text
stringlengths 154
4k
| labels
class label 3
classes |
|---|---|
Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with!
| 2negative
|
Garde à Vue has to be seen a number of times in order to understand the sub-plots it contains. If you're not used to french wordy films, based upon conversation and battle of wits rather than on action, don't even try to watch it. You'll only obtain boredom to death, and reassured opinion that french movies are not for you.<br /><br />Garde à Vue is a wordy film, essentially based upon dialogs (written by Audiard by the way)and it cruelly cuts the veil of appearances.<br /><br />Why does Maître Martineau (Serrault) prefer to be unduly accused of being a child murderer rather than telling the truth ? Because at the time of the murder he was with a 18 years old girl with which he has a 8-years sexual relation. His wife knows it, she's jealous of it and he prefers to be executed (in 1980 in France, there was still death penalty)rather than unveiling the sole "pure and innocent" aspect of his pitiful life.
| 2negative
|
The movie begins a with mentally-challenged girl with bright yellow sneakers looking skyward on a Madrid street corner and being spellbound by a passing plane. The movie examines the life of five womenAdela, Leire, Maricarmen, Anita & Isabelwho have completely different lives and choices of shoes. Their shoes is the first superficial, yet affixed with some glancing meaning, clue we get at their fragile identities. In a theatrically embroidered and embellished way, a podiatrist tries to esoterically reveal the deepest secrets of a woman's souls by the sole of her feet. The premise is risky and slightly contrived, but the tone and depth of the movie takes a daring plunge for the good.<br /><br />What may have been light-hearted and superficial, quickly switches gear with the a superb dysfunctional couple scene that leaves the viewer riveted for minutes, seeing the love or lack thereof, the pain, the confusion, the hope, the needs and escape mechanisms develop through minutes different rooms of the house and down to the street and eventually below... What a scene (!) , but there will be others as effective to follow and strengthen the strong characterization and directing displayed in this slice of life affair.<br /><br />Moving along, a woman has lost the husband she loved and inherited his kids and his taxi, while another has completely lost her husband emotionally, sexually, intellectually, but not physically. A ghost, a pending divorce
reproach, regret & remorse. A new love? Can you love a mirage? Can you love the person in the mirror? Can you love someone you can't love? Or think you can't love? Can you love and live life even though it will always be somewhat hopeless? Yet isn't it exactly these hopes and dreams that keep us here grounded and in a spectrum of relative happiness? A lot of deep themes emerge and the final act brings people and ideas together to coalesce in an existential crisis with no clear cut solution, definitive decision or effective healing. Maybe a elusive thought, a fleeting feeling, but a lasting appreciation of life and of the artistry and intellect of the film. Live. Live again. Rewind the reel. Unveil the real, the important; the big stones (piedras) of life. The rest is just details.
| 1ambivalent
|
This film has a powerful philosophical ending. But that ending has meaning only if you watch the movie from the beginning.<br /><br />Youth alienation in the late 1960's, from the viewpoint of a young man and a young woman, is the obvious theme of "Zabriskie Point". Neither Mark Frechette nor Daria Halprin had much acting experience, a fact that actually enhances the film's message. Having untrained actors conveys a sense of realism, as both players seem emotionally detached from the turmoil around them.<br /><br />This is not a script-driven film. Except for the first ten minutes, it is mostly visual, with stunning cinematography. The beautiful naturalistic images seem other-worldly, and perfectly in sync with the emotional detachment of Mark and Daria.<br /><br />I would have replaced the thematically weak Pink Floyd music with the more cogent music of The Doors. Many scenes cry out for "Riders On The Storm".<br /><br />Even so, I like this film. It's different; it's unique; it is artistic and imaginative. And the desert badlands are beautiful.<br /><br />As the years go by, "Zabriskie Point" seems more and more attractive. It conveys the mood of the late 1960's in America. It is amazingly artistic, in a bohemian sort of way. And the film's last eight minutes are philosophically mesmerizing.
| 0positive
|
I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.
| 2negative
|
The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.<br /><br />The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. <br /><br />Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about.
| 2negative
|
Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too.
| 0positive
|
And it falls squarely into the category of "awesomely bad" - ie a movie drunk students would rent to get a kick out of. I was at the sci fi movie festival and all I remember is a wave after wave of hysterical laughter as this movie premiered. Other critiques will better describe this movie's fecal nature, and I felt oh-so-bad at the poor guy from the production company who had turned up, obviously to gauge the audience's reaction. What he got was the sci fi equivalent of a drunken student audience, and after a "serious" anime movie, I think it was "sky blue", the audience was in a sombre mood, and then this movie opened and within seconds everyone in the room was rolling in the isles. I will bullet point the worst parts;<br /><br />Script: The funniest, and worst part of this movie, it clunks along a linear and predictable road with the occasional ill-thought-out aside. Rubbish, but eminently laughable.<br /><br />Animation: Poorly done, and put together, if you can put up with drab backgrounds and gradually skimpier costumes for the heroine (I know I can!), then watch out for the montage where she "trasforms" from a Swedish peasant girl into LADY DEATH!!!<br /><br />Characters: So one-dimensional its painful, there is a brief backstory (with side-splitting lines of dialogue) and little light is shone on the actual motivation behind some of the main characters.<br /><br />So, in a nutshell, if you've got a captive audience and a few beverages lying around (try and make sure they're alcoholic to ease the pain), then slip this movie into the DVD and get in a "mystery science theatre 3000" mindset. There is no other motivation to watch this movie other than to laugh at it, and its not meant to be a comedy. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE ALONE. It could possible be even more boring to watch solo than "New World" with Colin Farrell as you won't be able to have a laugh at the ridiculousness with a friend or two.
