review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
If you like Gary Cooper, this is one of his best roles. His gentle intensity to right a wrong is what made his career. "Blayde Hollister" comes to Dallas to take revenge against Will and Brian Malowe, who burned his Georgia farm and killed his family. Inept Marshall gets in Hollister's way, attempting to arrest him when interrupted by a street shootout between Hollister and Wild Bill Hickock. The shootout is staged to get the law off Hollister, & he takes the "back East" Marshall under his wing to keep him alive in Texas, as they switch identity. <br /><br />That was a great beginning, and the picture holds up all the way through. Action may be a little "slow" by today's standards, but it is one of my top 10 favorite movies.
|
positive
|
Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:<br /><br />1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.<br /><br />(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. "I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, "Rachael Ray Saved my Life," "Rachael's Fashion Tips.") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*<br /><br />Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show. <br /><br />2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed "Spanish" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.<br /><br />3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.<br /><br />In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.
|
negative
|
This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.
|
negative
|
The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.<br /><br />For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.<br /><br />Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.<br /><br />In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason.
|
negative
|
Hello there,<br /><br />This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.<br /><br />I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).<br /><br />Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work. <br /><br />Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'<br /><br />Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work. <br /><br />I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.<br /><br />Cheers <br /><br />Alex
|
negative
|
Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie.
|
negative
|
Anyone who has said that it's better than Hostel is talking complete crap, believe me I'm not a fan of Hostel but this is just ridiculous. This is just another shot on camcorder, straight to DVD, low on ideas waste of your time, I can't believe how many of these films there are and I'm yet to see a decent one. In the 80's video nasties, gore and horror movies were made with no budget but a great story and a load of new ideas and most importantly the heart and soul of the director who had something to say. Now they just seem to be pumped out in an attempt to trick people browsing in Blockbuster to rent a copy, until people stop doing this then I guess these films will keep appearing. This film is so low on ideas it's just amazing how it ever got made, the acting is also terrible, the location completely unconvincing and the soundtrack is so annoying it beggars belief. This waste of time has absolutely nothing going for it, unless you're on a quest to compile a list of the worst movies of all time. My best/worst part of the film is when a female character is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them if they don't back off, you can see that she isn't even covering the trigger with her finger just holding the grip. An absolute joke.
|
negative
|
This film is on my top 20 comedies list. This is a truly unique film. To the reviewer who said "I must be really missing something."--you are correct. You are missing something. If you don't have the kind of sense of humor this film requires, that's one thing. But don't give it a bad review because you think it's "looney" but isn't intended to be. Loony is an apt description of both what it intends to be and what it succeeds in being. I laughed much more often and much more intensely at this film than I do at most other funny films.<br /><br />Michael Almereyda brought out the best in his cast in this, his first big film, for which he was nominated for an Independent Spirit award for Best First Feature. Crispin Glover, as usual, is absolutely brilliant in some perfectly inexplicable way, and some of his very funniest lines ever were said in this film. Glover is clearly the best comic actor working right now. Harry Dean Stanton puts in an excellent comic performance. William Burroughs is incredible in a small role. Dylan McDermott was ideally cast, and Lois Chiles is completely excellent.<br /><br />All of the above are perfectly funny in their own perfect way, but this is one of Crispin's finest performances--up there with his performances in River's Edge and Willard. If you are a Crispin Glover fan, but have somehow overlooked this film, you need to stop whatever it is you're doing and see this immediately.<br /><br />But just remember to relax first, and maybe have a beer or something. This is a great film, but it is very unusual, and I recommend being in or inducing an appropriately silly state of mind before viewing.
|
positive
|
I will not even make any more comments about this movie. Instead I will make a recommendation for all you Euro-horror fans: If you want to see an enjoyable low-budget Vampire flick, check out Nattens engel (1998). It has everything Razor Blade Smile lacks: acting, nice locations, terrific score, and less hissing vampires...
|
negative
|
This early Warner Brothers talkie "Son of the Gods" (1930) deals with the racial intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but contempt.<br /><br />Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess of "Only Angels Have Wings"), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E. Alyn Warren of "Gone With The Wind"), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London, England, peeling potatoes while he is on board.<br /><br />During the trip, he encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of "Arrowsmith"), who needs some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of "Two-Faced Woman"), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop in front of a room filled with on-lookers.<br /><br />Of course, Sam is terribly devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of "Iron Man") sends Sam a telegram about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana, Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and they marry and live happily ever after.<br /><br />This socially conscientious Warner Brothers/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it, they wind up in each other's arms.<br /><br />The capitulation on the race issue with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power. Incredibly, "Son of the Gods" is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced performance. Despite its age, "Son of the Gods" is a son of a good movie!
|
positive
|
In 1982, two films were released within weeks of each other that were both about aliens. Steven Spielberg's ET, and John Carpenter's The Thing. Of the two of them, ET was the one that won the hearts of people the world over, even though The Thing debuted first. Because people were so entranced with Spielberg's warm, fuzzy feelgood alien fable, they stayed away from The Thing in droves.<br /><br />Its not hard to see why. The two are diametrically opposed. One is an optimistic tale designed to warm the cockles of the still-beating heart. The other is a harsh, uncompromising film that paints alien life as something purely determined to destroy us. I guess audiences felt ET was a much cuter prospect than The Thing's tentacles and slime coated saliva!<br /><br />It's taken some time, but The Thing has gone on to win over a substantial cult audience. As it should. Because The Thing is that rare example of a superior remake. It takes all the best qualities of the 1951 classic, and reinvents them in startling and imaginative ways. Indeed Carpenter does his job so well he actually succeeds in making a film that is in every inch the equal of the genre's showrunner, Alien. And that's even rarer!<br /><br />Carpenter's film follows its source material more faithfully than The Thing From Another World did. It keeps the frigid wastes of Antarctica as a setting, because its the perfect backdrop when you're trying to establish a heightened sense of isolation. But although a bit thin on characterisation, the remake gets right inside the mindset of the actors, and amplifies the uncertainty and fear that slowly surrounds them.<br /><br />Frequent Carpenter collaborator Kurt Russell returns, hot off the success of Escape From New York, cast once again as one of Carpenter's perpetual anti-heroes. He plays MacReady, the helicopter pilot at an Antarctic research station (what they're researching is anyone's guess). The trouble begins when a Norwegian chopper from a nearby station flies over MacReady's, trying to gun down a Siberian Husky from the air.<br /><br />They end up dying for their troubles, and while the camp tries to solve the mystery of what happened, they take in the Husky and add it to their own. Except that this Husky, is not a Husky at all. But a shape-changing alien. The Norwegians discovered it frozen in the ice, and when they thawed it out, it massacred their crew. Capable of absorbing its victims at will, it can duplicate a living being right down to the smallest detail. Soon paranoia and suspicion works its way through the 12-man crew, until no-one is certain who is human and who is not.<br /><br />The Thing is one of John Carpenter's finest films. In fact I'm tempted to say its the best film he's ever made. Even surpassing classics like Halloween and Dark Star. The reason why I place The Thing at the top of Carpenter's list is that it feels like the last film of his that could truly be called a classic. All the others thereafter have felt like Carpenter was slumming it. Films that didn't flow with the cool sophistication and ragged intensity so prevalent in his earlier works.<br /><br />But The Thing had John Carpenter at the peak of his powers. Never has he generated suspense to such an unbearable degree. Not even in the ferocious Assault on Precinct 13. From the second the alien makes its presence known, Carpenter ratchets up the tension level relentlessly. And when he delivers his punches, they come with an agonising jolt.<br /><br />The film is a blend of pure atmospherics and visceral horror. An approach that can often seem at odds with one another, but in Carpenter's hands melds together beautifully. Bringing in Rob Bottin of The Howling fame, he lays to bear some of the most astonishing transformation effects you'll ever see in a horror film. Amorphous shapes. Half-formed human features starkly contrasted with gaping jaws, spider legs and fully flexible tentacles. Indeed the film's effects are so amazing and squirm-inducing, The Thing came under fire for being too realistic!<br /><br />That type of thinking misses the point entirely. It only shortchanges the film's values. And there are many. Carpenter only stages an effects setpiece when he needs to. Its in the film's quieter moments where he seems especially attuned to the story. The Thing is an often bewildering tale of shadows, whispers and implications. Characterisation has never been one of John Carpenter's strong suits, but it works to his advantage in The Thing. Because we hardly know anything about the cast, it only makes the present situation that much more confusing. We're never certain, from one moment to the next who is who. And because of this, The Thing holds up very well and maintains its mystery on subsequent viewings.<br /><br />A special mention should go to the excellent film score from Ennio Morricone. A pulsing thud thud every two seconds. It creates an eerie, spooky feeling that is very hard to shake. The whole film is a wonderful exercise in paranoid manipulation. The scene where they blood-test each other to see who's human is wound up with such dexterity by Carpenter, you may find yourself biting your nails without even realising.<br /><br />The Thing is a pure unadulterated classic. Even the ending leaves you with the vague suspicion that not everything is resolved. An underrated film, well worth the reappraisal it received. And so much better than ET!
