review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The 80s were overrun by all those HALLOWEEN/Friday THE 13TH slasher-style horror movies, so this is something of a relief.<br /><br />Ten unbelievably annoying teenagers (would you want to hang out with these jerks?!) decide to throw a Halloween party at a local former funeral parlor called "Hull House". During a "past life séance" a demon is accidentally released, and each person becomes possessed and kills off the others.<br /><br />This all sounds very EVIL DEAD/DEMONS-ish, but Tenney lends some directorial style to the proceedings, there are some good one-liners, the music is excellent, the Steve Johnson prosthetic make-up FX are scary and Linnea Quigley is quite fun as a boy-crazy bimbo who pokes out eyeballs with her fingers and does an amazing new thing with a tube of lipstick!<br /><br />Great fun on a no-brainer level! After checking out the breakdown of the voting and the other posted reviews, I don't understand how this only received 4 out of 10 (?!)<br /><br />I give it, 8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
This 'schlock-buster' should carry a government health warning. If you play it in your DVD machine, you are in serious risk of opening a rift in the space-time continuum and disappearing without trace into it - so bad is this 'movie'.<br /><br />The fact that this movie was so successful is evidence of the true desperate state of modern Hollywood cinema, and the continual commissioning of films that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' - although I truly dread to think of the 'lowest common denominators' that this film actually appeals to!!<br /><br />I think Hollywood were just conducting some kind of proving trials when they made and screened this film! I can imagine the executive boardroom meetings at the studio ... "Just how bad a film can we actually get away with making - and STILL make loads of money!??! Holy cow, I didn't realise we could go THAT bad!! Woooo hooooo!!"<br /><br />The only films worse than this that I can think of (and trust me it is close) are Die Another Day (RIP the Bond franchise as I knew it) and Independence Day!<br /><br />AVOID - AVOID - AVOID!!!!
|
negative
|
Great underrated movie great action good actors and a wonderful story line. Wesley is verry good and the villain the bad guy is wonderful The girl plays a nice role and the comedy mixed with blakness!
|
positive
|
Excellent entry in the RKO Saint series with well-written original script, good camera work and transitions, good directing to handle some twists in the plot, good editing to keep the flow constant, and good acting. George Sanders is suave and witty. Jonathan Hale simply is Inspector Fernack. Paul Guilfoyle plays a mobster who goes straight (and drinks milk) because he cannot take the pressure. He will return in a later entry in the series. Story begins on an ocean liner headed to the U.S. where the Saint meets but cannot connect with Wendie Barrie. She eventually succumbs to the Saint's charms but she breaks his heart in the end. The Saint assists Inspector Fernack clear his name from a frame. A few bodies fall along the way. Good entertainment and above average for this type of film. Watch it.
|
positive
|
La Teta i la Luna (The Breast and the Moon) describes the life of a 9-10 year old boy named Tete who is obsessed with breasts growing up in Catalunya. I love this movie because the characters are very honest and very human, like all the characters in Bigas Luna's movies (also director of Jamon, Jamon). Tete reminded me of how intriguing and exciting life can be at that age. Also being from Catalunya (North-east of Spain) it brought lots of memories to my mind. This movie shows how beautiful Catalunya is, nice people, nice life and specially lots of non-uptight people.
|
positive
|
My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.<br /><br />I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.<br /><br />Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).<br /><br />What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.<br /><br />People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).<br /><br />One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.<br /><br />Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.<br /><br />If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.
|
negative
|
Don't quite know why some people complain about this film not being a comedy and at the same time being too unrealistic. If it had been realistic, there certainly wouldn't have been much comedy. I also don't think that a comedy needs to make you laugh aloud twenty times. There was much subtle humor, sweet feelings, and Kim Frank just portrayed a dreamy character. In real life, there are many people whose facial expression doesn't change much so Kim Frank keeping his was quite all right. The ending was quite unrealistic, I'd say, but happy. It's a light-hearted movie with a feel-good ending. I liked it. Loved it, actually. A serious part was Krueger going to Schwedt, and I'm glad they didn't show what happened to him there. Showing how he was when he came back hinted at it quite clearly.
