very big sacrifice, and you can sometimes end up imbalanced in other areas of life. A major example of this is the chess legend Bobby Fischer. Although a genius, he was also very disturbed in many ways.<br /><br />In the film, a World championship match is depicted, as between an Italian Grandmaster and Luzhin. The format is a knockout, which actually the world Governing body of Fide has sometimes employed as a format itself - going from 128 players to just 2 in the final. But this was a group knockout - which also depicts a realistic format, where the winners of each group play against each other.<br /><br />The position before adjournment makes for a fascinating chess puzzle in itself. In fact, I have done a youtube video about it, for you to explore the winning combination in detail - enjoy! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPtdtPhwdM Best wishes Tryfon
|
positive
|
The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.<br /><br />So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films!
|
negative
|
I laughed my ass off for an hour. I had no idea who Dan Finneity was. Why haven't I heard of Dan Finnerty before? He's hysterical and so are his backup singers. They make all of these women songs that we would never wanna hear a new experience. They blow these songs away. This was on Bravo last night. Why isn't this Dan guy like "ultra famous"? Great voice! Charisma to burn! He blew me away with this show! I just read on the internet that he was once a member of "Stomp" I guess there isn't anything he can't do. I saw "Stomp" at a UCLA theater years ago and those guys were amazing. This show last night was done by Dreamworks! Does that mean that Spielberg did this? Why don't they star this Dan Finnerty in a movie. There was a standing ovation at the end of this show and every time the camera's cut to the audience, everyone was so into it, singing along or dancing. The whole show had this amazing energy. My only complaint was that it was not longer, but looking back, when you see how much energy these guys put out, I guess it would be impossible for any human being to perform with such gusto for over an hour. Man I loved this show!
|
positive
|
Very lovely love story between Brenda Blethyn and Alfred Molina. The whole story is very bizarre and funny. An undertaker (A. Molina) loves a married woman (B.Blethyn). They try to fake her death to escape her husband and the village. A scenario of strange situations starts. As good as SAVING GRACE and LONG LIVE NED DEVINE.
|
positive
|
Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?<br /><br />The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).<br /><br />The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. <br /><br />This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.<br /><br />There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.
|
negative
|
I'm surprised with the amount of negative reviews on this film. If you don't like this movie for what it is - a silly, over-the-top, mob story - then you are simply reading too much into it. This film is a classic tale of a mob wife trying to escape "the life" and the troubles that follow her. Michelle Pfeiffer is terrificly 80's 'jersey, who is an uncertain, uncomfortable mob wife while Matthew Modine is an anal retentive-like mob tracking cop who falls for her. The plot is mostly predictable and cutesy and Mercedes Ruel steals the show as the Queen of Mob Wives. If you aren't looking for something too dynamic and complex, this movie is absolutely entertaining and an 80's cult classic. You won't be able to stop watching if you start.
|
positive
|
Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.<br /><br />The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula). <br /><br />Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-clichéd love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.<br /><br />For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.<br /><br />The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jürgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead.
|
negative
|
We rented five movies for New Year's Eve weekend and watched this one first. All I can say is that there was no place to go but up after watching this one. It was pointless and vulgar. Harvey Keitel's script must have been easy to write -- just make two out every three words a curse word. Andie McDowell is surprisingly good in a character roll, but the movie has nothing else to recommend it.
|
negative
|
The core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.
|
negative
|
Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.<br /><br />The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.<br /><br />There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.<br /><br />Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.<br /><br />Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.<br /><br />At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul.
|
positive
|
First, a word of caution. The DVD box describes this film as a comedy. I don't think that was the intention of anyone connected with the film other than some marketing morons. While light and a little bit funny in places, it is NOT a comedy and if you expect that you will be disappointed.<br /><br />I had never even heard of this film and had absolutely no expectations one way or the other. Considering that the other two DVDs I picked up were big disappointments, I was so happy when I saw this film. The acting, writing and direction were excellent. The story itself definitely interested me, as you don't usually see films about the final month of France before the Nazi takeover in 1940. It gave some insight into the parasites that gave up so quickly and agreed to partitioning their beloved country. Along the way, there are plots involving a selfish and weak actress played very well by Isabelle Adjani--who looks marvelous after all these years. She kills an ex-lover and then finds a poor sap to take the fall. This sap escapes from prison and finds her--with another lover--a high government official and weasel played by Gerard Depardieu. In addition, a subplot about a Jewish physicist trying to smuggle deuterium out of the country is introduced and eventually this becomes the main plot. The story has a lot of nice twists and turns, a light sense of humor (without trying to be a comedy) and some genuine suspenseful moments. Together, they create a nice package this is sure to please.
|
positive
|
This short was the first short released by Paramount Famous Studios and was one of several done by the studio showing Popeye engaged directly against the enemy, most often the Japanese. While Warner Brothers, Disney and, to a lesser extent, other studios, did shorts often depicting Germans as foils, the majority of Famous Studios efforts focused on the Japanese. Given Pearl Harbor and Popeye's naval ties, this is quite understandable. This is an average short. Seein' Red, White an' Blue and Spinach For Britain have aged better. But it's still worth watching. Recommended.
|
positive
|
There were times during the movie I wish I had been beat to death. The only reason I endured the entirety of the movie was because I couldn't believe how bad it really was and thought it must get better. This truly was a horror film. I was horrified that I wasted what seemed like 4 hours of my life that I will never get back. The other two hours I spent mourning at the loss. Please recommend this movie to whomever you wish to torture and tell them the suspense will kill them.
|
negative
|
It is a damn good movie,with some surprising twists,a good cast and a great script. Only a couple of stupid bits,like the Rasta hit-man scene (This guy's a professional?) but that has been commented on already. The fact I had only heard one guy at work mention it before, and did not have many opinions or reviews to go on, made it even more entertaining. This gets a higher score than maybe some people think it deserves, but I have to factor in the low budget and the good effort from the cast. It sickens me that some movies get made whose budget equals the GDP of a small country,with a hyped up release,good reviews,an Oscar winning director and/or actors, and turn out to be so disappointing,with actors sleepwalking through their roles and uninspired directing,with predictable plot lines and a story with holes in it so big,Sandra Bullock could drive a bomb-loaded bus through it. (Examples in my opinion are The Terminal,Castaway,Matrix:Revolutions) Extra points are awarded for the wardrobe department choosing great clothes for the cast,especially Paulina Porizcova,who wears a rubber dress in one scene,and a jacket with "c*nt" on the back in large letters in another!A sex scene which shows off her tight ass and a good soundtrack are added bonuses! And PLEASE,enough with the Tarantino comparisons,this did not remind me of a Tarantino flick at all.... and Tarantino borrows virtually every idea he has ever had from other movies! Even if that is your opinion,are we saying once a certain film or book is written or directed one way,no-one can ever use the same ideas again? get real. This film has it's own style.