|
positive
|
My first Ichikawa in many years, and the first of his war films that I've seen, this was gripping and brutal from the very get-go. In the very first scene, nominal hero Tamura is told that he can't continue on with his unit, to which he has returned from the hospital. He apparently has TB but he is not sick enough for the hospital to take him given the quantity of war-wounded they have. But his old unit won't take him back either; his CO gives him a grenade, and tells him that if he feels truly hopeless to blow himself up
it's the honorable thing to do.<br /><br />The Phillipines, 1945, and the situation really does seem hopeless, for PFC Tamura and everyone else. Nobi is an odyssey through hell, or rather hells denuded forests, dead rocky plains, and the dead and dying Japanese soldiers hoping just for an end, through peace or death. Ichikawa's film is photographed in stunning B&W scope which serves to highlight both the desolation felt by Tamura and those he meets on his journey towards his doom, and to show how truly small and naked they all are amidst the immensity of the mountains and the forests
.this small affair of humans will end soon, the earth seems to be saying, but I will survive and barely notice it.<br /><br />Tamura travels back towards the hospital, but is (not surprisingly) rejected there, and spends the rest of the film trying to stay alive, stay human, and get out of danger. He doesn't manage to do very well on any account, slowly starving and eventually committing some fairly repellent acts. Eventually he hooks up with two other desperate men who have lost, or survived their units, and have resorted to cannibalism
and in his weakened state facing other armed men, finds that the only way to live is to break with everything that he believes in.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is as brutal, uncompromising and intense as any war film I've seen. There are moments of humor and tenderness, but they are fleeting and don't stick in the memory such as the scene with the man on the mountaintop who practically begs Tamura to eat his flesh
the recurring black-comic bit with Tamura exchanging his ragged shoes for the better leathers of a fallen comrade
.the degradations that humans will endure to survive
.the truth that this is any war, all wars, all mankind as long as we continue thus. A masterpiece that I probably won't watch again for a long, long time. Watched via the beautiful Criterion Collection DVD.
|
positive
|
"Welcome to Collinwood" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.<br /><br />Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.<br /><br />The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.<br /><br />I find that Steven "Traffic" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care.
|
negative
|
TIllman Jr.'s drama about the first African American Navy Master Diver (Gooding Jr.), who defies all odds and achieves his goals despite a strict embittered trainer. The screenplay is not bad, a bit extreme at times, but the direction and acting is first-rate, and this film is inspiring and achieves what its supposed to do. I liked DeNiro in the lead, although its not on par with his masterful works (taxi driver, godfather and all the others) it is as good as his other good performances such as in King of Comedy or Angel Heart. DeNiro is always convincing and believable here, very good performance, Gooding Jr. is not bad, definitely one of his better performances. --- IMDb Rating: 6.6, my rating: 9/10
|
positive
|
If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.
|
positive
|
...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release.
|
positive
|
From the opening shots of the lead actor, we are given a early view on how so many mens lives are run by the women in them, and the humour that comes thru with all that goes on in the day to day of 'normal' life.<br /><br />Eric Lartigau, the director picks up on how so many European men feel that they are in complete control of their lives, yet without the help/support of the women around them cannot seem to make things work. The use of facial image throughout the film is superb, and his clever positioning of the senior member of the family (mother) is spot on.<br /><br />While there are more than enough laughs in the movie, it still deals with single parents/adoption and the strength of family in society. Truly rewarding to watch, and again one that only the French seam capable to make.<br /><br />So far one of the best 50 or so Films I have seen this year, and well worth a five start rating. I look forward to adding this one to the DVD collection when it is released and highly recommend it to all ages.
|
positive
|
The film begins with a little girl (Rita) seeing her father killed. He apparently was a criminal who squealed on his fellow crooks. Later, and this part makes little sense, the girl has grown to adulthood and STILL her father's past haunts her! A bit later, Rita meets a good-for-nothing and dates him. During one of their dates, he's a bit intoxicated AND driving like a total fool. The cops give chase and he speeds away--killing a pedestrian in the meantime. Here comes the Really stupid part. He convinces her to confess to the crime, as he assures her his lawyers can get her off scot-free. Why, oh why, would she agree to this?! Yet she does and spends the next couple years in prison!! And, soon after her conviction, this boyfriend disappears--showing that he's a total heel. What a chump!!! Later, after her release, her friend (Jack La Rue) informs her about the truth about the boyfriend. Then, he explains, the boyfriend's family is loaded and she should shake them down for lots of cash for all the trouble he put her to by taking the rap. Frankly, this does make sense--as they certainly owe it to her--especially since they knew she'd go to prison and had every intention of using her and then casting her aside.<br /><br />Now the idea of bleeding money from the rich chumps is a good plot idea. However, there is no way this would have occurred in the first place because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to take the rap for a hit-and-run! In an interesting twist, the dumb lady decides on a life of crime--donning a wig and picking up a rich guy--taking him into the desert and robbing him at gunpoint! Wow...how she's changed! Apparently she loves the idea of stealing from "phonies"--i.e., rich hypocrites. However, and this made no sense, she soon stopped doing this and began shaking down the father of the old boyfriend--why she bothered to do some petty robberies in the meantime made little sense. And, what also was a bit hard to believe was that instead of wanting money from the old jerk, she was interested in getting him to put his influence behind a mob-controlled man for mayor. Odd...very, very odd.<br /><br />In the meantime, another plot develops involving a young Alan Ladd. He's an undercover agent who has infiltrated the mob. He was chosen because he just happens to be a dead ringer for a real crook--what a cliché! But what makes no sense is that this real crook isn't in jail and is out committing crimes while the fake one is infiltrating the mob in another town.<br /><br />Eventually, evidence that Ladd is able to uncover is enough to issue warrants to the mob kingpins--including Rita. This is a case of very bad timing, as in the interim, she's made a decision to become a decent and legitimate woman, as she's met a really nice guy who she wants to marry! Wow,...what are the odds?! Overall, this is a goofy and rather dumb movie that suffers from "kitchen sink syndrome"--in other words, there is way too many plot elements and weird twists to make the movie the least bit believable. Plus, since the movie is only a little over an hour long, it all seems very forced and contrived. It's a relatively bad B-movie from crap-studio PRC of note only for the performance of Alan Ladd just before he gained great fame the following year at Paramount.<br /><br />By the way, this DVD was released by Alpha Video---a company which sometimes releases some wonderfully obscure titles (mostly public domain) but which NEVER cleans up the prints or adds closed captions. In other words, the DVD production values are strictly 3rd-rate...at best.
|
negative
|
Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, "Melinda and Melinda" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.<br /><br />My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.
|
negative
|
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.<br /><br />.
|
negative
|
The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical "white-trash", the movie's "plot" was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to "entertain" people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker.