|
positive
|
It's nothing brilliant, groundbreaking or innovative, but 'Dog Days' is for some reason an extremely fascinating character study. It's like CRASH tripping on a bad dose of heroin, but not really. It's an Austrian film following the lives of several depressed, deranged and annoying people and their abusive relationships with each other. It's disturbing, yet very well-acted and it's interesting to watch the crazy little things these characters do. Certainly not for the weak-hearted, this highly pessimistic film offers no conclusion or revelation at the end, we just see the lives of these sordid individuals over the course of two days. Grade: B
|
positive
|
I may not be the one to review this movie because after 45 minutes of pure boredom and stupidity I turned the channel. The original series only lasted 2 years which can be said about the careers for Adam West and Burt Ward. Put these two "actors" in a stupid movie and the result is twice as bad.
|
negative
|
If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.<br /><br />If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.
|
positive
|
This movie should be number one on the bottom 100. The acting is so horrible that when my son and I watched it we nearly got physically ill. And the story is worse. I could go on and on about how bad it is but all I really wanted to do was add a warning to frankbob's review as I see no one else has gone to the trouble of doing so yet. Don't waste your time, money, energy or anything else on this movie. Thank goodness we saw it on TV so we didn't spend anything on it. Had we, I would have been forced to write the people responsible for this abomination and be forced to hurl an execration in their general direction. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Carrie Fisher act. But I am sad to say that she is not worth watching in this particular film. Don't spoil your opinion of Carrie by viewing it.
|
negative
|
To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER<br /><br />3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.<br /><br />4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.<br /><br /> rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale<br /><br />thank you I am as always<br /><br /> JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN
|
negative
|
It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.<br /><br />It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.<br /><br />However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.
|
negative
|
Please do not waste six hours of your life watching this as I did. The fact that I did is not a very good reflection on me. The only redeeming acting job in this clunker was by Wes Studi. How a 'prequel' with similar roots can not even be in the same universe as Lonesome Dove is beyond me!! It was a disjointed, rambling, incoherent story. Plot lines were not developed, action scenes were almost laughable and the big ending (disappointment) was a fitting ending to this mini-series. Val Kilmer who I have thought as a reputable actor played one of the strangest roles that I have ever seen him in. His final scene in the show had to have been a filler by the director. I have been reading these reviews for years and this show prompted me to sign up!!!
|
negative
|
Feeling Minnesota is not really a road movie, but that's still the best categorization I can generate. A road movie does not primarily depend on a great story line, and since the plot of this movie is truly pathetic, it does fulfil that description. To be interesting, such a movie must rely entirely on moving and intriguing characters, and on the chemistry between them. Unfortunately the staff of Feeling Minnesota fails utterly in producing this excitement.<br /><br />The initializing presentation of the characters is unsatisfying and confusing; I can, for example, not figure out whether Jjaks (Keanu Reeves) did grow up in the house of his mother and brother or not. It is said, by his mother (Tuesday Weld), that he must live with his father, but nothing in the film suggests that it ever happens. The same goes for the rest of the characters - I never get to know them. They appear irrational, and no real explanation is given to why they do so.<br /><br />The bottom line is that I leave the movie without any feelings for the characters, except dullness and perhaps a tiny kick of attraction for the cute Cameron Diaz.
|
negative
|
May contain minor spoilers.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.<br /><br />What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.<br /><br />Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.
|
positive
|
This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.
|
negative
|
I may be biased, I am the author of the novel The Hungry Bachelors Club, self-published in 1994. The screenplay was written by my good friend and hungry bachelor, Fred Dresch, who was the inspiration for the character Marlon in the film. I couldn't be more pleased with the trailer, I hope to see the film in its entirety and I will further comment. But Jorja Fox, who plays Delmar Youngblood, my character, is stellar. She carries the bulk of the emotional vehicles in fine form. I couldn't have done better myself! This looks like real people, hardly formula driven and thankfully drives my statement against racial prejudice home, gracefully and heartfelt.