|
positive
|
If this is not my favorite movie of all time, it definitely is in the top five. I love this. Everything about this is perfect--the clothes, the set, the lines--yes, they're not how normal people talk, but... Right down to the small scenes, especially at the beginning of the office girls changing their shoes, picking a wedgie, watering the office ivy plant, putting lunch in the fridge... Identical to what us office girls do today in the year 2005. I think all the minor characters are wonderful. If someone like Joan Crawford is over the top, it's all part of the package. If you pick out many things in the movie, it is very evident that this was the beginning of the sixties as women were starting to not "take it lying down," at least not if they didn't want to. As far as characters being contradictory, for instance, Suzy Parker's character acting like she's all for flings, but then getting too attached to Louis Jourdan's character, isn't that what many people are like--contradictory? They mix in real stuff with scenes like Diane Baker's character finding the love of her life after miscarrying her illegitimate baby in an accident--lying in the hospital with a big old bandage around her head. This is part of the package too, it's charm--glossy escapism. I like the mix of real stories pertinent today (the stereotypical career woman who only has affairs with married men, therefore doesn't have a family when she is older) with ones that make you wish, "ah, if only I could fall in love with a doctor and he'll love me even though he knows my sordid past, and saw me all messed up after the scandalous accident!!" Also, I just got the DVD, widescreen, it's yet even more beautiful than full screen... Yay!
|
positive
|
A lot of people are saying that Al Pacino over acted but I mean common obviously for a movie role like this -- a cuban drug lord you need a bit of over acting in this role with that cuban accent. This movie overall was a really good movie I myself rated a 10/10 I would highly recommend people to watch this movie.
|
positive
|
Developing movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.<br /><br />The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.<br /><br />Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.<br /><br />After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.<br /><br />Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 10.
|
negative
|
SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)<br /><br />Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. <br /><br />Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.<br /><br />The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.<br /><br />The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10.
|
negative
|
The first word which comes into my mind after watching this movie is "beauty". Beauty is all around, in actors' play (Andie is superb as always), in well designed shots, and in authors' red line idea - the Love.<br /><br />I think the Kenny's character is the only white spot in these three womens' otherwise boring and predictable life. His interaction makes Andie's character living as entertaining as it could possibly be. When he's gone, it became obvious that we cannot really appreciate and hold to our inner believes and sacred desires.<br /><br />The fact that Andie successfully recovers from this loss is nothing bad, instead it shows that life prevails in any forms, even in this small British village, which is shown perfectly.<br /><br />Another reason I love this movie is that it is so British in all ways - all that houses and "fags" and accents :))). And Andie again is doing superb job! It is a shame that this movie got such low marks. 10 out of ten!
|
positive
|
Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.<br /><br />I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological "thriller" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of "doing the right thing"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable "coincidences" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,"...Or did the book find her?." They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was just
wrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.<br /><br />You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? No
not initially
like many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was "bad." But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the "message" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participate
to actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to "check my brain at the door" of the theater.<br /><br />Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Again
of course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywood
a body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and question
movies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't "do the thinking for me."
|
negative
|
"Most of us at least inhabit two worlds , the real world where we are at the mercy of circumstances and the world within ,the unconscious ,a safe place where we can escape ..." With those words ,Mr .Gone introduces inside the world of "The Maxx" a fascinating world where the fantasy and the reality are combined . Inspired in the comic books of Sam Kieth, "The Maxx " is very faithful to the material in what it was inspired , not only in the story but also in the graphic style ,that look like the pages of the comic ,giving this show a surreal and unique appearance . But also ,the story it's interesting and entertaining .At moments it could turn too weird ,but when you got inside it ,it's hard to get out of it . The story and the characters are wonderfully developed . The music goes perfectly with the style of the show and give it the proper atmosphere . Unfortunately , like many good animated shows ,this one was short -lived . "The Maxx" is a must see . It 's one of my all -time favorites .
|
positive
|
Oh dear. good cast, but to write and direct is an art and to write wit and direct wit is a bit of a task. Even doing good comedy you have to get the timing and moment right. Im not putting it all down there were parts where i laughed loud but that was at very few times. The main focus to me was on the fast free flowing dialogue, that made some people in the film annoying. It may sound great while reading the script in your head but getting that out and to the camera is a different task. And the hand held camera work does give energy to few parts of the film. Overall direction was good but the script was not all that to me, but I'm sure you was reading the script in your head it would sound good. Sorry.