|
negative
|
For the first time in reviewing films, I found myself immediately uninterested in this story. I don't know if it was the way that it was filmed or the story behind the characters, but it felt bland, overused, and completely unoriginal. Within the first thirty minutes, I found myself rather apathetic with all the characters and the story. I felt as if I had seen this structure before, and Tart was providing nothing new to surprise me. After thinking that it may just be my mood, I stopped the film and chose to start it fresh in the morning, but the same feeling persisted. I just didn't care. That is not a good sign. The characters were bland. When I say bland, I literally mean that by watching them develop, you will never have any flavor hit your palate. The story seemed recycled, nearly to the point of plagiarism. Now, I am not saying that Christina Wayne stole this story, but she added nothing fresh to the perspective. The casting was horrid, the underlying symbolism and themes were so far lost that no critic could find them (nor the characters), and the stories were vague and sloppy. You knew nothing about anyone or anything, and instead of pushing more emphasis on the characters, we instead found ourselves with drugs, minor sex, and money pushed into our faces. These are themes we have seen in every film since the dawn of film time, yet somehow could not be creatively captured by Wayne.<br /><br />What immediately pulled me away from this story? It was mainly the characters. I have seen most of Brad Renfro's work, and honestly he needs to redefine himself. Director Larry Clark has defined him, and oddly he cannot get out of that stereotypical character. Within the first twenty minutes of Renfro's screen time I was bored. I knew exactly what he was trying to portray and why. It was spectacular nor impressive, just repetitive. He needed to bring some excitement or suspense to his role, instead of just blandly playing this random socialite. Without a strong character, the final climax of this film comes instead as a letdown. Renfro did not showcase the best of his abilities in this film. While I am on the subject
nobody showcased the best of their abilities. What is going on with Dominique Swain, outside of Lolita, I don't believe she has really emerged as an actress, and following-up with roles such as Cat Storm doesn't help. Bijou Phillips was the only actress that I witnessed actually try to bring something remarkable to the screen, sadly due to everyone else's horrid acting, she was lost. Rambling here and there, and honestly nearly forgotten about during the second act. Melanie Griffith was a pointless cast and most of this film's budget probably went to her TWO scenes that she was in. Maybe the rest of it went to the random guy from The Kids in the Hall, who desperately needs to place himself far away from this project.<br /><br />My biggest problem, outside of the acting, was the pacing of this film. Nothing, and this is hard for me to say, but nothing gelled together. There were so many sub-stories happening throughout the course of the film that no actual substance was formed. The robberies, the teenage "angst and woe", the wealthy socialites learning how horrible real life is, the random Kids in the Hall guy, and even the ending just felt rushed and horribly edited together. With this shoddy craftsmanship the whole story never really formed any true shape. Family structures were never defined, characters were never given any emotion, and all we are left with are bits and pieces of honest leftovers. Wayne did not complete the task at hand.<br /><br />While I hate to put the entire burden on the director, with this film I am left with little choice. With a horrid title that just screamed the complete opposite of what this film was about, with amateurish directional ability the cast pretty much was able to give every emotion in every scenes, leaving us with disgusting acting and poor developments, and with vague storytelling it is hard to place any "good" behind Tart. This was a film I had heard nothing about, and after viewing it I can see why. All Wayne has done with this film is random take excerpts from other films that have done a better job of defining all the elements above and cut all together to make the film Tart. It is hard for me to say this, but Wayne ruined this film. While I don't believe there was much to fully take from the story, any remaining elements of excitement were drained as Wayne took the helm. While most of the time you can credit some of the story, perhaps strong acting, or even the music, in Tart you can credit nothing. From the opening sequence until the end, I felt like I was swimming through very lumpy oatmeal. No consistency, no strength.<br /><br />Overall, this film is a waste of your time. If you are searching for some deep symbolic elements or possibly some banter on our society, you will not find it in this film. While I know that was what Wayne was attempting to show, the final product seems like it was edited on an Etch-a-Sketch. It was an embarrassing film to sit through, and encourage nobody to pick it up. Wayne threw to the wind all the teachings of her Columbia University education and destroyed two hours of my life. Avoid at all costs! <br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
|
negative
|
Clint Eastwood returns as Dirty Harry Calahan in the 4th movie of the Dirty Harry series. Clint is older but he's still got it, Harry was told to have a vacation after some trouble that happened because of a robbery (where the memorable "Make My Day" catchphrase comes from!) But the city he took a vacation was worse, a woman turned vigilante after a rape attack in a funfair and starts getting the punks one by one. The last movie to see Sandra Locke in a Clint Eastwood movie! An improvement after The Enforcer which was a bit more of a comedy and less serious. Clint Eastwood's sunglasses were Gargoyles which are best known for the sunglasses that are worn by Arnold Shwartzeneger in The Terminator. Worth a watch if you like Clint Eastwood, the Dirty Harry films or like action crime thrillers.
|
positive
|
Perhaps you won't care for the social commentary, or the film makers point of view (I myself am mystified at the insignificance' angle Kasdan seemed to promote when clearly, the actions taken in the movie promote CERTAIN significance. The ending confused me). However, there's absolutely no denying the manner in which the story is presented; the magnificent symbolism throughout; the threaded character arcs; visuals; dialogue is absolute masterwork. I've watched the movie dozens of times, and I still marvel at its perfection. There's not a moment, action, cut, or line that doesn't have everything to do with the theme. Realistic human performances from all the actors. Scene to scene it's woven fantastically.<br /><br />I have a pretty level sap-meter. The buzzer never went off during this film. If you're a thinker (rather than a casual viewer) this movie delivers. Exponentially. Absolutely mesmerizing. (Do you have to agree with the message to appreciate the display? Who cares if it made you warm and fuzzy or not, was it interesting?)<br /><br />Personally, the movie affected me significantly. In my top 5.<br /><br />Note: The front-page reviewer clearly speaks from a flawed African American perception. What he may have failed to recognize, is, there was a hand shake. Not a hand - out. The spiritually dead white man', simply saw a man to respect, and admire. And he did something about it. The fact he was black had little, if anything, to do with it (color is simply used to draw the parallel. And the chasm. It's no accident the opening sequence shifts from black and white to color either). If you view the blacks in this movie as token' you may want to reassess YOUR angst. You may be seeing only black and white yourself, eh. Just a thought.
|
positive
|
There is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel most attempts have failed. So does "Surface" succeed? Not completely, but more so than most.<br /><br />The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying "Aha!" is what makes or breaks a show like this one.<br /><br />"Surface" had a couple of flaws. First of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided).<br /><br />HBO is to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a doubt.
|
positive
|
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-)
|
negative
|
The premise of this movie has been tickling my imagination for quite some time now. We've all heard or read about it in some kind of con-text. What would you do if you were all alone in the world? What would you do if the entire world suddenly disappeared in front of your eyes? In fact, the last part is actually what happens to Dave and Andrew, two room-mates living in a run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. Andrew is a nervous wreck to say the least and Dave is considered being one of the biggest losers of society. That alone is the main reason to why these two guys get so well along, because they simply only have each other to turn to when comforting is needed. Just until...<br /><br />Straight from the beginning of the film lots and lots of problems happen to them. Both of them get involved with crime, Andrew suffers from paranoia and simply doesn't dare going out of the house. Dave is unsuccessful at his job and his colleagues don't treat him very well and with the respect he deserves. The amount of problems they face keeps increasing until that one day where they may have to face the inevitable and deal with it. This is just too much for them and they wish that everything would just go away... And of course that is exactly what happens.<br /><br />The rest of the story places Dave and Andrew in this world of nothingness. At first they are surprised and have problems understanding and dealing with the features of this crazy environment, but later on they find out that they can do just about everything they want because it seems as if they are the only ones still left.<br /><br />Nothing features an incredibly small cast - in fact, besides the first couple of shots from the film, we only see Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) in the entire film. It is clear that in order to pull this off, the cast has to be more than up for the task, because in a world where nothing exists there is nothing that can distract the viewer in any way. Vincenzo has decided to use a reasonable amount of close-up head shots to make it more interesting and it actually works quite well. Director of Photography, Derek Rogers, also has a nice way of teasing the audience by withholding visual information, especially at times where a character sees something and reacts to it, but we don't see it right away.<br /><br />Obviously, this can't be an event driven film and it's not. Much of the action happens outside their house when they move around in the void. And that's where some of the most hilarious scenes take place, especially in the case of when Andrew discovers a candy bar.<br /><br />Now, one could be thinking: "How does nothing look like?" Well, it looks like nothing indeed. The entire world of nothing is white... white no matter in what direction you look. This is the weakness of this film... After an hour or less it's getting extremely boring to look at and there has to be events to make sure it's more interesting to look at. Thank God, there are some. For example at times when the two lads, due to the properties of nothing, are able to jump really high as if nothing is made out of... tofu (as Andrew claims). It's fun to see how they are instantly able to use nothing to become gods of their own little society.<br /><br />One of the best parts of the film is the set... Production designer Jasna Stefanovic has done a beautiful job in this film, the house in which these two guys live is so unnaturally fun to look at, still it seems right for these two to be living in a place like this. All in all, the production design is with no doubt one of the most powerful aspects of this film at it really makes the film worth watching...<br /><br />However, the very best part of the film is the acting. Both David Hewlett and Andrew Miller really look like the professional actors they both are. The camera is on them for every second of the film and as previously said, there are just about no props in the film, they are really on a bare stage. With plenty of character development and some decent one-liners, clever dialogue (at times hilariously stupid), it all works to that end - and this really moves the movie away from the low-budget area to well-crafted handwork.<br /><br />Let's talk a little about the visual effects, because they are definitely worth mentioning. Nothing features digital visual effects and prosthetics that equals any modern horror film. There's a rather horrifying dream sequence in the film, and although The Drews have milked that scene completely it's still fun to watch. One of the best visual effects in the film is at the end where Andrew and Dave suddenly discover their powers in this environment - they have the abilities to wish everything away, so what if they can do it the other way around and make things appear?<br /><br />"Nothing" is a bright and well-lit movie, it really helps promoting the idea of them probably being dead (this is in fact one of their theories), but "Nothing" is a comedy and it slowly destroys its own theory. We don't know where they are or what has happened to them. We don't know if they will ever get out, because the movie ends before we see anything like that. The ending, by the way, is not as good as it could've been. It's rather easy to predict what is going to happen, still the writers have thought up a few incidents that help make it a little more interesting and in the end, it's a reasonably satisfactory one.<br /><br />Take "Hollow Man", "Kill Bill", "Cube", "Epoch" and lots of other films and you have "Nothing". It really is an amalgam of different styles, still there is no other film (at least that I know of) Nothing is really like. For the people remembering the original Cube Production Commentary on its DVD may remember that Vincenzo Natali talked about how he came up with the story of Cube. He talks about him and André Bijelic having been room-mates at a time and they both were in this extremely dull room with no hope of getting out, "Nothing" could very well be the screened version of the origin of the Cube story, and to that end, it's almost like one of the Cube prequels.<br /><br />What can I say? I enjoyed "Nothing", it is a great movie and the different parts of the movie are extremely well-made with tons of intelligent ideas, still I feel the movie is missing something and I have problems finding out precisely what it is... Maybe if we have a "Nothing 2" I can answer that question. "Nothing" is a great film, but not as good as I expected it to be.<br /><br />Final rating: 7.5 / 10
|
positive
|
I unwittingly walked into this "trap" of a movie.<br /><br />If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.<br /><br />It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.<br /><br />It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.<br /><br />Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.<br /><br />This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the "Gayness" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.<br /><br />I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as "loud" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.