|
positive
|
I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.<br /><br />I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.<br /><br />I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.<br /><br />This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to "make people think". I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />It made me think alright. It made me think, "I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back."<br /><br />I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.<br /><br />I am not one of them.
|
negative
|
I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.
|
negative
|
Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: "Quintet", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in "Forbidden Games"; "HealtH", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; "Popeye", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; "O.C. & Stiggs", for its proposal of an anti-"adolescents flick"; "Beyond Therapy", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like "The Dumb Waiter" and "The Laundromat". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about "The Gingerbread Man", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike "The Gingerbread Man", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot "Red Sorghum", "Ju Dou" and "Farewell My Concubine". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his "foreigner's gaze", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa.
|
positive
|
(Spoilers)<br /><br />Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.<br /><br />The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)<br /><br />This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)<br /><br />4/10<br /><br />Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10
|
negative
|
Lifeforce (1985) was a Cannon funded film directed by Tobe Hooper. It's a very interesting film that deals with a pair of space vampires who are accidentally brought back down to Earth during the latest space shuttle mission. Steve Railsback stars as the sole survivor of the tragedy. But really folks the movie is a mere showcase for the natural beauty of Mathilda May. She's one smoking hot number. The director was a huge fan of Female Vampire (a.k.a. Erotikill). Miss May recreates Lina Romay's title role The film is beautifully photographed and directed. There's plenty of gore effects to keep genres fans happy.<br /><br />I have to give this film a very high rating. Tobe Hooper was the man. He made three interesting films for Cannon during this time period (Texas Chainsaw Massacre II and Invaders from Mars as well). If you like science fiction/horror films, Tobe Hooper films or Mathilda May this film's just up your alley.<br /><br />Highest Recommendation!<br /><br />Did I mention Mathilda May is smoking hot?
|
positive
|
What happened to Ava Gardner in the 1940s and Marilyn Monroe in the '50s also seemed to take place for modern-day actress Michelle Pfeiffer in the '80s: Her remarkable good looks got in the way of her being taken seriously as an accomplished, superbly talented actress. Anyone looking for validation of Pfeiffer's dramatic abilities need look no further than her work in 1991's "Frankie and Johnny" or '92's "Love Field" (a personal favorite of mine); those looking to see what a splendid comedic actress she can be, when given the right part, should check out 1988's "Married to the Mob." In this one, she plays Angela Demarco, the widow of a recently "iced" Mob hit-man, who moves from her garishly tacky Long Island home to start a new life for herself and her son, while being pursued by Mob boss Dean Stockwell and FBI man Matthew Modine. While this movie has lots going for it (a very amusing script; offbeat characters; sudden sharp turns to unexpected violence, as in director Jonathan Demme's previous effort "Something Wild"; and hilarious yet menacing performances by Stockwell and Mercedes Ruehl, as his jealous wife from hell), Michelle steals the show easily. Notice how perfectly she nails Angela's undereducated, Long Island Italian accent, and the many fine mannerisms that she brings to the role to really flesh out this spunky and surprisingly bright character. Once upon a time, long ago, Oscars were handed out to actresses for comedic roles such as this one. Had this film been made 60 years ago, Michelle mighta been a contenduh...
|
positive
|
I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey? <br /><br />Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.<br /><br />Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).
|
negative
|
I saw this film by chance on the small box. It has a fantastic and chilling scene about poisonous gas. A lot about fanatical patriotism. A bit of eroticism. I can't believe it's still waiting for 5 votes!!
|
positive
|
J.J. Jameson (from Spiderman 2) Quote ... Crap, Crap, ...<br /><br />Mega-Crap It pretends to be an homage (un/intentional) to the Coen Brothers ... done poorly.<br /><br />There is no real mystery to the plot.<br /><br />Diaz's performance is totally uninspired.<br /><br />The quirky characters don't really work.<br /><br />There are a lot of "duh" moments.<br /><br />I love black comedy, but this film isn't funny.<br /><br />In my view, it wasn't worth the electricity.<br /><br />There are many films in this genre which are much more entertaining.<br /><br />I hope you find this review helpful.