|
negative
|
After all, you do not go to an Orson Welles movie to see a nice simple little plot and a burnishing of the image of a happy-ever-after star
<br /><br />You go to see theatrically heightened characters locked in conflict against colorful and unusual settings, lighted and scored imaginatively, photographed bravely, and the whole thing peppered with unexpected details of surprise that a wiser and duller director would either avoid or not think of in the first place
<br /><br />As usual, as well as directing, Welles wrote the script and he also played the hero a young Irish seaman who had knocked about the world and seen its evil, but still retained his clear-eyed trust in the goodness of others
Unfortunately for him, he reposed this trust in Rita Hayworth, whose cool good looks concealed a gloomy past and murderous inclinations for the future
She was married without love, to an impotent, crippled advocate, acted like a malevolent lizard by the brilliant Everett Sloane
<br /><br />There is a youthful romanticism underlying it all, and this quality came into exuberant play in "The Lady from Shanghai." Before the inevitable happened, Welles escaped to a final triangular showdown in a hall of mirrors, which has become one of the classic scenes of the post-war cinema
<br /><br />Welles did not miss a chance throughout the whole film to counterpoint the words and actions with visual detail which enriched the texture and heightened the atmosphere
His camera seemed almost to caress Rita Hayworth as the sun played with her hair and her long limbs while she playfully teased the young seaman into her web
|
positive
|
This film predates the Australian films Road Warrior and Priscilla of the Desert, and its influence on them is obvious: in the dialogue, locations, photography, direction and political philosophy. The photography is notably confident. The direction is stylish and for the most part well done. If you liked the early Australian films by Bruce Beresford, Peter Weir and George Miller then you'll love "Oz". The direction also reminds this reviewer of Edgar Wright's contemporary work. That similarity suggests that "Oz" was far ahead of its time. The critics of 1967 hated it and the public stayed away - 1960s Australia, like 1940s USA, was in some ways the sort of place where conformity was important, whereas this film is very different to what those viewers would have expected, especially after reading the promotional posters. This film will most likely have more appeal to contemporary audiences: it's still quirkily awkward and self-conscious, but in a contemporary European way rather than a 1960s Australian way. Joy Dunstan (who later appeared in the Australian TV series 'Prisoner') plays her role with less raw passion than her contemporary Jacki Weaver might have done, instead Dunstan's character in this film conveys some of the rather whimsical strength of Australian women most famously represented by Kylie Minogue playing Charlene Mitchell in the Australian TV series Neighbours and further developed in later roles in her career. Men will also enjoy this film, which presents various masculine issues in a different way than most other mid-sixties films from the USA or even Australia. In particular, Bruce Spence (who later went on to play Tion Medon in 'Star Wars III', the Trainman in the 'Matrix' films, and the chopper pilot in the 'Road Warrior' and 'Thunderdome' films) plays a central and sustained role which solidly supports the rest of the cast. This film is worth seeing for Bruce Spence's performance alone. 7/10 for some minor continuity problems.
|
positive
|
There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.
|
negative
|
The opening shot of the Consequences of Love perfectly sets up this intriguing and absorbing film. A travellator slowly carries a solitary out of focus figure towards the camera, trailing a huge suitcase behind him. Like the central character in the film, we know nothing of him and our initial interpretation of him, his profession, the contents of the suitcase could be way off the mark.<br /><br />Consequences of Love is that kind of film. From the title you might expect a Bergmanesq dissection of a relationship. What we have instead is a lead character, Titta, living life in emotional exile, seemingly choosing to cut himself off from those around him. If the film can be classified in any way, I would call it a mystery, as we are engaged in working out who Titta is and what he is about. What we know from the start is he is 50'ish, cool, composed and expensively attired. He has lived for the last eight years in a plush looking Swiss hotel, always paying his room fee on time but seldom showing any interest in the staff or other guests.<br /><br />His only real companions are a couple who he plays occasional card games with. The couple, it transpires, used to own the hotel but have now gambled everything away and have only the room they live in left. Their love of money, antiques and each other was their undoing and Titta seems to identify with their plight. He once had it all, but now is now living as a virtual prisoner in the hotel. His brother, a long haired surf instructor, drops in to see him occasionally, but he sees his visits as more of an intrusion than a pleasure. They talk about the person Titta considers to be his best friend, even though he hasn't seen him for 25 years. This long lost friend is now a telephone engineer, repairing the communication network that brings so many together. Meanwhile Tittas phone calls to his wife and children end quickly when they refuse to speak to him.<br /><br />Midway through the film Titta makes an uncharacteristic move and begins to open up to a young barmaid from the hotel. With his judgement clouded by emotion he sets himself on a course of actions that will ultimately seal his fate for good.<br /><br />The slow unfolding of Tittas fall from grace is and beautifully scripted, shot and scored. The thumping techno soundtrack does much to build up the tension as more and more secrets are revealed, the final half hour turning into a taught thriller as Titta lets his mask slip and must once again face the consequences of his actions. The ending, with a visual nod to Felini, is dramatic yet ambiguous and leaves the audience to once more question his motives.<br /><br />Patrick Bliss, 01/06/06
|
positive
|
This is the latest entry in the long series of films with the French agent, O.S.S. 117 (the French answer to James Bond). The series was launched in the early 1950's, and spawned at least eight films (none of which was ever released in the U.S.). 'O.S.S.117:Cairo,Nest Of Spies' is a breezy little comedy that should not...repeat NOT, be taken too seriously. Our protagonist finds himself in the middle of a spy chase in Egypt (with Morroco doing stand in for Egypt) to find out about a long lost friend. What follows is the standard James Bond/Inspector Cloussou kind of antics. Although our man is something of an overt xenophobe,sexist,homophobe, it's treated as pure farce (as I said, don't take it too seriously). Although there is a bit of rough language & cartoon violence, it's basically okay for older kids (ages 12 & up). As previously stated in the subject line, just sit back,pass the popcorn & just enjoy.
|
positive
|
1957's Edge of the City, directed by Martin Ritt, stars John Cassavetes, Sidney Poitier, Jack Warden and Ruby Dee. It's the story of a troubled man, Axel, who has a mysterious past that gradually comes out during the film. He has a connection that gets him a job on a loading dock working for Charlie (Jack Warden), a real meanie who takes kickbacks from his workers and rides them hard. Charlie has an intense dislike for a black man, T.T. (Poitier) who holds the same position. T.T. invites Axel to work on his team; Axel defies Charlie and does so. Axel finds a place to live and socializes with T.T., his his wife (Dee) and their son's white schoolteacher (Kathleen McGuire). When tragedy strikes, none of the men on the loading dock will talk to the police, and Axel has to come to grips with his values, what he stands for, and the meaning of friendship.<br /><br />This is a really excellent black and white film that curiously isn't really about being black or white! It's really about the limits one puts on oneself and knowing who you are. Charlie is a bigot and hates that a black man has a good position on the dock. T.T. teases Charlie and gives as good as he gets. There's no discussion of T.T. and Axel spending time together or of T.T.'s son having a white teacher with whom the family also socializes. What Axel, a loner, finds difficult is accepting any friendship or confiding in anyone - these things he learns through T.T.<br /><br />Poitier absolutely shines in "Edge of the City" - he's warm, energetic, loving and smart, a man with a real enthusiasm for life, afraid of nothing. Cassavetes is excellent and plays a character totally opposite - hiding in the shadows, chronically depressed and always nervous.<br /><br />The film leaves open what happens to Axel. Whatever does, he's a different man now.<br /><br />Strangely underrated and unknown film, possibly in the shadow of a lot of the angry young men films that came out in that era.