|
negative
|
it's unfortunate that many of the other detractors of this film seem influenced by prior biases. (i.e. anger at the gay characters, thinking french thrillers are bad, etc.) i will admit that i'm unfamiliar with the novel, but as a film, after about 45 minutes, i was rolling my eyes. hopefully i can explain in writing my complaints eloquently enough before i get sick of spending anymore time on this film over the 2 hours of its running length.(2 hours that felt like 3) don't get me wrong, i can sit through hour and a half silent films, 3 hour epics, i don't have a short attention span, nor am i so jaded by the mtv generation that i cant appreciate a subtle and slowly building film. here goes, my grocery list of complaints. first off, the ending. yes, it had a scooby-doo-esquire, character explains everything at the end. now i actually think for this movie, this was necessary.. the film had so many plot-twists, emotional revelations, new facts surfacing and being discovered.. one reviewer said it well: "..yes, it is a very logical story, but without the very essential back story (their childhood stories, the relationship amongst the 3 parents, the relationship amongst the two lovebirds and the son of the Big Man), it just doesn't feel right. I felt cheated " i won't throw in too many spoilers here, i could name specific revelations that i thought were unnecessary, but according to the reviews on here, there's a lot of people who seem to really love this, so i don't want to give anything away. i personally, can't stand soap operas. the complexity, and twists and turns, for me, snuffed out ANY impact the final revelations could possibly deliver. By the end, i seriously didn't care! there weren't any gaping plot holes necessarily; this seems like it could make a great book, in WRITING it is perfectly logical, but if i'm supposed to believe this is REALITY, something doesn't sit right with the pieces that have been haphazardly inserted. too often i felt crucial characters we were never able to get to know were thrown in to further complicate the plot, increase the emotion, and develop the mystery. the acting i had no complaints about, the directing, eh, not bad, but the plot, and especially its development, SEVERELY lacking. sorry to those that felt this was a perfect thriller, but i couldn't get into it. i gave this a 3 simply because i don't want to seem completely unfair, and it did have moments of slight intrigue and excitement. <br /><br />*MAJOR SPOILER* and i have to mention it.. but when the father is making his revelation to alexandre and JUST when you think the plot couldn't fit in another twist.. "your father didn't die in a hunting accident".. I ALMOST DIED.. when was the father at all developed or even really mentioned much in the back story?!! are you serious!! like the already complex plot involving characters from all the families and their relationship to one another wasn't enough!!? does the protagonist NEED another emotional whallop more than he has already been fed?! sorry i had to throw in such a spoiler, but that just bothered me as much as i've ever been bothered in ANY film.
|
negative
|
The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.<br /><br />Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]<br /><br />Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.<br /><br />I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.<br /><br />Avoid<br /><br />* / **** (one star out of four)<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.
|
positive
|
I know curiosity killed the cat, but I simply had to see the remake of Psycho, especially after being on such a Hitchcok journey recently and knowing his work. I've watched the original Psycho though since I was a kid, I knew how to respect it and not only that, it was an excellent movie! One of the best, in fact! The first thing I said when I heard about the remake was "How do you remake perfection?". I stuck to that as well, but I think I have a more open mind now and figured maybe it was a way of introducing Psycho to a new generation.<br /><br />But this turned into a total insult and slap to the face of the original Psycho. I know this has been said, but I watched the making of this film, and the director was like "Oh, I just want to update it and shoot each scene shot by shot like the original"... what's the friggin' point?! OK, but I want to judge this movie on it's own, despite it's insulting blows the original. I mean, the acting wasn't up to par, but honestly, it looked like the actors just watched the original and just memorized the lines from there and made it their crappy own.<br /><br />Watching the making of this film, I wanted to slap Anne Hasche, she said "I've never seen the original, I just wanted to work with Gus." Ooh, that made me angry, because frankly, it's not just that, she really sucked in this role as Marian, she wasn't convincing, not to mention her shower scene really was horrible. Vince Vaughn didn't make... let's just put it this way, the film was horribly miscasted. This was a sin against film and on it's own, this was actually a bad movie. It was too much and destroyed what could've been a new introduction for a new generation. But to Gus, leave the film making the one's who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!<br /><br />1/10
|
negative
|
Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico "Border Cop". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.<br /><br />If you find the possibility of hearing "Kojak" and "Oliver Douglas" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of "The Border". If not, you may not have the stomach for the "realistic" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show. <br /><br />** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert
|
negative
|
Tarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to "Tarzan - Jane" speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.<br /><br />No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.<br /><br />The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.<br /><br />Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display.
|
negative
|
Chances Are uses that marvelous song by the same name throughout the film. Robert Downey, Jr. is excellent in this movie. His extra large eyes and wonderfully variable facial expressions are part of expertise in acting as different people in diverse films. Compare Robert Downey, Jr. in Chaplin. You will enjoy Chances Are. I did.
|
positive
|
This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.<br /><br />Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.<br /><br />THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel "Gun Down", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.<br /><br />Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less.
|
positive
|
This is one of my favourite books and I remember watching this series and loving it immensely. Sadly I have never seen it repeated or been able to get on DVD, but it made such an impact I have never forgotten it.<br /><br />The lead characters were perfect for the roles, especially the lovely Bryan Brown and although the scenes in Australia were not entirely in keeping with the book at least they were there, unlike the film version with Virginia McKenna which missed that part out altogether.<br /><br />I agree that Gordon Jackson's character of Strachan is entirely different from the book but he is still excellent. For your information "MOLEY75" "Strawn" is the gaelic pronunciation of "Strachan".
|
positive
|
Alfred Hitchcock's "Saboteur" (1942) (not to be confused with another Hitchcock film, "Sabotage" made in 1936 which has a completely different plot) is not the Master of Suspense greatest film. It dose not have the depth of "Vertigo" (1958) nor the brooding atmosphere of "Rebbeca" (1940) and it certainly dose not have the emotional impact and acting talent that can be found in "Notorious" (1946), but what it dose have is thrills, adventure and a nail biting climax. The two leads, admittedly, are quite weak. It is easy to understand why Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper for the Robert Cummings role and Barbara Stanwyck for the role that was taken by Priscilla Lane. Also, the patriotic speeches that Cuumming says (that were written by Dorothy Parker) have dated badly, and the encounter with circus troupe is poorly done (the beard on the bearded lady is clearly false). However, the last half hour is edge-of-your-seat viewing, the climax atop the Stature of Liberty is very well done, and the film is a clear predecessor of "North By Northwest" (1959). The two villains, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd are very good and the beginning fire at the Aircraft Factory is a superb sequence. This not the best film Hitch made, but it is surly one of his most entertaining.
|
positive
|
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?
|
negative
|
Okay, so maybe the acting wasn't bad, but I am typing this review as a public service to prevent anyone else who happens upon the intriguing beginning of this telefilm from throwing away two hours of their life waiting for some plot development that will never come. The chief investigator has a gut feeling who did away with the missing marine officer (Guy), and few people other than uninvolved bystanders and the accusee seem to dispute her. So what is the point of staying with this drama? Beats the heck out of me. I kept thinking (or hoping) there would be some sort of plot twist or new revelation, but none was forthcoming. In summary, I cannot think of a single reason to sit and watch this pointless TV movie, based on a true story or not.