|
negative
|
Standard "paint-by-numbers" monster fare, filled with a bunch of routine plot devices from big-creature movies. It's like somebody had a deck of cards with plot ideas from other movies written on them, which were shuffled, and dealt. Whatever plot lines and characters came up in the deal were then tossed into the script. <br /><br />Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of "Guess who ends up as a monster meal" after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured. Many of the characters are so obnoxious, that you root for the creature to shut them up. Some of the main characters include: a Billy Idol clone who surfs with sharks, a loudmouth brat who flashes bankrolls, a Capt. Ahab guy with a vendetta, and Ahab's girlfriend who does sleazy dances at a bar. Oh, and a big, big beast in need of anger management therapy.<br /><br />Along the way, people argue a lot, pretty girls run around with wet t-shirts, couples make out on exotic beaches, explosions occur, ruins of a shrine appear, and greasy-faced pirates drop by. <br /><br />Amusing, for the most part, but one thing bothered me: the callousness by characters when other people were killed. After one violent demise, they make one-liner jokes. I could almost hear rim shots.<br /><br />Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one.
|
negative
|
WORST MOVIE EVER!!!! Can't believe I wasted 90min of my life watching this crap. The only reason I didn't turn it off was I wanted to see the Gangster dude on the cover and he wasn't even in it talk about False advertising. The people that gave this movie a ten are either Dumb,Stupid or CAST MEMBERS or friends of CAST MEMBERS.<br /><br />I gave it a solid 2 because no one else did<br /><br />I have to write more and I don't even want to. wasting my time talking about this rubbish. Please don't watch it and if you did then vote so this movie can go where it belongs. bottom 100 movies. i can't even tell you how bad it really is. think the worst movie ever that you've seen then times that be ten and thats this movie. It sucked!! If you just think I'm being bitter then watch it I dare You!! This movie should be used to torture war criminals or Terriosts. If they Watch this even two times and they'll be spilling the beans and begging for MERCY!!
|
negative
|
Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies. <br /><br />Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars. <br /><br />It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.<br /><br />I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.<br /><br />I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen. <br /><br />About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended... <br /><br />To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked. <br /><br />Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.
|
negative
|
My only problem with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is that the movie does not take the time to properly introduce Wallace and Gromit to those not familiar with Park's short films. Strangely, "A Close Shave" manages to do this with a lot less time to spare. Still, I loved seeing the boys back in action and loved all the new characters, human and otherwise. I especially loved Ralph Fiennes voice as the scheming Victor Quartermaine. It is also interesting to see the series on the large screen. The workmanship with the clay characters really stands out. It's a hoot, and great for the whole family! I buy very few DVDs but I have every Wallace and Gromit and will happily add this one.
|
positive
|
This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier. <br /><br />What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.
|
negative
|
But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In!
|
positive
|
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.<br /><br />I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.<br /><br />In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.<br /><br />The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.
|
negative
|
I found the film Don't Look In The Basement to be very good, with some great characters in it. It is about a young psychiatric nurse called Nurse Charlotte Beale(Rosie Holotik),who is going to start work at a isolated mental asylum. Whilst there, she meets various sorts of different characters including Dr. Geraldine Masters who becomes in charge of the asylum after the the owner of the hospital Dr. Stephens gets killed by one of the patients by hitting him with an axe.<br /><br />My favourite characters in the film are Mrs Challingham(Reah MacAdams), a very funny little old lady, Allison who is a nymphomaniac, and Sam(Bill McGhee) a young black guy who goes around all Day seeming to be in a world of his own all of the time. The film was a very low budget film but was still a really great film. I know that it was on the 'Video Nasties' list back in the 80's but a did not think that it had a lot of gore in it, Alothough it did have some disturbing senses in it GREAT FILM RECOMMENDED!!!.
|
positive
|
This low budget crocodile movie really delivers the goods. The fact that it was inspired by true events would mean little if you wound up with a fake looking crocodile, bad C.G.I., or an obvious studio setting. Fortunately none of the above are involved with this terrific, very realistic film. The crocodile is real, there is no C.G.I., and the on location filming takes place in an actual Australian swamp. The actors were obviously inspired to create as much realism as possible in their performances, and they succeed. You can place yourself in their predicament, which is testament to how realistically "Black Water" translates as entertainment. Highly recommended. - MERK
|
positive
|
When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.<br /><br />The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."<br /><br />I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.