|
positive
|
Ahhhh, 1984.... I was young and stupid, and just developing a taste for those exotic cigarettes, whilst living in a squat in Manchester's Moss Side, with the most unbelievable case of cockroach infestation.<br /><br />After a few of those doobies, this show was ROTFLMAO material - I was an avid fan. Then I'd look down at the floor (or up at the walls, or just about anywhere) and see my very own collection of "little armadillos" scuttling about.<br /><br />Not sure if it was the chemical enhancement, but I remember thinking at the time that the overt surrealism of the show was fantastic - it was my second favourite thing on TV at the time (#1 was the season of Luis Bunuel movies being shown by Channel 4). Radical art lives on! <br /><br />Also you gotta that theme tune! ....I swear, I'll never drink no more....
|
positive
|
imagine "24" completely uncensored, given free license to explain the situation in any detail needed and showing how and why both protagonists do what they do to kill/prevent and you have an idea of how good this TV series is. People in the US have known for a long time that Showtime is the new HBO, they are making far better cutting edge, powerful shows and this is no exception. The show takes the viewer all the way through the creation of a sleeper cell to when an attack is attempted, taking in important facets such as faith, religion, funding, means and needs. To the uninitiated, there is much to be learnt about the Muslim faith here. Unlike on mainstream shows like "24" where the terrorists are merely nutcases who the good guys shoot, their purpose and reasonings here are fully examined. What gives the show more credence is the latest technology the cell/FBI uses and the authentic shots in europe, the US and the middle east, no expense is spared to tell the story accurately The cast are relatively unknowns but the acting is superb with the aid of a tautly-written script that constantly keeps the viewer on edge with many unexpected twists and turns. This show has not got the credit it deserves and ironically is a bit of a sleeper hit itself, must see for anyone at all interested in this genre
|
positive
|
Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.
|
negative
|
I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.
|
negative
|
The ending of this movie made absolutely NO SENSE. What a waste of 2 perfectly good hours. If you can explain it to me...PLEASE DO. I don't usually consider myself unable to "get" a movie, but this was a classic example for me, so either I'm slower than I think, or this was a REALLY bad movie.
|
negative
|
I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector.<br /><br />The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake.<br /><br />But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.
|
negative
|
There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.<br /><br />Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).
|
negative
|
"Perhaps we can arrange a meet. " "Where are you now? " "I'm sitting in my office. " "I doubt that. " "Why would you doubt that? " "If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face. "<br /><br />Bourne remains street tough, and elusive. Only his inhuman resilience leads the film a little too far into fantasy. Conversation is macho, to the point with only shards of Bond type gallows humour. Its all about the action.<br /><br />The feeling that there is something going on at another level to the world we live in is what the trilogy coveys so well. A scene set in Waterloo with a Guardian journalist does this to great effect. There is no meeting of worlds - you are in it or just a superfluous body.<br /><br />If the shaky cam doesn't annoy you too much, enjoy this film and hope they somehow keep the franchise going.
|
positive
|
This may not be the most exiting or incredible episode they've made, but in my opinion it remains as one of Star Trek and the Sci-Fi genre's most original episodes. Most ideas from retro Sci-Fi series especially including Star Trek has been reused several times, this one the other hand remains mostly as a one time triumph. This among the episodes that impressed me the most towards the end.<br /><br />Another thing I like with this episode is how it has accomplished to create such and exiting and captivating story with such few special affects. Now without criticizing the episode I must admit the effects are very dated, but then again what can you expect from a TV show from 1967? But still the creature ("Horta") in this episode is basically just a carpet with some coloured rubber on it. Yet you forget this after about 1 minute and you only start thinking about it as what it's supposed to be. Also the caves don't exactly look like rock, but again you forget it after a few minutes. This episode is a living proof on how good acting and a good story, can make you ignore the visual effects.<br /><br />The acting from the main cast is as usual great. This episode features the series second mind meld by Spock and is one of my favourites. So to say it simple Leonard Nimoy is definitely a scene stealer here, and his acting is excellent. Not that Kirk or Bones don't get their share of the episode but Spock is the most intriguing in this one. i like the fact that the episode is not about one specific character but evolves around the trio handling an alien problem. Also it's nice to see an episode who doesn't only happen on the Enterprise.<br /><br />Like most Star Trek episodes this episode tells us to have an open mind. I won't spoil the story, but evolves around what in the start seems like a typical monster story. It has killed several humans and therefore must be killed. But is that really all there is to it? I can assure you that the explanation in the end, will not disappoint you. This is still my favourite Star Trek TOS episode and i give it a 10/10.
|
positive
|
I am a Shakespeare lover since childhood. I am also a Jew. Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic through and through no matter how hard scholars and literature lovers try to re-interpret it.<br /><br />In the play, Shylock is portrayed as demonic and cold-hearted and has no forgiveness, no warmth, no love except for money and cruel revenge, whereas the Christians are kind, moral people. His motives in the play revolve around money (he plots revenge from the start based on damage caused to his business as well as blind racial hate), not noble ideals or hurt racial pride as this movie wants you to believe. And this characterization is given to him by Shakespeare himself, not by the other characters. As final proof, the happy ending is where the Jew loses his money and is forced to convert to Christianity.<br /><br />I acknowledge this and move on. It is part of history and I enjoy Shakepeare despite this fact. Therefore I expect a movie based on this play to play it straight. I would much rather see the work adapted for its rich language and storytelling without any whitewashing.<br /><br />But many of the the bard's artful subtleties and playful characters are lost in this movie. For example, in the last scene where the men discover Portia's undercover work as a man who also took away their rings, instead of the playful game of words and misunderstandings as the truth reveals itself, it becomes a mean-spirited game where two bitchy women play cruelly with their soon-to-be husbands.<br /><br />So instead, we are only left with lovely detailed sets, fragments of the rich language with poor reinterpretation, poor casting, one intense courtroom scene, and a controversy.<br /><br />The truth is, I think it would be much easier to identify the anti-semitism in the story and move on if it were left as is. Despite all the whitewashing the makers of this movie pulled out of their hats, there is plenty of hatred left, only now people can make excuses and pretend the portrayal of Jews isn't so bad anymore.<br /><br />And finally, another problem is with most of the actors being miscast. Pacino is way out of his league and is very uncomfortable with the language, not to mention the horribly fake accent. Fiennes as Bassanio is charmless and awkward with the language. Irons is dependable as always but doesn't do much with his role. Portia is somewhat OK but unlikeable, and covered in bad makeup, just like the movie.