|
negative
|
If you want to see a mystery, don't watch this. Though there are elements straight out of Elmore Leonard territory, this comes closer to an episode of "Dynasty", since the filmmaker focuses on "character development" - i.e. long, boring talks between stupid, un-involving characters. Some people can make fascinating movies without real action (see "Exotica"), but not this one. Avoid it, especially if you like the actors involved in this one.
|
negative
|
Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.<br /><br />Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacksBrennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.<br /><br />As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.<br /><br />To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).<br /><br />If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.
|
negative
|
Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.<br /><br />It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.<br /><br />Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.
|
negative
|
I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch.
|
positive
|
This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.<br /><br />This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience.
|
positive
|
This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.<br /><br />Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.<br /><br />It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm
|
negative
|
This cartoon is short on plot, but is a visually stunning piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers: <br /><br />This short has a "story" that's incredibly slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. The visuals are exceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty and there's some incredibly inspired work here.<br /><br />My favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track makes it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.<br /><br />The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly well executed. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but they probably also helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably went over budget and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more conscious of cost than Harman and Ising were.<br /><br />This is truly a beautiful cartoon and is well worth seeing. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. Recommended, particularly if you like good animation.
|
positive
|
wonderful movie with good story great humour (some great one-liners) and a soundtrack to die for.<br /><br />i've seen it 3 times so far.<br /><br />the american audiences are going to love it.
|
positive
|
Scary, but mostly in the sense that will it be over before I turn 70. I saw this as a late night re-run in about 1976 and thought it would never end. Like crackers, it's better than nothing (but just).<br /><br />Ray Milland is a little scary because he looks as if he's been stuffed by a taxidermist. Yvette Mimeux looks as if she's smoked up all the Beautiful Downtown Burbank Brown. <br /><br />It's a sort of Roy Rogers version of Rosemary's Baby. This is one turkey that should never have been made. If you have insomnia and it's 1:30 on Saturday morning and there's nothing on but replays of the 1972 Roller Derby Chamionship, then I guess it beats that. But God help you if this is your only choice for entertainment.
|
negative
|
I think this is one of Burts top five movies, along with Deliverance, Smokey and the Bandit, Boogie Nights and City Heat. He also directed this one so he had a talent for that too like his buddy Clint Eastwood. I wish he made more films like this or even a sequel to Sharkys Machine than the likes of Stroker Ace or Cannonball Run II. This is a tough, gritty cop thriller with Reynolds at the top of his game. Having the beautiful Rachel Ward in it of Thorn Birds fame helped too. Henry Silva is the bad guy and he always does a good job at that. The film also a great soundtrack too. I highly recommend this, wish it was on DVD in the UK, an audio commentary from Reynolds would be great as well. ***7/10***
|
positive
|
This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.<br /><br />What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!<br /><br />Can raise your BP level by 10%<br /><br />All actors played their role very well.<br /><br />Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.<br /><br />This movie is quite adult in nature.<br /><br />Not a movie that can be seen with family.<br /><br />Casting is great!!!
|
positive
|
This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.
|
negative
|
This film is a delightful, light hearted look at both sides of where the "club kid" rave scene blends with the New York art, music and performance art worlds (with a cameo by the omnipresent Miss Bunny). This is "Torch Song Trilogy" for the perky-post-teen girls. "That Girl" for our disaffected, affected millennium times.<br /><br />The dialogue is fast and funny, and Parker Posey's costumer deserves - if not an academy award, at least - a stadium "wave" of kudos.<br /><br />Of course, this film rests on the very stylish platform heels of Miss Posey, and she is perfectly cast. Like a lot of her acting work, it may not be very deep, it is often self-referential and, well, posey... but it all WORKS. She is a talented comedienne, an incredible entertainer, and this film entertains, she carries it on her shoulders like a faux leopard wrap, and never lets it drop to the floor.<br /><br />Mary is a superficial party fashionista who isn't above stealing designer clothing from a friend's closet or making out with someone else's boyfriend. On a deeper level, this is a story of a girl and her friends who are care-less in every sense of the word, including about other people; and the process of learning that caring is necessary to life. <br /><br />The script is beautifully crafted, witty, and the only performance that disappoints is the Aunt, in a role that was much too one-dimensional and heavy handed; a more nuanced performance from her, would have deepened the relationship between the two... but... hey... this is comedy. A surprisingly deep role, that gives this film some substance and world vision, is the fallafel selling boyfriend. We should all be so lucky... is he the one for Mary? or the one that gets away? <br /><br />I rate this as a 8 because it isn't a great moment of film history, it is not a classic, and it is not great art (all of which get deeper and richer on re-viewing). Like "Desperately Seeking Susan" it represents something very true about it's time period, but may become irrelevant with time. Still, it has everything an entertaining film needs, and is worth viewing several times for the clothes alone!
|
positive
|
This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a "deep" "meaningful" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties "method " -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his "Uncle "character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.<br /><br />Word to the wise:Take Foley's "at close range" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout.
|
negative
|
Charlie Wilson's war is an excellent example of how films should be made. This movie is of the highest quality and is cast perfectly. Tom Hanks play the lead and delivers an exceptional performance. Furthermore, Tom Hanks is complimented by the unparalleled acting ability of the incredible Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have never seen him in a role that suits him so perfectly.<br /><br />The film is witty, intelligent and well written. Julia Roberts also stars in this film but is easily over-shadowed by the other two leads.<br /><br />I rated this film 10/10 and am pleased to recommend this film to anyone that is interested in quality cinema.
|
positive
|
Oh dear we don't like it when our super-hero love interest develops a brain do we?<br /><br />Something has happened to people, they have lost the ability to enjoy, a simple feel-good, love story/comedy? Kirsten Dunst is a revelation - funny, sexy and real. I laughed out loud ooh at least five times and I'm not ashamed to say had a tear in my eye a couple of times too. The cast, acting and script is great, I watch a lot of films right across the board and I haven't seen one in this genre that has been as successful. Those who disagree please tell me where I can find some! I'm sure the book is good too but I think you have to judge it on its own merits.
|
positive
|
If you have read the book - do not set your hopes high, if you have not - go read it, and never watch the film. It is strange to learn that Toby Young was actually involved a lot in the writing of the script (as he claims himself in the post script of the book). Because the film is very different from the book.<br /><br />What the film seems to be aiming at - taking a rather thought provoking and entertaining piece that combines philosophical ideas with plain funny sarcasm and simplifying it so that everyone would understand it - it achieves with perfection. The film is full of bad and cheap jokes suitable for a sitcoms, and has lost any meaningful message that it could have had.<br /><br />You are better off not seeing it.
|
negative
|
Unforgiven is Clint Eastwoods last tribute to the once great west. But whilst i thought this was going to be good and raise the bar for future westerns to come i was sadly mistaken. Unforgiven, though simple in plot it falls flat on characters and emotions and i would certainly say that Unforgiven is Eastwoods worst film to date. Eastwoods himself seems too old to play the part of acting and directing which also adds a downfall to the overall look of the film.<br /><br />All the characters seem rushed and ragged around the edges especially Eastwoods character. The acting doesn't seem to flow and contribute to what the characters are feeling. The direction is poorly misled by quirky shots. So overall Unforgiven is not Eastwoods best and by far one of the worst westerns around.
|
negative
|
It took me a few years to hunt down this title, a major staple of my childhood. Almost every trip to the video shop I'd pick out Space Raiders and watch it three times every time my mother rented it for me. It was, I suppose, my Star Wars.<br /><br />It's a shame then that it's such a stinker. My memories were so hazy that it offered nothing in terms of nostalgia so I had to take it at face value. A crew of space pirates accidentally kidnap a pretty annoying little kid and spend the rest of the movie trying to get him home.<br /><br />Aimed squarely at the under-tens it's got unwelcome slapstick, very shoddy costumes and make-up, recycled special effects, wobbly sets and poor acting. But even with the unintentional comedy it's no fun to see it as an adult, where I can pick out not just the technical faults but wonder at how spectacularly the writer and director managed to botch an endless stream of no-brainer fun/powerful moments that have been seen in a million other sci-fi movies and in the hands of anyone remotely competent should have been successful.<br /><br />I imagine as a kid I probably found it quite empowering - there are lots of "I can't do this, I'm just a kid" "Sure you can kiddo, you just have to try!"-type exchanges; the kid drinks beer, etc., but even by low budget 1983 sci-fi standards this one's pretty awful, with a real snoozer of a "finale".