| 2negative
|
Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.<br /><br />"Homicide: The Movie" aka "Life Everlasting" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of "the best damn show on television" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to "Homicide" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.<br /><br />** I call myself a "Homicidal Maniac" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. **
| 0positive
|
This superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie is another trash bin waste. So many people have hyped up these films that I can't believe what they say about it. Since I was a kid I have heard about how scary and great these films are and I saw them all and was throughly disappointed, was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's or do they just not know how boring this crude is?
| 2negative
|
This a rip roaring western and i have watched it many times and it entertains on every level.However if your after the true facts about such legends as Hickcock,Cody and Calamity Jane then look elsewhere, as John Ford suggested this is the west when the truth becomes legend print the legend.The story moves with a cracking pace, and there is some great dialogue between Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur two very watchable stars who help to make this movie.The sharp eyed amongst you might just spot Gabby Hayes as an Indian scout, also there is a very young Anthony Quinn making his debut as Cayenne warrior, he actually married one of Demilles daughters in real life.Indeed its Quinns character who informs Cooper of the massacre of Custer told in flash back, the finale is well done and when the credits roll it fuses the American west with American history.So please take time out to watch this classic western.
| 0positive
|
According to IMDb, as well as to every other website that holds a review; this "thing" doesn't have a director. Well, that would surely explain a lot! Just a bunch of people that gathered together to shoot some perverted porn sequences and throw in an ultra-thin storyline about devil-worshiping and women sacrifices inside the walls of a secluded sanitarium. "Hardgore" is a prime example of totally demented 70's smut, as it's really made with a minimum of production values and scripting inspiration. Horror movies about satanic cults were hugely popular during the early 70's and pornography as well, so why not combine the two? Here we have a simplistic story about a young nymphomaniac girl who's committed to a mental asylum, and from the first night already, she's drawn into a network of drugs, psychedelic orgies, rape, torture and dildo-action. Really, a LOT of dildo-action. The friendly lesbian nurse tries to warn her, but she has her throat slit even the same night. The horror aspects are truly poorly elaborated, going from laughably un-scary Satan masks to virulent severed penises attacks. The photography and acting performances are almost intolerably amateurish, but what do you expect from a film that features footage of sperm-firing dildos and talking amputated male reproduction organs? Leading lady Justina Lynn is a rather good looking girl with a ravishing body, but most of her co-stars (male & female) are hideous and excessively haired sleaze balls.
| 2negative
|
This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by "ground-breaking" and "original" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the "Bill Cosby Show" or "Hill Street Blues" it's original. Definitely. Next to "Law & Order" TP spews originality left and right.<br /><br />Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed "weirdness", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...<br /><br />Whenever I watch the "weird dream" sequence in "Living In Oblivion" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? "Eraserhead" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch "The Prisoner". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.<br /><br />In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for "unique faces" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced "hunks" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a "weird show with weird-looking people". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable "eccentricities" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-"Elephant Man" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. <br /><br />So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this "great mind" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. <br /><br />Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story.<br /><br />Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list.
| 2negative
|
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
| 2negative
|
This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash.
| 2negative
|
Sometimes realism can work against the effectiveness of a film. That's no problem here. The sets are cheesy, inside and out. The fog is ubiquitous, half disguising the shabbiness of the production. If there's a bar, the name painted on the front window says simply, "Wine And Spirits." The result is a claustrophobic set of scenes. Not a single shot of a city or even a fake skyline. That's the kind of Dublin this story is about, just as Jack the Ripper movies are about seedy, foggy, cobblestoned Whitechapel. Who would want it any other way? How could it have been any other way with no bankable stars, a minuscule budget, and a four-week shooting schedule? The acting follows suit -- outrageously hammy on everyone's part. Sometimes, my God, it's positively excruciating. Mrs. McPhillips moaning after Frankie is shot dead outside the house. Victor McLaglin however delivers exactly the right kind of overdone performance. Wardrobe has stuffed him into a too-small jacket so that he seems to be bursting out of it like Frankenstein's monster. His every movement seems to go a little farther than it was intended to. When he slaps his cap on his head, he bops himself on the temple. A big, blustering, blubbering baby, he seems constantly drunk. He betrays his best friend for the reward money which will take him and his would-be girl to America, not a good guy in the ordinary sense. Yet we wince as he begins to spend the 20 pounds, more and more of it during a wild, alcoholic night, because every expensive and grandiose gesture takes him farther from his dream. I wouldn't argue it, but I can understand why he won an Oscar.<br /><br />As for Max Steiner's score, wow. Every movement, already overdone, is not only underlined by the Mickey Mouse music but highlighted in glossy yellow. It shouldn't have happened -- the heavenly choirs, the endearing young charms, the minstrel boy, the gurgling tune while McLaglen drinks from the bottle. It would have been better off with no score at all.<br /><br />Well, how is it as a whole? Dated -- by any measure, but not a product of its times. That's why I admire it. Yes, the symbolism is clumsy at times. McLaglen, a real dummy, bumping his head against a hanging sign. The fog. The blind man. But what impresses me is how little of this was being tried at the time. What strikes us as overly arty today was in 1936 something quite different from what was seen in most of the programmers being ground out at the time. If it falls short at times, it doesn't matter. The movie was an act of courage, politically and morally as well as poetically. (The legion of decency condemned it because of a scene in a brothel.) A director's goal should exceed his grasp, or what's a script for? Watching it now, however, in 2006, the story is more disturbing than ever. John Ford obviously sympathized with the Irish rebels. They kill, but only out of what they see as necessity. ("He knows too much to live. What if he goes to the Tans? Oh, it's not me-self I'm thinking of but all of us, of Ireland herself.") The Irish are sentimentalized and sympathetic. I wonder if the Jihadists in the Middle East don't use a similar logic to justify their acts of violence.