|
negative
|
This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.<br /><br />So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.
|
negative
|
this is an excellent movie i have been watching it since i was 6yrs old with my big sister. it is the type of movie that u can watch over and over again and still laugh, smile, and cry every time with out ever getting bored of it like other movie's. it is a movie that will live on forever through generations of family. i love it :) when ranking from 1-10 in my case i would rate it easily 9.9 every time. <br /><br />Itis a film about the change of a girl (baby) and her first boy-friend (Johnny)their relationships within the family, the changes in baby's and Johnny's view of the world during their relationship.<br /><br />DIRTY DANCING WILL FOREVER LIVE ON AS A TIMLESS CLASSIC. thank-you sorry though for only the short comment.
|
positive
|
It would be so easy to dismiss an alien abduction movie before even seeing it - as I did - but this is well worth a look. If you think about it, its not an easy subject matter to handle but this film manages to suspend disbelief which in itself is a feat for such a way out subject. Casting the main character as a doctor was a sensible move which lends credence to his willingness to believe in the possibility of alien abduction. Vosloo plays it very sensitively involving us in his pain and confusion at the weird events that befall himself and his wife. Special Effects are used sparingly but to shocking effect and at times the movie is totally gripping but sadly there are a couple of points where the plot wanders and leaves some confusion. Also, after building to a tense climax the ending is something of a let down. The supporting characters were unnecessarily weak (the alien hunter) or menacing (the psychiatrist) which also served to detract.<br /><br />But all in all it raised some interesting issues amongst which was a telling line "How do think animals feel when we experiment on them".<br /><br />The concept of "lost time" was also thought provoking.
|
positive
|
Tea Leoni plays Nora Wilde, a serious photographer, who is going through a bad divorce. She wants her freedom but it comes at a cost. She wants to legitimate photography but is hired to work for the tabloids as a paparazzi. Her boss is played by the wonderful and divine Holland Taylor. The show was well-written most of the time. TEa's Nora was beginning to develop into quite a memorable character but the network just didn't support comedy and they still don't. Even when they brought in George Wendt from Cheers, they made unnecessary changes in casting and characters. The show was fine in the beginning and the audience was getting used to it but then the network botches it up like a bad plastic surgery.
|
positive
|
I just watched "return from lonesome dove" and it was very good! I've seen a lot of negative comments about it and I don't think the Viewers are being real about it! In the television/ movie business it is hard to get all the actors back for a 2nd sequel or 3rd part. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER MINISERIES THAT TIES INTO LONE D. FAITHFULLY!! This production was top notch with the original music score, and the actors put their hearts into it(you can tell). If you want to watch lonesome d. with Robert Duvall and tommy L. J. then watch the original. Return to L.D. didn't have as much wit and takes on a more serious tone but is totally captivating none the less. From the touching moments to the villains, this one is a winner! "Wonderful!!!"
|
positive
|
I'm a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., "why, you're not a child anymore!"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--"you're a woman!" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., "Daddy-Long-Legs"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture.
|
negative
|
"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right.
|
negative
|
First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock, but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To date, I've seen nothing like it. 8/10
|
positive
|
In The Line of Fire gives us a great game of cat and mouse. Clint Eastwood is plagued by John Malkovich in this riveting film. Malkovich says he's going to kill the president, and he purposely calls Eastwood, and pushes his buttons. He questions Eastwood's ability to protect someone. Malkovich brings a cold, but very intelligent mindset to his character. Everything he does, he does for a reason, and he's not shy about killing. Eastwood has to overcome the suspicions of his superiors in order to catch Malkovich, but no one wants to listen to him. The result is a film that crackles with suspense that escalates to a tense scene in a ballroom at the Bonneventure Hotel. Wolfgang Peterson ratchets up the tension and we feel every turn.
|
positive
|
Who's the man~~~ what's that I hear? A resounding cry of Kevin? Well if you didn't shout for the 'usual suspect' I'd recommend changing your medicated prescription. Anyway this Is no first class movie, just a very well produced story, that is almost believable. Considering its about an Alien your probably wondering what the? All acting is top stuff and also the first I've seen a balanced, sarcastic Alien. Just enjoyable is all I can say and almost for the whole family (if not for the scene later in the movie). SEVEN STARS
|
positive
|
Every year I watch hundreds of films, including many low budget amateurish straight-to-DVD abominations that nobody in their right mind would ever want to see. I have seen thousands of films in my time, many excellent, many forgettable. Zombie Nation I will remember forever as one of the most hopelessly laughable 'horror' films I have ever seen in fact I still haven't recovered from the experience of watching it.<br /><br />The day after, it seems like some kind of weird dream. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Why do the police work out of a warehouse? Did the voodoo priestesses really recommend that the 'zombies' eat cheeseburgers? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe? <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend Zombie Nation if you want to see a 'good' film, and neither would I recommend it as 'so bad its good'. However, if you are entertained by the prospect of watching probably the most indefensibly abysmal film ever this is for you. Now, whenever anyone asks me what the worst film I have ever seen is, I will say Zombie Nation.<br /><br />Seriously I think it's a greater crime to make a boring film than a bad one, and Ulli Lommel deserves credit for producing a film that actually stuns you with its ineptitude. He really is the Ed Wood Jr. of the digital age, and I for one can't wait to see if he makes another film as consistently ridiculous as this one.
|
negative
|
Standard "Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.
|
negative
|
WARNING **SPOILERS**<br /><br />Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The "story" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our "hero" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final "climax" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week.
|
negative
|
dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking "no way he has plenty better" but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie with my girlfriends and we all loved it! It is so sweet and heartwarming, a real tear-jerker! I was still thinking about the story days after i'd seen the movie. It's such a beautiful story about the difficult things all families go through, it's something anybody can relate to. I really recommend this movie to anybody looking for a Saturday night rental. With your girlfriends, your family, your boyfriend, everyone will really enjoy it! :D It's a real story about a real family that would pull at anyones heartstrings. Not to mention, beautiful landscape shots and fantastic acting. See it, i'm sure you'll love it as much as I did!