|
negative
|
"Nagisa no Shindobaddo" or "Like Grains of Sand" is an amazingly beautiful story about teenage boys and girls dealing with the state of becoming one with who they are. This movie isn't about homosexuality, but it IS about sexuality.<br /><br />Aihara, an aloof girl, will definitely make the viewers ponder who IS behind the aloof girl. Does she love Yoshida? Or does she love Ito? Or did she somehow turn into a lesbian because of the "incident"? (I doubt it).<br /><br />And what about Yoshida? Does he realize that he loves Ito in the end? Well, we all know he loves him as a friend. But you'll never know once you see this movie... haha :) In the end, Aihara (along with Ito) delivers an exceptional message to the audience: which is that it does NOT matter if you love a boy or a girl. And I have to tell you, I'm SO dense that I didn't get it at first. ^^;; It's because of the whole no talking scenes... You have to try to understand what the characters are thinking and saying through their actions and NOT by what they say (especially the final part... whew, boy, that was confusing!) It's a confusing story, but it IS beautiful nonetheless. :) This movie is certainly one of the best Japanese movies I have ever seen (and trust me, I've seen plenty).
|
positive
|
An odd beam of light penetrates the bedroom of Dr. Craig Burton(Arnold Vosloo)and his wife Sherry(Jillian McWhirter)as they are making love. About two hours are unaccounted for as they embrace seemingly unharmed. Under hypnosis during a session with psychiatrist Dr. Susan Lamarche(Lindsay Crouse), Craig discovers that his wife was impregnated by aliens. Sherry resists this notion as absurd and is quite happy to relay news to her husband that she is indeed pregnant. Ecstatic after their trying for ages to get pregnant, Sherry is frightened at Craig's persistence of the fetus not being his..this stems from a check on his low sperm count with odds especially high that he could in no way have impregnated his wife. Awkward, troubling experiences with the fetus inside her leads Sherry to some scary discoveries..her doctor, David Wetherly(Wilford Brimley)finds that the ultra-sound gives some unusual results of the developing infant's appearance, but it's Craig who notices that it resembles an alien! Sparks ignite cutting out the electrical equipment, even shutting off Wetherly's pacemaker! Through hypnosis, Sherry reveals the experience of her abduction, but Lamarche believes her problem is psychological not physiological. With no one believing his wife's alien impregnation theory, Craig turns to sociologist Dr. Bert Clavell(Brad Dourif), whose work is in the studies of alien life and abduction. But, Bert is reluctant to help Craig who will go to the ends of the earth to save his wife's life from possible harm. Tragic results occur as Lamarche and others try to keep Craig from his goals of "cutting the thing out" believing he is mad. Craig will still pursue his task trying to drag Bert down this path with him.<br /><br />Grim, absorbing horror tale about one man's struggle to save his wife from the harm of beings no one else believes exist. Thankfully, Dourif's character isn't some quack nutjob but an intelligent doctor who wishes to learn more, but his pursuit of the truth of aliens isn't hostile..he does hope to learn from Sherry, but isn't incredibly demanding in this goal. The story is told realistically..it's easy to understand why others might deem Craig off-his-rocker. Vosloo doesn't take the character too far, but expresses the distress of his current situation. How can he save his wife from this hostiles and prove to others that he's not nuts? McWhirter deserves credit for the demands of the difficult abduction scenes where her unfortunate character is naked on this table being probed and molested by these things. Crouse is fine in her limited, but important role as the voice of reason in a situation where her clients seem out of control psychologically. The monster effects are icky and effective. I think the film works quite well and director Yuzna deserves credit for restraining himself for this film at least. The final twenty minutes as Craig tries to perform his "removal surgery" with a scared Bert watching the crazy situation escalate is nail-biting.<br /><br />You know, fans of "Fire in the Sky" might dig this flick.