| 2negative
|
Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.<br /><br />After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.<br /><br />There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).<br /><br />All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO.
| 2negative
|
This is the last of four swashbucklers from France I've scheduled for viewing during this Christmas season: the others (in order of viewing) were the uninspired THE BLACK TULIP (1964; from the same director as this one but not nearly as good), the surprisingly effective LADY Oscar (1979; which had originated as a Japanese manga!) and the splendid CARTOUCHE (1962). Actually, I had watched this one not too long ago on late-night Italian TV and recall not being especially bowled over by it, so that I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed it this time around (also bearing in mind the baffling lack of enthusiasm shown towards the film here and elsewhere when it was first announced as an upcoming DVD release from Criterion).<br /><br />Incidentally, FANFAN LA TULIPE has quite a bit in common with the afore-mentioned CARTOUCHE: not just cast and crew members (producers Georges Dancigers and Alexandre Mnouchkine, cinematographer Christian Matras, actor Noel Roquevert) but plot-wise as well in fact, the hero is a womanizing soldier (Jean-Paul Belmondo's Cartouche had also had a brief military spell) who's loved by a fiery girl (in this case, gypsy Gina Lollobrigida) while he's himself obsessed by an impossible love (here, it's none other than the king's daughter)! As in the later film, too, Fanfan (an ideally cast Gerard Philipe who, ironically, is so full of life here that one finds it hard to believe that he would be stricken down by cancer within 7 years' time) is flanked by two fun-loving yet cowardly men (one of them is actually his superior officer and the heroine's own father) and opposed by an unscrupulous figure within his own ranks (the ageing Roquevert, with whom the hero eventually engages in a rooftop duel since he too has amorous designs on the gypsy girl)!; for the record, Lollobrigida will rejoin Philippe in her next film, Rene Clair's delightful romantic fantasy LES BELLES DE NUIT (1952).<br /><br />FANFAN proved to be a big box-office hit on its home-ground and even copped a surprising (but well-deserved) Best Direction award at Cannes over more renowned films like AN American IN Paris (1951), DETECTIVE STORY (1951), OTHELLO, UMBERTO D. and VIVA ZAPATA! In fact, its popularity ensured its re-release in a computer-colored version (presumably for the benefit of viewers who wouldn't touch a black-and-white product with a ten-foot pole) and the Criterion DVD itself contains a sample from this variant; being obviously a foreign-language title, there's also the dubious choice of an English-dubbed soundtrack but, even if these proved not especially painful to sit through considering, when all is said and done, there's simply no substitute for the original! <br /><br />FANFAN LA TULIPE (a nickname given the hero by a young Genevieve Page as the celebrated Madame De Pompadour) contains about as much comedy as (the expected) action and romance; while some may find this overwhelming, I don't agree myself as I enjoyed the sharply satirical narration and, on the whole, this combination is comparable with Jerzy Skolimowski's equally droll THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970). That said, the swordfights here are remarkably forceful for an essentially lighthearted enterprise (particularly a scuffle in the woods and the ambush at a convent) and the film itself rather adult at times (with numerous allusions to sexuality as well as coarse language adopted throughout) when viewed back-to-back with vintage Hollywood fare as I did now; the climax, then is quite ingenious: the enemy forces (who, amusingly, are made to speak in speeded-up gibberish!) are depleted by our heroic trio alone, much to the king's amazement who, as portrayed by Marcel Herrand best-known for his role of leader of the Parisian underworld in Marcel Carne''s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945) is himself something of a lecher.<br /><br />P.S. An Italian TV channel has been threatening to screen Christian-Jaque's promising CHAMPAGNE FOR SAVAGES (1964) for months now bu...
| 0positive
|
What a fun movie St. Ives is. It reminds me of the type of film made during the 40's. Classic story, rounded off by characters and a plot that is neither over dramatic nor overtly complicated. In fact it isn't over anything. Robert Lewis Stevenson's story - here adapted for the screen - reads like Jane Austen for men. We do get a tale that has a romance at its heart, but there is plenty of fun too: battle scenes (sort of), prison escapes, mistaken identities, swordplay, and the funniest line I've heard in years: "Only in Scotland would guests be announced by name at a masked ball." There is much hilarity, hardship, and not a little heartbreak as St. Ives tries to fight and find his way back to a family and life he barely knew.<br /><br />The cast is absolutely stellar with the too infrequently seen Jean Marc Barr absolutely perfect in the title role. Anna Friel is a refreshing delight as the resourceful Flora and Miranda Richardson nearly walks away with the movie as her wise and worldly, been there and seen-it-all Aunt Susan. Richard Grant provides comic relief of the highest order.<br /><br />This is not going to be the greatest movie anyone has ever seen, but its charms are undeniable and the entire film fairly bristles with an energy that bursts with life.