|
positive
|
It is always great to see a movie that teaches us about history in Africa as they are definitely too few. However, the movie depicts Lumumba as a political leader who wanted the new independent country to be the same as the old colonialist one..., I felt it hard to sympathise with this kind of leadership, yet the movie is somewhat like a homage to the man. There was too little content, explaining how the man got to rise in the first place, and the whole context of Belgium "letting them go". So it is certainly worth going to see as the acting and photography are excellent, especially Mobutu himself. I would just have liked a better political analysis.
|
positive
|
STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.<br /><br />The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.<br /><br />Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.<br /><br />NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.<br /><br />My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.<br /><br />I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.
|
negative
|
Never see this movie.<br /><br />It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.<br /><br />It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.<br /><br />Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it.
|
negative
|
Watching this was like getting a large mackerel slapped in your face over and over again. Even when you thought, "That mackerel surely can't be coming around again," *slap* there it was. I'm not sure what they were thinking. This is the sort of pilot I watched and wondered, "Did the actors know they were on a doomed ship destined to never be made into a series?" Not only black stereotypes but Swedish and Indian ones as well. And while "Blazing Saddles" made these stereotypes into a mix of comedy and uncomfortableness, these stereotypes were just downright offensive. There was no plot line, the ending was slapped on, and the jokes aren't. Still, if you are a student of comedy, watch this pilot to see what you shouldn't do.
|
negative
|
So, Todd Sheets once stated that he considers his 1993, shot-on-video Z-epic, Zombie Bloodbath to be his first feature film. Anyone who's ever seen a little beauty called Zombie Rampage knows exactly how untrue that statement is. I mean, what makes this one that much more superior? Well, then again, Zombie Rampage doesn't include that mullet guy, now does it? <br /><br />For one to comprehend exactly why Zombie Bloodbath is actually considered worth a damn, one must remember what the 90's were like for lovers of bad horror. A decade that all but said goodbye to B and Z-cinema as we knew it. Technological advances, awkward trends, and the internet would abolish the mysterious charms of the s.o.v.'s big-boxed golden years. And anything remotely resembling quality schlock was all too self-aware for it's own good, basically defeating the purpose. Luckily, not everyone changes with the times. Enter Zombie Bloodbath.<br /><br />And I guess this is the part where I explain the same exact premise from 500 other zombie flicks from the last 40 years. Alright, so, Some kind of accident at a nuclear plant infects everyone in sight, turning them into flesh-eating zombies, who go on a rampage, inflicting some of the most gruesome, yet humorous gore-scenes of the 90's. The first 20 minutes are cluttered with the most awkward-sounding conversations you could imagine. Conversations that let you know that this isn't just a low-budget zombie flick, this is a Z-grade disasterpiece, fella. plenty Hysterical, non-existent acting to go around, and that goes triple for Mr. Mullet. That guy is truly the highlight of the night.<br /><br />The fact that Todd Sheets seriously considers Zombie Bloodbath to be THAT superior to Zombie Rampage, amuses me to no end. I mean really, both are complete jokes on celluloid, but then again, so is Redneck Zombies, so, obviously Todd Sheets is in the company of awsomeness. By 1993, a movie this bad would no doubt, be a full-blast spoof, but Mr. Sheets stands his ground, giving us some good old fashion schlock, the way it was meant to be, unaware, clueless, and pointless. God bless Todd Sheets. For anyone seeking surprisingly worthwhile 90's B-Horror, Leif Jonker's Darkness should be at the top of your list. As for Zombie Bloodbath, if you're a gorehound who got bored sometime around 1990, then '93 would be the perfect time to pick up. 8/10
|
positive
|
Black Day Blue Night was actually good modern noir. Three young nomads on the run from their own lives team up on something of a road trip through a desert in the middle of nowhere (as most modern noir does). One woman finds that her husband is cheating on her, and after finding him in a hotel room, decides to head off and start anew. Strangely enough, she travels with her husband's mistress, who is forgiveable given that the sleazebag never told her he was married. And together, while driving in the pouring rain, they meet a third, very mysterious young man with a suitcase full of secrets. While they're giddy and free and all suspicious of one another, the cops back at town have them marked as suspects in the death of a policeman.<br /><br />Black Day Blue Night starts out with immediate confrontation, and throws in a pretty good story with all it's twists meant to mislead your suspicions of one character after another, leading to a very unusual ending. That is, the movie starts with immediate action confrontation, and once you think the story is solved, you are immediately thrust into yet another turn in the plot, revealing just a little more than you expected before the movie is over. <br /><br />But, as some viewers have written, the ending is slightly confusing and a bit of a let down. The killer is not who you would immediately expect and, once revealed, becomes somewhat confusing due to a rather thinly explained flashback which reveals all of the necessary motive to solve the mystery. But actually, there is a finale beyond that, which I would think is the most interesting of the film. Because modern noir always involves a circle of criminal suspects, almost always all of them guilty of something, it is also a genre that always involves money. And thus the question in these movies always becomes --how far are the characters willing to go for money?<br /><br />If you like this rendition of modern film noir, I would suggest watching Red Rock West (it's also got J.T. Walsh and some going-ons in the blasted desert)!
|
positive
|
Although inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of "exploitation-cinema" is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! "House of Frankenstein", released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but "House of Dracula" is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and most of all a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation
well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster.
|
negative
|
This is a terrible movie, don't waste your money on it. Don't even watch it for free. That's all I have to say.
|
negative
|
A sharp political comment posturing as a coming of age story is what this movie is. The annoying thing is that it works effectively on both levels. It isn't supposed to but it does. This tale of four boys and a girl growing up in 1953 Communist Belgrade is a heart warmer. It is what gentlemen refer to as classic cinema. Obviously, 1953 Belgrade is not as harsh a dictatorial and fascist environment as the Communist society is often portrayed. One can listen to rock and roll music, one of the songs played is the song "Hey Babu Riba" ala the title of the movie. But jeans cannot be bought nor certain drugs which are illegal to possess. Unlike a heavy-handed criticism of a communist society this movie does it by showing how it affects the lives of the five protagonists who refer to themselves as we four. The girl who has a father in exile in Italy and is awaiting a passport for her mother and she to travel out to join him, the piano that is taken away from communion use from one of the boys, the sudden giving of your home and quarters to your new comrades because they need it. The boys spend a lot of time listening to music and it is made clear they despise the fascism that communism has created as they engage in tiffs with a fascist charlatan who has Stalin tattooed on his hands. These all leads to the actions they take later on and the remembrance of a time fading away, as this movie was released in 1986 in the twilight of the Soviet Empire. A great movie worth seeing again and again. "Repentance is not your enemy but yet it is also nobody's friend."