|
negative
|
I wasn't expecting much from this film, but was eager to try something which I initially thought would primarily be an early 80s teen horror. Although three teens are somewhat critical plot, it is by no means a teen horror film.<br /><br />'The Power' is about a little Aztec idol that exchanges many hands as its possessor (who must be adult and thus, 'corrupted') becomes the vessel for unleashing all of the idol's evil, and often with deadly implications for not only the victims of the possessor, but of the possessor himself. After making several exchanges in vying over control of this thing, three teenagers wind up finding it and can't figure out what it is, except that since they found it, strange and dangerous things are afoot. They offer to explain the situation to a news reporter who doesn't buy into the spiritual bologna. Although, it is her producer who wants to investigate further, especially if it means he can get control of the idol (I presume the teens are even not yet corrupted enough to feel the dangerous desires encouraged by the idol). It is a story told a thousand times, particularly in 1950s and 60s horror and science fiction fare.<br /><br />This one was at least, for me, able to sustain some interest. Though low budget, it was not done so obviously cheaply or loaded with bad acting as many of the low-budget, come-and-go horror fare of the earlier decades had (nowadays, they have the same cheesy qualities, but bigger budgets). We are spare enough of it to at least allow ourselves an opportunity to become at least a little bit absorbed with the eerie atmosphere and so forth, despite a story of clichés. And, though not terribly gory, the special effects were done nicely.<br /><br />Again, it is routine horror tale, especially with the ending (which by modern standards has become a device that is annoyingly overused), but one that is not so embarrassingly bad. It might be worth checking out, even if just for laughs.
|
negative
|
This movie has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.
|
negative
|
R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
Are we allowed to interfere with our fellowmen's everyday's life? Is it possible to intrude upon their intimacy, to penetrate the inwardness of their thoughts violating the privacy of their own home without being blamed? The director raises some doubts about these apparently solvable questions, almost sympathetic towards judge Jean Luis' destabilizing decision of coming to terms with his own inducted self-seclusion by means of fragments of lives embezzled by him.<br /><br />"Trois couleurs: Rouge" is based on the concept of "UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION CONCEIVED AS THE HUMAN DESIRE OF AN OPEN WINDOW ON THE WORLD". The phone may be considered the main character of the story: after its performance in "Dekalog 9" it gives in the beginning the encore to Kieslowski's onlookers, followed step by step in its fast run across the world. The director looks deeply into the faculty of communication of human beings, without taking up a definite position about the ethical side of individual behavior. Once again he points out to us the unpredictability of future events, venting careful descriptions about strange courses and recourses of life separated from each other by a considerable number of years. Inexplicable combinations oddly converging in a series of continuous and upsetting situations. - Some books falling to the pavement. - One of them opening casually on a fatal page, predetermining the destiny of a future profession, as in a past similar occurrence. - Glimpses of daily life meeting fleetingly, ideally joined by their fondness for the fictitious musician Van den Budermayer. - Human fortunes marked by the most ill-fated coincidence.<br /><br />In this piece of work deserving to be seen with our heart's eyes instead of our mind's ones we can witness a dialectic game between judge Jean Luis' (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Valentine Dussaut (Irene Jacob, maybe the sweetest actress of our times, together with the beautiful Winona Ryder), in a generational conflict between the experience of a world-weary old man and the self-conscious immaturity of a nice girl on the point of facing the steepest path of her ascending way. Kieslowski talks about "dialogue tests" between a disappointed human life and a youth unaware of her future, between a spiritless misanthropist and a spontaneous girl full of good sense of unselfishness.<br /><br />And the final parade when the damp odor of tragedy still lingers in the air, with all the main characters of the whole trilogy in full evidence, saved by an accidental stroke of luck thank to the providential script cleverly written, gives us the extreme greetings of this movie master fully used up by his great passion for cinema. Only a sense of bitter regret and emptiness is left to remind us the existence of a void impossible to fill. GOOD-BYE KRZYSZTOF. WE MISS YOU SO MUCH!
|
positive
|
The film 'Nightbreed' is one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Overall, I'm not a big fan of horror films, but there is something about this film that is more atmospheric and different from any other horror film I have ever seen. Many horror films i've seen i've enjoyed watching, however, as they are based on horror, I know that the stories are unreal, as they are fictional, therefore I can't take them all seriously. Nightbeed, on the other hand, is a unique horror Genre as it has a feel of realism that i've seen in very few other horror films.<br /><br />This films story on how a man gets murdered and ends up living with the undead in an underground cemetery shelter with undead monsters is the kind of story a person would get from a dreaming Nightmare as its a very unique and original storyline. Most horror films i've seen are all quite fake, but because Nightbreed was so incredibly sophisticated and geniously directed with superb acting, especially by Craig sheffer (Aaron Boone) amazing special effects, great lighting and fantastic dialogue, I found this film to have a sense of depth and maturity with no silly fake horror parody, whatsoever, that many other horror films have. Nightbreed, as well as being horror has elements of thriller, romance and action all rapped in one. If you haven't seen this film, I recommend you watch it, as I rate it a 10/10.
|
positive
|
I found the pace to be glacial and the original story blown way out of proportion to the content. My wife slept through most of it and I did not try to wake her because I felt she was not missing anything.<br /><br />When Holmes and Watson enter the house and then are potentially caught, it is unclear how they could hide all of their entry and burglary tools so quickly. It is also unclear how the door to the study is locked, preventing the servants from getting in.<br /><br />The thing that puzzled me was right at the end when there was a glint in the eye of the broken statute. I have no clue what this was supposed to represent.
|
negative
|
This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.
|
negative
|
Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing !
|
negative
|
A bloody gangster story which takes place in the years of Great Depression. It tells us about another notorious hit-man, Michael (Mike) Salliwan. Somehow, this time the story turns the other way round: Mike fights to save his life and his only remaining son, because the rest of his family was killed due to dirty game of his own boss. He succeeds in his revenge and secures honorable future to his son, but gets killed in the end. Such stories never have happy end after all.<br /><br />The role of Mike Salliwan senior was wonderfully played by Tom Hanks, and the part of Mr. Rooney (the Mafia boss) was performed by Paul Newman. The film makes a great impression, and we hear the well-known phrase "we rob banks". This film is still worth watching although you could have expected something bigger from Sam Mendes after his American Beauty.
|
positive
|
This movie is so bad it hurts. The car doing 30 mph when it's supposed to go 100... the shift lever that's stuck (in Park!), the nurse that drives for almost 2 hours with the cell phone on the shoulder...can't any of the 2 morons take this damn phone? There's nothing credible in this crap. I would be ashamed to be seen in a movie like this!
|
negative
|
Maybe I'm alone here, but this is a crap show. I'm sorry but I was lured in when I found out about Lil' Bill O'Reilly (which I had no idea came from this show until months later, and has honestly since lost its appeal) but I gave the show a fair shot. Spike tries to hard to make himself into something he's not, which is to say, he tries to be human. Fox didn't even bother to hide the strings when they took him out of the box he came in. His sketches try to hard, he himself isn't funny, and the writers are struggling to write material for a no-talent host. There is too much good TV out there to waste your time with this show, and Fox.....Fox we had some good times, but you need to get your f$%*ing act together and come up with something original instead of trying to be just another "Me-too" network.
|
negative
|
This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!
|
negative
|
Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's "Creation" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.<br /><br />I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which "Creation" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).<br /><br />All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend "Inherit the Wind". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.
|
positive
|
Just finished watching the movie and wanted to give my own opinion(and justice) to the movie.<br /><br />First of all, to get things straight, this movie is not pretending to be anything other than a solid action comedy movie. It doesn't aim to revolutionize the movie industry and garner critical acclaims nor does it want to be regarded as one. If you really want to enjoy this movie to the fullest, I suggest you discard your critical-mindedness and your longing for a good plot because you won't find any in here. With that established, let us further into the movie.<br /><br />I had low expectations for this movie simply because it didn't have a strong plot(Yes, moviegoers, I underrated this movie as well), but I never expected myself to enjoy this movie that much. I even enjoyed this more than the Stephen Chow flicks(which I find Kung Fu Hustle to be his best effort and would've rated it a 9 as well). Action is tight and epic while comedy chokes on to the right places.<br /><br />SPOILERS alert, I think The action might be unreal, but why would I want to watch a serious basketball movie anyways? There are a lot other sports movies(drama) that already did it well, why create another? SPOILERS end<br /><br />I'm not even sure why you're reading this. Go ahead and watch it. Just remember, no thinking - just watch, enjoy, smile, laugh, and <br /><br />Every once in a while they(the movie industry) creates masterpieces such as Pulp Fiction or The Godfather movies, and sometimes they create movies which are better off in the pile of dump. I'm not saying Kung Fu Dunk deserves the recognition that the previous examples have, then again, if we're talking about Stephen Chow-ish comedy, this one's a top ten.<br /><br />Highly recommended if you love: -no brainer movies with really good action -Kung Fu -Death Trance -Kung Fu and comedy -what the heck, watch this. you'll have a great time.<br /><br />9/10 for you the cast of Kung Fu Dunk. ^_^
|
positive
|
Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: STAY AWAY!