| 0positive
|
Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.<br /><br />I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.<br /><br />Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.<br /><br />When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.<br /><br />A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Ira...
| 1ambivalent
|
If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!
| 0positive
|
A haunting piece that the discerning horror film fan will fall upon with gratitude. Keep your Freddys and your Jasons -- this film is in the same company as "The Haunting" (the original). Lyrical and truthful, it stays with you long into the night, much like those terrifying CBS Radio Mystery Theatre shows. A smart rent.
| 0positive
|
All I can say is, first movie this season that got my attention. I picked it because of the actors, Gere and Claire, and the story looked promising..I have just watched it and i can say - i'm overwhelmed. There are shocking scenes, true..but that's what makes it more realistic. We shouldn't run away from our reality, these things are happening right this moment. And there are experts who are trying to change things and make things better and who get laughed out about their commitment to the cause. Actually I can't seem to feel the "Hollywood touch" in the movie..and that's what makes it better. Both Claire and Richard did a great roles, and deserve a 10 from me.
| 0positive
|
After 7 years of watching that dreadful nonsense called Star Trek Voyager I was feeling pretty numb. Next Gen and DS9 were bloody good stuff and Voyager ruined TV Trek. This opened with probably the best pilot to a Trek show. The crew were really good as were the choice of actors for the parts. Scott Bakula played a typical first time captain in deep space and his unpolished way of doing things was a refreshing change to the already know everything captains from before. The rest of the crew were really likable in their roles and I think they got off to a good first season. When the show was prematurely canceled I was really disappointed. In A Mirror Darkly showed us what the cast were capable of. Pity a film or TV movie was never considered. So much back story and founding of the federation left to tell, including the onset of hostilities with the Klingons..........
| 2negative
|
This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.<br /><br />This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.<br /><br />Not recommended.
| 2negative
|
I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.<br /><br />The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...<br /><br />They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...
| 2negative
|
I took my 19 year old daughter with me to see this interesting exercise in movie making. I always find it intriguing to get views and opinions from a different generation on movies, especially as I'm such a cynic myself. It's good to get an unjaded opinion from someone who hasn't yet reached the "been there, done that" approach to every movie she sees. I'm pleased to say that we both really enjoyed it and regarded it as a successful mother / daughter evening out. Far, far better than going to see some brain dead "chick flick", which I gather is what we are supposed to enjoy, according to the demographics? <br /><br />Eighteen directors were asked to produce a short piece about each of the arrondissements of Paris, a city I haven't visited in 20 years. But I wish I had. They are loosely linked by joining shots, and represent different approaches to love in the city regarded in popular culture as the quintessential romantic capital of the world. Some of the films work better than others but, as other reviewers have said, it never descends too far into kitsch. Some are funny, some are sad, some intriguing and some just plain puzzling (I'm still trying to discern some deep inner truth to the "Flying Tiger, Hidden Dragon" hairdressing salon.) Some are just fun and perhaps shouldn't be assigned too much meaning (the vampire and the tourist for example.) Possibly my only criticism of the whole film, is that it makes Paris look too good. It can also be cold, wet, foggy, indifferent and miserable, or, in summer, baking hot and packed with so many tourists that you feel like a sardine in a can queuing up for hours to see every attraction. But I'm nit picking. <br /><br />My personal favourite by far was the Coen brothers film shot on the Tuileries Metro station, and starring a perfectly cast Steve Buscemi as a confused tourist who inadvertently finds himself caught up in a lovers' tiff. Absolutely perfect, and very, very funny, without Buscemi having to say a word. I also perversely enjoyed the piece about the two mime artists, which was probably the closest the movie got to being cutesy - that certainly teetered on the edge of kitsch, but it just stayed on the right side. Rufus Sewell and Emily Mortimer gaining insight from an encounter with Oscar Wilde's tomb left me pretty indifferent, and Juliette Binoche trying to cope with the death of her small son made me very, very uncomfortable. I thought both the Bob Hoskins / Fanny Ardent piece, and Ben Gazzara / Gena Rowlands fell a bit flat, but Maggie Gyllenhaal was good (has she cornered the market in junkies? I watched Sherry Baby last week.) <br /><br />But I felt the two "social justice" pieces (for want of a better way of putting it), worked very well. By that, I mean first of all the film about the young mother leaving her own child in a day care to go and look after someone else's baby across town. And then the film about the African migrant, struggling to exist on the margins of an indifferent society, who is stabbed and dies in the street in front of a young, new paramedic. Yet another murder statistic, in a world which sees thousands of migrants dying in the struggle to reach what they see as a better life, every year. I thought both pieces very well observed.<br /><br />The final film, 14th Arrondissement, in which Margo Martindale plays a postal worker from Colorado recounting the story of her first trip to Paris in very badly accented French to her night school French class, moved me. A perfect ending, to a good, intriguing if not quite great, movie. <br /><br />Paris je t'aime was an ambitious idea, but it works pretty well.