|
positive
|
The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.
|
negative
|
I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.
|
negative
|
I was lucky enough to win free passes to the sneak preview of POD. Let me just tell you, from just the previews I was excited to see it! The movie absolutely rocked! What I really liked about it was the fact that JB was in his element. With other movies like "School of Rock," he does namby pamby music for kids and families, but this music is obviously all his.<br /><br />I took my brother and sister with me to see it, and we laughed basically the entire time. There are a couple places where I wonder what the hell they were thinking, because some items are a little disjointed, but for the most part it was great. A lot of the time it didn't seem like a low-budget film, so that is a plus.<br /><br />What I was most surprised about was Dave Grohl as Satan. That is f-ing hilarious! You honestly wouldn't know from seeing the film that that is him.<br /><br />I say that if you are a rock fan and are into JB, KG, and/or Tenacious D, go see the film. Be prepared for a LOT of drug references, a LOT of four letter words and some skull shredding rock!
|
positive
|
This movie was awful! Ashley Rose Orr, while a talented tap dancer, and singer (actually a little better than Temple was in terms of the latter), is a terrible actress. She plays the character as the Shirley that we saw on screen in her movies whether she's playing her onscreen or offscreen persona. So what we get is an overly cutesy, and wholly unrealistic (not to mention uninteresting) portrait. If one wants to see that side of her, one can just rent one of her movies. The only bright light here is Connie Britton's portrayal of Gertrude Temple. I don't think it was terribly realistic, but at least it was well acted. Save yourself the trouble and rent The Poor Little Rich Girl.
|
negative
|
what a waste of a film once again the film industry does not trust to make a film that could have been just about the man's ideas. there is virtually nothing on his theories or evolution, instead the most boring story of home life and relationship with one daughter, a ponderous script, great liberties taken with Darwin's life, dialogue given to his character that i find hard to believe he would have voiced. Darwin never gave up his believe in a higher power, he may not quite rightly have believed in the established Christian idea of God , but was not an atheist. which this film implies. what would have been a riveting and much better film, is if they had started with the publication of On the Origin of Species and constructed a story of the great revolution that entailed, and of an amazing cast of characters involved on all sides. instead we got a plodding, boring drama, mostly made up, a great injustice
|
negative
|
I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.
|
negative
|
I absolutely loved this movie! It's my number one favorite. Although there were a few flaws (what movie doesn't have flaws?), this movie was very well written, directed, and produced. The characters in this movie are very real and believable. They made all of the characters fit into a specific role. I think that the most apparent thing about "Here On Earth" was the love triangle as well as the other emotional situations brought into the movie. It's not one of those movies where you just can't seem to relate to anything, because in it are situations that everyone is or has been in. There are so many different things going on in this movie that it is hard not to relate to it. I am just 18 years old and I can even relate to it. It was heart warming and wrenching at the same time. "Here On Earth" will make you laugh, cry, and sometimes angry. I give this movie an excellent review and recommend it to anyone who loves romance and passion!
|
positive
|
This film takes place in the 1950s. According to this the dead (called zombies) have arisen to eat the living. However a company has developed a collar that, when put around the zombies neck, makes them docile and perfect servants. The Robinsons mom Helen (Carrie-Anne Moss), dad Bill (Dylan Baker) and son Timmy (K'Sun Ray) hire a zombie because everyone on their block already has one. Tim names the zombie Fido (Billy Connolly) and becomes friends with him. But his dad hates him and Timmy looses control of Fido and things go wrong.<br /><br />As you can see this is--among many other things--a takeoff on the "Lassie" series with Fido being a stand in for Lassie. Timmy was named that for a reason! Every single of the famous Lassie episodes are spun here. My favorite is when Timmy sends Fido off to get help before the zombies eat him! Also it's a satire of those 1950s Douglas Sirk films where everything is bright and colorful--but dark secrets are tearing people apart. The characters wear VERY bright 1950s clothes (Moss is always in a dress)--the furnishings, settings and cars especially are all 1950s in hyper bright colors. Even when the script becomes repetitious there's always something to look at. The script is good--but there are only so many Lassie jokes you can make. The melodramatics are kind of silly but the cast pulls it off. Everyone here is excellent and right on target. Even Connolly as an emotionless zombie does a good job. Moss is the best--playing each line for all its worth---but never going overboard.<br /><br />This isn't for everybody (of course). The satire may be lost on most people and the gore is pretty tame. The gore is done so casually and with happy music playing over it it's hard to take it seriously. So, for some people, this will really work. I give it an 8.
|
positive
|
Considering that I felt like picking up a new Jet Li film to see some but kicking and brainless hand to hand fighting, I grabbed this title.<br /><br />Unfortunatly, this movie contains more gun battles (ala Chow Yun Fat but nowhere near as good), than Jet Li and company's acrobatic fighting. Thus it was a let down.<br /><br />The faucet fighting was interesting and even funny, considering this was something totaly unexpected in a Jet Li film for me, more on the line of say Jackie Chan.<br /><br />But alas I'd recommend Fist of Legend, Tai Chi Master, or even the Enforcer over this dissapointment.<br /><br />Rating 4 for martial arts Rating 3 for overall movie score
|
negative
|
I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.<br /><br />Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.<br /><br />I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.<br /><br />See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.
|
negative
|
Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.
|
negative
|
I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd "save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.
|
negative
|
Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: "Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).<br /><br />And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This "movie" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.<br /><br />Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: "When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that." Huh?<br /><br />About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.<br /><br />Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads "Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: "airplanes, why it's against the creator's will", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.<br /><br />Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.<br /><br />This film is so bad it makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's "Glen Or Glenda". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.