|
negative
|
Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.
|
positive
|
This is one of the few movies of this type I have reviewed, and enjoyed. While Clint Eastwood is his usual self, the overall story works well, even in the limits of Washington D.C.<br /><br />The theme: An assassin is tracking the president, and there is only one person who may save him.<br /><br />It cannot be easy to make a film which audiences enjoy these days, involving this arena. This film succeeds on several levels. Eastwood is his usual underplayed hero, wanting to save the President since the Kennedy era. He does well in this role, as does his foil, Reneee Russo ( an FBI agent) Overall well-done and suspenseful with extra stars for Malkovich. 9/10.
|
positive
|
A bad movie ABOUT a bad movie. Is that original, or what? If it is, then that's the only good thing about it. The lovely Ally Sheedy couldn't stop this bomb from destroying movie theaters and VCR's everywhere. It should also be noted, that she, and the other actors hired by Danny Aiello's character were billed as themselves, as well as the characters they played in his D-rated film. Calling it a B-rated film, is too much of a compliment, and would lead to delusions of grandeur.
|
negative
|
I cannot believe this show was okay-ed. First off J.P. Manoux does a horrible job filling in for David Spade and Pacha's voice is too deep compared to John Goodman's. The theme song is so annoying and the plots of the episodes are so stupid!!! The only good thing about this show is that Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton remain as the voices of Yzma and Kronk. This show is a waste of money and a waste of your time. Half of the episodes are copied of the movie. In my opinion The Emperor's New Groove was one of the best children's movies in years, but they complety ruined by making Kronk's New Groove and this show. You should watch such shows as Spongebob, Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Kim Possible but not this show.
|
negative
|
This is almost typical Lynch. However, What makes this film slightly unusual for Lynch is the fact that it looks very raw, almost amateurish. But i believe Lynch does this on purpose to give a greater sense of realism, which serves to increase the intensity of surreal moments.<br /><br />However, a lot of Typical Lynch motifs are present, such as: floating camera work; haunting music; long (excruciating) pauses; hanging curtains; dim lights growing darker at a slow (almost indiscernible) pace; extreme close ups; themes of women in trouble; over-bearing, incompassionate, all knowing characters facing off with characters who are distraught, temporarily oblivious, in the dark and so on...<br /><br />The performances are great and the short is thought provoking. As usual, Lynch leaves almost everything up to interpretation. Many questions are left unanswered and this ignites the imagination.<br /><br />Another brilliant effort from Lynch. I only hope he makes some shorts, more along the lines of his sony playstation 2 commercials. They were inspired.
|
positive
|
Just what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical "junior high" experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually "fall" for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really.
|
negative
|
This is an excellent movie. As a Canadian who grew up with a rural lifestyle much of it is familiar , the winter, canoeing , trapping , hunting and the like. It is easy to take the familiar for granted but after watching this film a few times it has grown on me .<br /><br />The story of Grey Owl is well known to many Canadians credit to director Attenborough and screenplay writer Nicholson for expanding the story.<br /><br />Brosnan does well portraying a complex man , a very fine performance. Annie Galipeau is lovely in her first large role. The rest of the cast is solid.
|
positive
|
I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.<br /><br />The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?<br /><br />It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.<br /><br />Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.
|
negative
|
This movie feels like a film project. As though the filmmakers picked out a cross section of society with no experience and got to work. Characters are kind of uninvolved and naive though. Despite this amateurish feel, the movie is effective. It's like a cross-section of life with neighborhood kids trying to realize or nurture their honest sexual feelings. Being raised by a grand-parent, of course from that generation there is shame associated with sexuality. This provides for some predictable but well done conflict. Probably most enjoyable was the way the main character grew a little bit in his Romantic relationship realizing a greater depth to sexual feelings. A good watch but nothing stirring....
|
positive
|
It's a shame that Deliverance is mainly known as the redneck rape movie and for Dueling Banjos. Even people that have seen the film can't get their mind off of that rape scene. It's not as bad as the rape scene in Pulp Fiction. It's certainly not as bad as any female rape scene in just about any movie. People tend to miss the power of the film that contains the infamous buggery scene.<br /><br />The acting, plot, cinematography, and soundtrack of Deliverance all lend a hand to it's brooding charisma. The backcountry it was shot in is beautiful and is quite in contrast to the dark subject matter. The actors both major and minor make you feel like you are rafting down that river right along with them. <br /><br />The thing that separates this film from others is the tangible sense of dread that it inspires. Not many films can make you feel this creeped out. Bottom Line: This movie is a classic. I can't really say much more than that.
|
positive
|
This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal "Elvira's Haunted Hills" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience!
|
positive
|
The story takes place on the streets of Sao Paoulo in Brazil where a young boy named Pixote grows up alone without his parents. Left troubled and with no direction, Pixote gets taken into a child asylum with other adolescents from the street. Behind closed doors terrible things occurs within the staff and within the child-groups. And there is one last trigger that gets the place blown up, the last incident that makes Pixote and his friends decide to break out and escape. From there on begins a journey overwhelmed with strong bonded friendships, friendships torn apart, love and hate, criminal activities and simply chilling on the beach talking about things, something someone like you and I also does sometimes.<br /><br />I think this film is perfect in so many ways because it touches you on so many levels, it did that with me anyway. The document-like style used to portray Pixote and his surroundings does it seem more realistic, and the actors, who really are street children and have lived similar lives, helps the humanity in the conditions seem more natural. It has a social comment about child abuse too, but I think what makes the film so great is that the pressure is on the story and not on the political views. The last scene, which I find the best piece from the film, strikes me as something beyond nothing I've seen before. So full of emotions and yet so unsentimental makes this film a truthful, believable, unbearable, unforgettable story-tale. A true heartbreaking masterpiece which is so underrated!<br /><br />My vote: 10/10
|
positive
|
This movie has bad writing and bad editing. It is difficult to follow what is going on because nothing any of the characters do makes much sense. Some major calamity occurs every 30 seconds. As a result, none of the "action" sequences are at all interesting. The movie is two hours worth of "throw away" scenes which are connected merely by the fact that they share common actors. This movie doesn't even have enough of a sense of humor to be a good "bad" movie.
|
negative
|
The Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.<br /><br />This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized "something" here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.<br /><br />I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.
|
negative
|
The world of the 1973 sci-fi drama SOYLENT GREEN is what we could be seeing if we aren't careful. It is a world in which New York City's population has topped the 40 million mark in the year 2022. Overpopulation, air pollution, year-long heat waves, and food shortages are the rule. The only hope comes from a food product called Soylent Green. But what is this particular food stuff really made of? That question is at the heart of this admittedly somewhat dated but still intriguing film, based on Harry Harrison's 1966 novel "Make Room! Make Room!" Charlton Heston stars as Thorne, an NYPD detective who comes across the murder of a top corporate executive (Joseph Cotten). As it turns out, Cotten was on the board of directors of the Soylent Corporation, the people responsible for all those food stuffs that the people have to consume in lieu of the real thing. Heston believes that this wasn't just a garden-variety murder, that Cotten was bumped off for a reason. He gets a lot of help from his slightly cantankerous but very astute "book" (Edward G. Robinson, in his 101st and final cinematic appearance), and a few timely reminders of what the world used to be like. What Robinson finds out about Soylent Green shocks him beyond all imagination; but before he can tell Heston all of what he knows, he has himself euthanized. And when Heston does indeed find out the secret of Soylent Green...well, that part has become immortalized into cinematic history.<br /><br />Under the very professional guiding hand of director Richard Fleischer (THE BOSTON STRANGLER; FANTASTIC VOYAGE), SOYLENT GREEN is a fairly grim but thought-provoking look at a Dystopian future that humanity might be living if we don't curb our tendency to strip our planet of its natural resources. Indeed, this was a project that Heston himself had had in mind for filming as far back as 1968, after he had struck gold in the sci-fi genre with PLANET OF THE APES--a fact that probably gets lost whenever his ultra-conservative political philosophy comes up in conversation (after all, SOYLENT GREEN is hardly a tract for unrestrained capitalism). Robinson, as always, is the consummate professional in his last role; the sequence where he is euthanized (as he looks at video of the world from a better era, set to the music of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) is quite simply heartbreaking. The film also benefits from solid supporting help from Chuck Connors (as a very convincing heavy), Brock Peters (as Heston's superior), and Leigh Taylor-Young as the woman who tries to help Heston in his inquiries.<br /><br />It must seem easy these days to dismiss SOYLENT GREEN for being dated. But those who do it ought to think twice; for this film's world may end up becoming ours in actuality if we don't watch what we do with what we have today.