| 0positive
|
Fräulein Doktor is as good a demonstration as any of how the once great film industry in Western Europe has declined in the past 40 years. Then, in the late 60s, while the big Hollywood studios were on the ropes, Italy,France and England were turning out movies to fill the void left by Hollywood's decline. There were the James Bond pictures (Doctor No was a surprise hit in the USA, it was first released at the Century theater chain in NYC with a 99 cent afternoon admission price), the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (with A Fistful of Dollars released by a distributor that never paid the Italian producers a dime)and French crime movies that usually went to art houses, with exceptions like The Sicilian Clan. And there were European co-productions like Doctor Zhivago and, of course, Fräulein Doktor. With its big budget for the time, and the world talent involved, Fräulein Doktor was good enough that viewers still remember the movie decades later.<br /><br />Kenneth More, playing a British intelligence officer, has a line in Fräulein Doktor where he tells a caught spy to either talk or he will play the Wall Game. The wall being opposite a firing squad, with little chance of the spy winning the game. That sort of cynical attitude played well across national borders, in the Vietnam War era of 1969.<br /><br />The steamy scenes between Suzy Kendall and Capucine probably did not damage these performers' chances at getting parts in Hollywood movies, Hollywood studios were in the process of shedding their overseas distribution and production businesses. Fox would no longer co-produce films like The Sicilian Clan, Columbia wouldn't distribute films like Belmondo's The Night Caller. MGM went even further, cutting almost all film production, selling its chain of theaters in India for the value of the land underneath and unloading its Borehamwood studio facilty as Kerkorian looted the studio to raise money for building his casino in Las Vegas (where a Bally casino gift shop sold MGM memorabilia at giveaway prices, stuff left over from the auction of MGM's prop warehouses).<br /><br />Paramount distributed Fräulein Doktor, but Gulf and Western's Charles Bludhorn, who had taken over the company and canned the studio's aged Board of Directors, unloaded the studio's film library to Universal (as I recall) and really became interested in movies after production chief Robert Evans started turning out one hit after another. But that was in the 70s. Fräulein Doktor with its lesbian scene was buried, with cut versions of the movie showing up on local stations through the 80s.<br /><br />Kenneth More was usually typecast as a bumbling guy when he was older, especially in the BBC detective series Father Brown. When he was younger, as in the British movie Titanic, he played his standard reserved British officer. In Fräulein Doktor, he had a chance to be a lot tougher than usual, as I recall. It would be nice to see if my memory of this movie is accurate, about his role and, of course, those cavalry horses wearing gas masks and protective covers riding into battle. That was some scene, and Alberto Lattuada showed he was some director, helming this World War I espionage movie, where the money spent on production values really shows up on the screen.
| 1ambivalent
|
I just got through watching this DVD at home. We love Westerns, so my husband rented it. He started apologizing to me half way through. The saddles, costumes, accents--everything was off. The part that made me so mad is where the guy didn't shoot the "collector" with his bow and arrow as he was taking the fat guy's soul. His only excuse was "he only had 2 arrows left." We watched it all the way through, and, as someone else said...too many bad things to single out any one reason why it sucked. I mean, the fact that the boy happened to snatch the evil stone from the collector on the same month and day it was found, what's the point of that? And why were there a grave yard where everyone died on April 25 but the people whose souls were taken by the collector were still up walking around? If you want a movie to make fun of after a few beers, this may be your movie. However, if you want a real Western, you will hate this movie.
| 2negative
|
It's all about Mitzi. I loved her in this. And didn't she look fantastic?! I love these Lifetime Sunday afternoon popcorn movies. This is like one of those nailbiters where they always go to commercial at the most annoying times. The Richard character was completely creepy. I've dated guys like that. Well, not totally like that lol. I wish Zack hadn't have gotten killed. He was a cutie and very easy on the eyes. I LOVE these stalker type stories. It always makes me get up and make sure my doors are locked. My husband doesn't usually like these types of movies but actually sat through the entire thing with me and actually enjoyed it. I can't wait to see what Mitzi does next!
| 0positive
|
"Dressed to Kill" is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.<br /><br />Sadly, the original uncut version of "Dressed to Kill" is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.<br /><br />Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense), <br /><br />Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...<br /><br />I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted "cock" changed to "bulge"). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in "Lost and Delirious" is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.<br /><br />What makes "Dressed to Kill" so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.<br /><br />DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than "Psycho". It's a shame that very few actually know that.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars
| 0positive
|
I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.
| 0positive
|
What the hell is in your minds ? This film sucks ! Each minute I was getting more and more bored. I strove to watch the end because I hope something at least would at last happen ! But instead of that, I got amazed how dull the end was treated... What is this story about this bloody "bogeyman" ? How comes he doesn't die ? He is a bloody human being for God's sake ! A mere boy that killed his silly sister 15 years ago. Then what ? His stay on a psychiatric hospital made him immortal ? This film a fascinatingly stupid... It's a must of silliness. I'm gonna resell it right now to some silly guy who will understand this silly film.