|
negative
|
I work at a Blockbuster store and every week we have movies that come in with just a few copies, these are the kind of movies that the Sci-Fi channel shows. The kind of movie that nobody ever wants, and only that idiots rent, when they bring it back I ask them "was it any good?", they say "no we turned it off after 15 minutes!" Movies with terrible computer generated, super imposed monsters and such like, very unappealing.<br /><br />This is the same type of movie that Grendel is, and absolute waste of time, if you want a reasonably (and only reasonably) good Beowulf based movie then try Beowulf & Grendel , starring Gerard Butler, who is also starring in the eagerly anticipated 300, as King Leonidas of Sparta.<br /><br />Plus, later this year we have another Beowulf movie, with a star studded cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins and Brendan Gleeson, to Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.<br /><br />But don't let that get your hopes up like we all did with Eragon, or we are all in for another big disappointment.<br /><br />And regarding rentals, here is my rule of thumb: If there is only one or two copies, don't rent it because its a load of crap.( This is true 99.9% of the time, usually not true if the title is foreign, or a documentary.)
|
negative
|
Why? Because for one reason, there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than Ann Margret singing "Bye Bye Birdie" at the opening. She reprises it again at the ending, too (in a different mood!). Both wonderful. Rent it and see. Even if that's all of it that you watch. You'll agree, I'm sure.<br /><br />Everything about the original was so excellent it just didn't need a remake, sorry! Jason and Vanessa gave commendable performances, as well as Tyne and Chynna. In fact, all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their 'all,' but it's like trying to improve on "Casablanca" -- it just can't be done! It's even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake, and it just falls short, through no fault of the actors.
|
negative
|
I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.
|
negative
|
Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.<br /><br />Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and "characters".<br /><br />The "Incubus" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.<br /><br />John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.<br /><br />Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.<br /><br />The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise.
|
negative
|
I feel at a loss, so brilliant is this film. Kieslowski is a writer, a philosopher; and while an excellent filmmaker, his greatness lies in his writing; and "Red" is his paradigm. This film is a metafictional study of the artist's judgement in the creation of his fictional world; of how an artist can attempt to remake life -- even his own -- thru his art, even as he cannot escape the knowledge that, no matter how he involves himself in his story, it is still fiction and he is still outside of his remade world, still burdened with its unreality and the reality of the life he has tried to artistically remake. And magically, all of this is not to the smallest degree at the expense of a wonderful story about the mysteries of love and fate and the characters who live out this story, this pre-judged destiny. If I had to choose, I might nominate this the greatest film ever made.
|
positive
|
Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.
|
positive
|
I watched both Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy on DVD before seeing this in the theater. I'd been waiting for this since before they started filming. I wasn't disappointed.<br /><br />Minor spoilers below- <br /><br />Overall it was good, but it also lacked the continuity of the first two. Identity and Supremacy both flowed gracefully between adrenaline rush action to introspective drama. This movie felt choppy at times. The plot-building down-times were slightly too drawn out. That caused the following action to feel too frenetic.<br /><br />Camera: Speaking of frenetic, the trademark Greengrass shaky cam was present and very annoying to me. I know its has been talked/whined about to nausea on the message board, but it doesn't mean it's not relevant. All the martial arts training the actors went through was totally wasted. The ridiculous camera cuts and wiggling camera ruined most of the fighting in the movie. It is a cheap, student director trick to make the film feel unsettled. I'd expect those techniques to be used in some horror flick made for high school kids, but not in this classy, adult, action series. Too much extreme close-up also. Do some framing. Get some interesting shots. Constant close-up feels like lazy directing to me.<br /><br />Story: The story was VERY confusing at first. They thrust new names and faces upon you from the get go. Gave me the feeling that you get when you come into a movie late and know you've missed some crucial information. Felt rushed or compressed for time reasons. After you catch up however the story is quite good. It's enjoyable following leads along with Bourne. HOWEVER, I did NOT care for the whole last scene of Supremacy (Landy/Bourne on the phone) being in the middle of Ultimatum thing. It basically makes the movie a half-prequel. I thought that was awkward.<br /><br />Cast/Characters: The star of the movie is the action. Obviously there are only two originals left. Bourne and Nicky Parsons. Them teaming up was kind of odd to me. I think they just wanted to give Bourne someone to protect to and confide in. Unless I completely missed something, they never even tell you why they teamed up. The other assassins in the movie were pretty quiet. This felt like Gilroy/Greengrass/whoever wanting to not leave open ends. Understandable but disappointing. Seriously, Damon with Clive Owen in Identity and Marton Csokas in Supremacy.. Those scenes were phenomenal. These assassins are as uninteresting as Castel (the first fella Bourne fights in Identity). The cast in general has degraded as the the series went on. Clive Owen was practically an afterthought. That's a measure of strength for that first cast. The second, they basically trade Chris Cooper for Joan Allen.... Not exactly equal. This one trades Brian Cox and Franka Potente for 3 actors to be named later. Nothing against David Strathairn, Scott Glenn, or Albert Finney, but they're not the first names that come to mind for this kind of series. Aside from a couple pauses that seemed to long, the acting was right on.<br /><br />As a whole, it was successful. Felt like they wanted to get the series over with though. If they would have trimmed or rearranged the slower parts, eliminated Scott Glenn's part entirely, zoomed out, and taken the camera away from the seizure victim, it would have been perfect.<br /><br />ENDING SPOILER<br /><br />I don't see why they leave Bourne alive at the end. It was my understanding this was the conclusion. They clearly made reference to the very beginning of the series with his silhouette floating motionless. I thought that was going to be it. A full circle type of ending. I did like Nicky reacting to the news report though.<br /><br />SPOILER SPECIFICS WARNING - QUOTE FROM MOVIE BELOW -<br /><br />Bourne's last line at the end "Look at this.. Look at what they make you give." quoting the first assassin he killed, I loved that. The final scene was great. (Except that it was Vosen {Strathairn} that shot at Bourne. Why would he do that? Just out for vengeance? If he was angry enough to murder, why not shoot Pamela Landy after she faxes his top secret file? That didn't make sense.)
|
positive
|
Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5
|
negative
|
Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...<br /><br />Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.<br /><br />Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...<br /><br />Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense.
|
negative
|
First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!<br /><br />It's a 10/10 movie!!!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.<br /><br />I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.<br /><br />It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.<br /><br />The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. <br /><br />Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.<br /><br />This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.<br /><br />But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy.
|
negative
|
Justine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.