|
positive
|
Man alive, is this game bad or what? The graphics are way below par, even if it were on a playstation 1, never mind a Gamecube. The gameplay is pathetic and the camera movements disorientating. What a worthless game!<br /><br />I totally love Warner's Batman animation and it's cool that they do all the games in this way. Batman: Vengeance could well have turned out great as they got off to a good start by keeping all the Gothic visuals and voice actors but they seriously stumbled when it came to playability and graphics. The result is a boring game that looks incredibly cheap and is no fun to play whatsoever. I really must stress how bad the graphics are. Don't let the color schemes fool you. I've seen better stuff on a Commodore 64.
|
negative
|
Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) is as poor as anyone on Earth. Living in 1920s Ireland, Gypo and his fellow Irishmen are part of an underground rebellion against the oppressive Brits. One particular rebel, wanted for murder by the English, arrives back into town secretly. He thinks he can trust his friend Gypo, but the £20 reward proves too tempting. Gypo gets his friend killed and sinks into a pit of despair and drunkenness. Meanwhile, the other Irish rebels are searching for the informer. Right away, Gypo, with money burning a hole in his pocket, is their main suspect, but they, who are his friends, don't want to believe it. The story of The Informer is simple in its plot, but complex in its moral and emotional issues. It's easily one of John Ford's most emotionally involving films. What Gypo did was wrong, but we can certainly understand his motives. We also understand his sorry character, and there's a lot of sympathy that arises for him. The script is very suspenseful, as well. It's the kind of suspense where we are pretty sure we know how everything will end up, so we have to grit our teeth and bear along with it. The acting is remarkable. Victor McLaglen, who acted in many of Ford's films, probably gave his best performance here (and won an Oscar for it). Every other performer in the film deserves his or her kudos. In addition to an amazing script and acting, The Informer is one of John Ford's most expressionistic films. I love the darker side of Ford. In its mood, as well as in its themes, The Informer reminds me of two of my other favorite Ford films, The Long Voyage Home (1940) and The Fugitive (1948); it's also a bit similar to The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in these respects. 10/10.
|
positive
|
Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.<br /><br />Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.<br /><br />There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.<br /><br />It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.<br /><br />Totally abominable trash!
|
negative
|
Out of all the parodies of Star Wars I've seen, this is probably the funniest. Not because of the premise, Star Wars with simple electronics instead of spaceships, but because of how poorly acted it is. This is purposely overacted, and it makes it hilarious, and since everyone knows its purposely overacted, no one complains. The special effects were also purposely as awful as can be, and include a toaster on a visible string that shoots toast, and an egg beater on a string. This short is funny for any fan of Star Wars (which I'm not), or anyone that has 15 minutes to kill. Great short!! <br /><br />My rating: *** out of ****. 13 mins. Not rated.
|
positive
|
Dead or Alive: Final, the movie that supposedly brings together the three films in the very loose Dead or Alive trilogy, and connected mostly by its stars, Riki Takeiuchi and Sho Aikawa and that each film has its share of bizarro-world fixtures and neuroses and heaps of violence, is admittedly the weakest of the lot. That none of the three films ends up being a disappointment is less a testament to the creativity of the material but to the pound-for-pound guts that director Takashi Miike takes with the surroundings and the material. Here he presents an overtly dystopian future, however low-key, where a homosexual mayor/dictator (Richard Chen) has the entire village drugged except for a group of rebels. There's also replicants- robots- in this year of 2346, one of them is Ryo (Aikawa), a robot of complete lethal skill but also with the capacity to love and learn and so forth. Then a cop, Takeshi (Takeiuchi) happens to be the mayor's top guard. But things start to unravel on both sides, Ryo teaming up with the rebels and Takeshi with his employer, though blood-soaked mishaps like a hostage trade-off gone bad, and with Takeshi finding out his wife and son are robots (not done in an Alien mood, mind you, just suddenly as if in a the power went out), and that he himself is one as well. And it all leads up to one last, inexplicable showdown between the two men.<br /><br />Strange that there's yet another film where Miike has peaks and valleys here, sometimes finding that middle ground of success where science fiction can have some meaning to it. But there really isn't anything to take from this story, except that the mayor/dictator is a dingbat with no back-story who gets his rocks off making sure his drug stops couples from getting pregnant and that everything remains under control. He also has along with him his love slave, I'd guess, in the hilarious non-speaking part of a saxophone player who also doubles sometimes as a human fixture when not plugging away the moody blues. Meanwhile, we get the conventional sides to Ryo and Takeshi's stories, and they're never uninteresting, just not totally convincing enough to hold interest. Of course Miike isn't above having some fun, like when Takeshi plops Michelle (Maria Chen) in to the water to get her to swim after a near-assassination attempt on the mayor, or in having the original rebel leader speaking English for no good reason at all. There's even a playful homage to old sci-fi cartoons at the start of the film. But there's nothing very compelling substance-wise, with the exception of Takeshi's minor turns at becoming "good" midway through the film (helping one couple get by with clearance to have a kid), and mostly Miike's strengths this time are purely stylistically and in the choice of locations and sets.<br /><br />It's like a grungy Japanese Alphaville where everything still has a contemporary feel through all of the special effects. And I really liked the yellow-green tint Miike used through the movie, as it impacted very well in outdoor scenes and added just enough grittiness in the indoor scenes. But as for peaks and valleys, one sees this ever more clearly- and the sci-fi movie channel level of visual effects, with maybe a few more dollars put into it- during the climax. This contains some of the funniest material in the most delirious, Freudian sensibility from the director, even if it has to get started by unbearable contrivance; the way that Ryo and Takeshi finally meet up is sort of random and just a means for the producers to try and cheaply tie together the past two films, when it wasn't needed. On the other hand, in terms of the sheer guilty entertainment value of a flick like Miike's where one sees something totally unexpected and very crudely sexual, it ranks right up there with the best scenes in Happiness of the Katakuris and Visitor Q. Overall, Dead or Alive: Final is a cheesy 90 minute effort that doesn't take itself TOO seriously, and is better off all the more for its wicked contrivances, militaristic decay and cultural hang-ups put on pulp-level display.
|
positive
|
This movie is one of the best ever produced by disney.<br /><br />The plot is very original and entertaining. The animated sequence is also very well done with the live actors. (For the time).<br /><br />Perhaps one of my favorite sequences is contained in this movie with the march of the suits of armor.
|
positive
|
you have loved The shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Vertigo, Oldboy.... And i guarantee you will love this one more. its a brilliant thriller. The story is so simple yet so gripping. it keeps you at the edge of your seat till the end. the slow moving scenes, simple music adds more perfection to the movie. its so genuine. the performance is top class the direction the sequences...they are too perfect..if i could i would place it in top 10 thrillers ever made. Most entertaining thriller i have seen in a while... *****/***** my vote help me move this movie to top 250<br /><br />you will love it...
|
positive
|
Wow. I've never seen nor heard of this film. It just came on tv (2:00 am) and I am in complete awe. Setup: a bunch of rich fat cats are out golfing. One knocks a ball into the rough. It lands by a NINJA!!!! A tuxedoed man walks over to pick the ball up. The ninja grabs it. Crushes it in his hand. Man pulls gun. Ninja pulls blowgun. Ninja blows dart into gun barrel. GUN EXPLODES!!!! This is just the beginning of the greatness, people. Everyone must see this movie. 10 big ol fat stars from trusty.
|
positive
|
Throw Momma hasn't dated at all, it's as funny now as when it was released. A genuinely eccentric comedy, that doesn't try too hard to be liked and is all the better for it, full of memorable laugh out loud lines. Even small characters are well written and beautifully played, like Billy Crystal's best friend's girlfriend, and a lovely cameo from Rob Reiner as Crystal's agent. A little bit insane and a lot funny.
|
positive
|
Unlike some comments, mine is positive. This movie wraps around the dinner table with a group of friends, some you like, some you don't. A few are related--mother, daughter, son. Their stories are not one smooth, happy with everyone and everything, type of life--much like real life. Some story lines do not evolve, they just happen. But like true families and good friends, they stick together. The wanna-be parents who are buying a baby are such a--holes! You are happy for the ending. Poor Delmar is stuck between a rock and a boulder taking care of herself, her mom, her son, and trying to keep all their lives together. This does not end with a sunset walk or house in the 'burbs and all are living in a dream world, but is a very real life portrayal of people living day to day, month to month. Overall, this is a good story and a great movie!!
|
positive
|
This was the best movie ever has seen on "Germen's Cine Club" (Buenos Aires) This movie is a realistic critic of the society of the past and the next century. It cause a very good impression to all the partners of "Germen's Cine Club". I recommend this movie to all the fans of Troma and to all the people who like the good movies, not the commercial movies.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.