| 2negative
|
** HERE BE SPOILERS ** <br /><br />Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén). Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. Mia is still single and is focused on her career. There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...<br /><br />Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years. There are really no new elements or ideas. This movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety. This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny. The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none. To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.<br /><br />3/10
| 2negative
|
Omen IV (1991) was a bad made-for-T.V. movie. Since the 80's were over, I guess the executives were experimenting in meth (the drug of choice during the 90's) because there is no other reason to explain this travesty. Why did they even bother making this? A t.v. movie? What were they mulling over when this one came up on the idea board? Did they even think for a second that this movie would catch on as. Perhaps they thought it could make it as a series? We'll never know. But I know one thing. This movie was the major reason why I never bought the Omen trilogy. They should have knocked off a couple of bucks instead of putting out this "extra" disc.<br /><br />Omen IV is basically a average American family remake of the first film. Instead of a snot nosed punk kid, we get the spooky girl who's a total brat to everyone around her. If the family had stronger parenting skills, then none of the demonic events that have transpired in the past films would have never occurred. These parents need to put their foot down and do some real discipline! <br /><br />Not recommended, best to avoid at all cost!
| 2negative
|
Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.<br /><br />What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, "In Cold Blood" presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.<br /><br />Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.<br /><br />Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.<br /><br />After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.<br /><br />Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, "In Cold Blood" stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night?
| 2negative
|
Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| 2negative
|
SPOILERS WITHIN.<br /><br />It appears that von Trotta was a lot more at ease with what the balance of personal story versus history of the events than she was in her earlier film Versprechen, Das (1995).<br /><br />The direction seemed carefully controlled, and visually I felt it was highly appealing - especially where the visual narrative was concerned (the title-sequence blend and the lighting of a new candle in modern times commemorating the deaths of various characters in the past).<br /><br />To clarify two points that many people have been confused by:<br /><br />Firstly, Lena did not sleep with Goebbels. Although this may have seemed implied, it was not the intent. Von Trotta told me so herself! (And she is a very nice lady, by the way!)<br /><br />Secondly, the time-frame of events was in fact historically accurate (the actual dates are shown on the close-up of the memorial) and the prisoners were released as suddenly as in the film. There is evidence showing that Goebbels was annoyed about having done this, and had planned to eventually recapture those he had set free.<br /><br />Overall, what most impressed me most was that it was an original story from a much 'over-movied' era. It seems a shame that it has taken such a long time (for various reasons) for this film to hit our screens.<br /><br />More of the same please, Margarethe!
| 0positive
|
A very unique Sci-Fi animated film, and frankly I love uniqueness no matter which way it tends to be, better or worse. This French film is quite interesting to watch, the technique part is innovatory, like "Waking Life" I recently watched.<br /><br />It took me quite a long time to get used to the Black-White style, but eventually I love it, the sketchlike images are really fancy! The contracted future world is a symbol of human race's final destination which I adore it very much.<br /><br />The whole plot is fine for a Sci-Fi, not so intriguing but it's OK, like some Hollywood's products, a giant conspiracy about human's eternity, a little bit cliché and the twisted ending is not so convincing, some development is just too plain and insipid, and the whole movie is too long.<br /><br />So I think I'm just in love with the style this film shows, others are not so good.<br /><br />About the eternity of life, I think most people have come to a unanimousness that we don't want eternity because it demolishes the meaning of life, we treasure our lives because they are limited and meaningful, if everyone can live forever, thus the world world will become a disaster and chaos. Leaving someone you love is hard and heartbreaking, but that's also a way to show our lives are genuine and all the emotion fulfills one's life and make the world colorful and lively.
| 0positive
|
I saw this movie the day it came out last year. Hilarious I thought. Well, now it's on video and I saw it again. I love this movie! The things they do are sometimes dumb but that's what makes it my third favorite movie of all time. The special effects are okay, but the witty dialog will have you rolling. I'm the kind of person that'll say i'm inspired by this movie, so if you like dramas and other stuff, avoid. But for all others, enjoy! The acting is superb. Hank Azaria is hands down the best (he's neither a commie, nor a fruit) followed by Ben Stiller (uh, don't correct me. it sickens me) and then William H. Macy delivering his best performance (outshining fargo) Everybody has praised everyone from macy to garafalo, but I think Kel Mitchell was pretty good as Invisible Boy. Two problems: The most boring part of the film is the subplot of the romance between Stiller and Claire Forlani, and the Casanova parole hearing. Some scenes absolutely advance the story in no way, but they're a blast. Kinka and especially the writers tend to drag on a scene untill all it's hilarity is gone, but bam they switch and you're ready for more. I swear after seeing this, you will be tired from the explosive climax (which I think was pretty cool) The camera is pretty cool also, moving at a furious pace with the actors. Also, Tom Waits delivers an outstanding performance (he has this kinda cool bad hero coolness to him) and like someone else said, the best parts are when the characters show some humanness to them. Captain Amazing is pretty funny, (especially his speech to Casanova about his perfect plan-I was rolling) and rush is pretty cool as Casanova. One beef: the funniest comedian ever (eddie izzard) is almost wasted, but his heart is in the right place. So all in all, a wonderful movie. I give it twenty stars and hope that someday, everyone will see the brilliance in the film's best parody, the Six Million Dollar Man one. Laughing right now as I think about it. 20/10
| 0positive
|
"Zabriskie Point" (1970): This was especially interesting to me on a personal level, since it takes place under identical circumstances, with identical peers, in my own life the Counter Culture movement of the late 60's/early 70's, on and off campus. We follow two unrelated young people in separate stories, who are slowly woven together. One is a young man in Los Angeles, tired of all the endless, pseudo-revolutionary jabber in the classrooms and lunchrooms of his campus, and, the other, a young woman driving to Phoenix to see her father & employer, and take on an "establishment" job. The film is FULL of our Italian director's (Michelangelo Antonioni) visual notations of America, and, the confused, psychedelicrazies of that era's self-righteous, "we know it all, we'll change everything for the better" youth. Just who IS the "revolutionary"? What does that REALLY mean? Do you dress like one and march around chanting? Do you "fly in under the radar" but give advance notice of your arrival? Do you keep your plans to yourself, and go about the business of change, with no need for group approval? "Zabriskie Point" is definitely a "period piece" - full of slang, uniforms, somewhat surreal film moments (after all, this is a film by the man who gave us the amazing "Blow Up" of 1966), and the era's artifacts, but it is more. It presents options for cultural revolution, and going by Antonioni (who DOES seem to be supportive of it), the youth are too self-involved to see what is needed for radical success. Because of this, it becomes a powerful, frightening film that applies to anyone, any time, any place.
| 1ambivalent
|
Devil Hunter gained notoriety for the fact that it's on the DPP 'Video Nasty' list, but it really needn't have been. Many films on the list where there for God (and DPP) only known reasons, and while this isn't the tamest of the bunch; there isn't a lot here that warrants banning...which is a shame because I never would have sat through it where it not for the fact that it's on 'the shopping list'. The plot actually gives the film a decent base - or at least more of a decent base than most cannibal films - and it follows an actress who is kidnapped and dragged off into the Amazon jungle. A hunter is then hired to find her, but along the way he has to brave the natives, lead by a man who calls himself "The Devil" (hence the title). The film basically just plods along for eighty five minutes and there really aren't many scenes of interest. It's a real shame that Jess Franco ended up making films like this because the man clearly has talent; as seen by films such as The Diabolical Dr Z, Venus in Furs, Faceless and She Kills in Ecstasy, but unfortunately his good films are just gems amongst heaps of crap and Devil Hunter is very much a part of the crap. I saw this film purely because I want to be able to say I've seen everything on the DPP's list (just two more to go!), and I'm guessing that's why most other people who have seen it, saw it. But if you're not on the lookout for Nasties; there really is no reason to bother with this one.
| 2negative
|
Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.
| 0positive
|
(possible spoilers)<br /><br />Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.<br /><br />The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are undermined<br /><br />somewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much better<br /><br />use of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger<br /><br />(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).<br /><br />The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensively<br /><br />hypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandising<br /><br />campaign.<br /><br />The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). She<br /><br />seems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.<br /><br />Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in their<br /><br />stockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,<br /><br />manipulation, and heavy-handedne...
| 2negative
|
This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)<br /><br />I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
| 2negative
|
After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.<br /><br />I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*<br /><br />In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.<br /><br />If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10
| 2negative
|
I must have seen this a dozen times over the years. I was about fifteen when I first saw it in B & W on the local PBS station.<br /><br />I bought a DVD set for the children to see, and am making them watch it. They don't teach history in School, and this explains the most critical event of the 20th Century. It expands their critical thinking.<br /><br />Impartially, with the participants on all sides explaining in their own words what they did and why, it details what lead up to the war and the actual war.<br /><br />Buy it for your children, along with Alistair Cooke's America. Watch it with them, and make them understand. You'll be so glad you did.
| 0positive
|
Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****
| 2negative
|
Musically speaking Irving Berlin gave Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers another pluperfect musical after Top Hat if that was possible. Although in this case like that Jerome Kern confection Roberta that they were in, Follow the Fleet retained Randolph Scott with another singer, this time Harriet Hilliard.<br /><br />Randolph Scott is a career Navy CPO and Fred Astaire is an ex-vaudevillian who enlisted in the Navy to forget Ginger Rogers his former partner. But now the two are on shore leave. Fred and Ginger take up right where they left off, and Randy accidentally meets Ginger's dowdy sister Harriet who blossoms into a real beauty. But Randy's a typical love 'em and leave 'em sailor. <br /><br />Again Irving Berlin wrote a hit filled score with him tightly supervising the production. Ginger gets to do some really outstanding vocalizing with Let Yourself Go which she and Fred later dance to. But the real hit of the show is Let's Face the Music and Dance which is a number done at a Navy show. Sung first by Astaire and later danced to by the pair, Let's Face the Music and Dance is one of the great romantic numbers ever written for the screen. Their dancing on this one is absolute magic.<br /><br />I'm sure that when I mention Harriet Hilliard a few younger people might ask who that was. But they will know immediately when I mention her in conjunction with her famous husband Ozzie Nelson. That's right Ozzie and Harriet. It's something of a mystery to me why Harriet stopped singing when she just became David and Ricky's mom on television. Then again she didn't even keep her own name. <br /><br />Neither Ozzie or Harriet sang on television. Ozzie was a pale imitation of Rudy Vallee as a singer, but Harriet could really carry a tune. She sings Get Thee Behind Me Satan and The Moon and I Are Here, But Where Are You, both with real feeling and class. I recommend you see Follow the Fleet if for no other reason than to hear a dimension of Harriet Hilliard incredibly forgotten today.
| 0positive
|
There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.<br /><br />(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life)
| 1ambivalent
|
This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.<br /><br />The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)
| 1ambivalent
|
You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.<br /><br />As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination. <br /><br />Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.<br /><br />Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!<br /><br />
| 2negative
|
At the point in time that The Lady from Shanghai was being made, the marriage of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth was disintegrating. The film was as much an effort by Welles to rekindle the old flames as it was to make a classic noir. Not received well at the time, The Lady from Shanghai has gotten more and more critical acclaim as years pass. Gotten better with age so to speak.<br /><br />Welles is Irish seaman Michael O'Hara who on a fateful night rescues the beautiful Rita Hayworth from three muggers in Central Park. Sparks do fly, but then comes the rub, turns out the lady is married to crippled, but brilliant criminal attorney Everett Sloane. Nevertheless Sloane takes an apparent liking to Welles and hires him to skipper his yacht.<br /><br />So far this film is starting to sound a lot like Gilda. If Orson had seen Gilda and was not at this point thinking with his male member, he would have skedaddled back to the seaman's hiring hall in Lower Manhattan. Instead he gets himself involved in a lovely web or intrigue and finds himself pegged for two murders and Sloane as his eminent counsel.<br /><br />Welles for whatever reason decided that his wife would be a blond in this film. Supposedly Harry Cohn hit the roof as Rita was internationally known for her coppery red hair. This may have soured him on the picture as he joined the legion of studio bosses who saw Welles's vision of independent film making a threat to their power.<br /><br />Stage actor Glenn Anders plays Sloane's partner Grisby who is one slimy dude, he winds up a corpse. The other corpse to be here is Ted DeCorsia, a bottom feeding private detective who tries to go in business for himself.<br /><br />It's a good noir thriller, showing Rita at her glamorous best even if she was a blond here. The final shoot out in the hall of mirrors is beautifully staged, but I wouldn't recommend seeing it if one is on any controlled substance.
| 1ambivalent
|
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
| 2negative
|
Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.
| 2negative
|
The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called "Taboo", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Taboo Jogando Com o Assassino" ("Taboo Playing With the Killer")
| 2negative
|
Well...i was going to wait till this came out on video to see it, and i wish i had, I actually caught scary movie 2 on cable the other day, and it made me yearn for more of the same, what i got was AIRPLANE on CRACK... i mean if you like Airplane or any other Leslie nielsen vehicles, then you'll probably be in heaven, but if your used to the usually WAYANS COMEDY, then you will be dissapointed, there was alot more Eye candy in this one which will keep young hormone raged teenage boys happy, which is probably why it was a box office hit the first week it came out. I enjoyed scary movie 2 ten times more then this fodder, and part one 5 times as much. Odd that the better of the 3 is part 2, but then again i always liked Halloween 2 better then the original as well..maybe its just me. The funniest part of the movie has to be the way the Aliens Say Goodbye. But that wasnt worth the 11 dollars i spent to catch a matinee of this with my fiance. Save yourself cash and catch part 2 again on cable till this is released on Video tape, and then Rent it, dont buy it.
| 2negative
|
Surely one the French films of the decade so far, a taut, atmospheric thriller making full use of the lead characters hearing impediment to use sound in a way rarely explored in cinema. Emannuelle Devos gives a truly stunning , multi-faceted performance, at times devious and manipulative, at other times open and vulnerable. Another reason why those who appreciate quality cinema should keep their eyes open for offerings from France.
| 0positive
|
Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.<br /><br />The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.<br /><br />Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.<br /><br />And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.<br /><br />Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times! <br /><br />Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."
| 2negative
|
A very promising directorial debut for Bill Paxton. A very dark thriller/who-really-done-it recommended by Stephen King. This is a strong, well-conceived horror tale about a devout, but demented man in Thurman, Texas that goes on a murdering spree after getting orders from God to eliminate demons trying to control mankind. A couple of plot twists and an eerie finale makes for your moneys worth. Most of the violence you don't really see, but still enough to double up your stomach.<br /><br />Director Paxton plays the twisted man to be known as the Hand of God Killer. Matthew McConaughey is equally impressive as the demented man's eldest son that ends up telling this story to a Dallas FBI Agent(Powers Boothe). Boothe, as always, is solid and flawless. Suspenseful white knuckler! Highly recommended.
| 0positive
|
This is a warm, funny film, in much the same vein as the works of Almodovar. Sure it has a 10 year old boy sucking milk from breasts, but the style is so playful that I can't understand at all those readers who found it sick or perverted (but would I be willing to let my 10-year old son play the part? Not so sure!). <br /><br />Spanish cinema is often quite sexual, but in a very open and healthy way that leaves the viewer without any sense of voyeurism or kink. I think that we if we northern European types had the same attitude, we'd be much better off as a result.<br /><br />This liberal attitude is also seen in the hilarious 'Fartman Maurice' character. As his lover says to him: 'Most people are embarrassed about farting. You turn it into an art form.'
| 0positive
|
Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.<br /><br />The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).<br /><br />What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) ! <br /><br />I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.<br /><br />The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).<br /><br />The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).<br /><br />It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't.
| 2negative
|
So terrific, so good. I have never seen a man be more funny than Eddie Murphy. In this stand-up-comedy you will see a lot of imitations more done by anyone!<br /><br />If you have seen Raw (1987) you will have to see Delirious. It's so funny! It's so professional!
| 0positive
|
In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.<br /><br />This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.<br /><br />The ending is wonderful.
| 0positive
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 8