|
positive
|
That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
Armageddon PPV<br /><br />The last PPV of 2006<br /><br />Smackdown brand.<br /><br />Match Results Ahead********<br /><br />We are starting the show with The Inferno match. Kane v. MVP. This was an okay match. Nothing about wrestling here. This was about the visuals. Overall, this was not bad. There were a few close spots here with Kane getting too close to the fire, but in the end, Kane won with ramming MVP into the fire back first.<br /><br />Nice opener. Let's continue.<br /><br />Teddy Long announces a new match for the tag team titles: London and Kendrick will defend against: Regal and Taylor, The Hardyz, and MNM IN A LADDER MATCH!!!! Let's get moving!<br /><br />Match two: Fatal four way ladder match. This was total carnage. Judging by three out of the four teams here, you would expect chaos. The spots were amazing. A total spot-fest. One point Jeff went for Poetry in Motion and London moved and Jeff hit the ladder! Shortly afterword, Jeff is set on the top rope with two ladders nearby as MNM were going to kill Jeff, Matt makes the save and Jeff hits the "see-saw" shot to Joey Mercury! Mercury is hurt. His eye is shut quickly and is busted open hard way. Mercury is taken out of the match and Nitro is still there. He is going to fight alone for the titles! Regal and Taylor then grab London and suplex him face-first into the ladder! Jeff climbs the ladder and Nitro in a killer spot, dropkicks through the ladder to nail Jeff! Awesome! In the end, London and Kendrick retain the tag team titles. What a match!!!<br /><br />This was insane. I can't figure out why WWE did not announce this till now. The Buyrate would increase huge. I'm sure the replay value will be good though.<br /><br />Mercury has suffered a shattered nose and lacerations to the eye. He is at the hospital now. Get well kid.<br /><br />No way anything else here will top that.<br /><br />Next up: The Miz v. Boogeyman.(Ugh) This was a nothing match. Will the Boogeyman ever wrestle? The Miz sucks too. After a insane crowd, this kills them dead. DUD.<br /><br />Chris Benoit v. Chavo. This was a strong match. I enjoyed it. Chavo hit a killer superplex at one point! Benoit hit EIGHT German suplexes too! Benoit wins with the sharpshooter. Good stuff.<br /><br />Helms v. Yang-Cruiserweight title championship match. This was a good match. Unfortunately, the stupid fans did not care for this. WHY? Helms and Yang are very talented and wrestled well. I agree with JBL. He ranted to the crowd. JBL is 100% correct. Learn to appreciate this or get out. <br /><br />Mr. Kennedy v. The Undertaker-Last Ride match. Not too much here. This was a slug fest, with a few exceptions. Kennedy at one point tossed Taker off the top of the stage to the floor. The spot was fine. Reaction was disappointing. The end spot was Taker tomb-stoned Kennedy on the hearse and won the match. Unreal. Kennedy needed this win. They both worker hard. Still, Kennedy needed this win. Undertaker should have lost. Creative screwed up again.<br /><br />A stupid diva thing is next. I like women. Not this. At least Torrie was not here. That's refreshing. Judging from the crowd, Layla should have won. The WWE wanted Ashley. Consider this your bathroom break. Next.<br /><br />Main Event: Cena & Batista v. Finlay & Booker T. This was also a nothing match. The focus was Cena v. Finlay and Batista v. Booker. Batista and Booker can't work well together. Finlay tries to make Cena look good. The finish was botched. Finlay hit Batista's knee with a chair shot and Batista no-sold the shot and finished the match. Lame. Not main event caliber at all.<br /><br />Overall, Armageddon would have scored less, but the ladder match WAS the main event here. That was enough money's worth right there. A few others were solid. <br /><br />The Last Word: A good PPV with the ladder match being the savior. Smackdown is not a bad show just is not compelling enough. Smackdown needs to stop letting Cena tag along. Let Smackdown stand on their own two legs. This show proves that Smackdown can.
|
positive
|
First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.<br /><br />With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the "NOOOOOO!" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a "dark" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.<br /><br />I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?
|
negative
|
I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's "Essentials" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.
|
negative
|
This movie makes you think. It shows how a woman's weaknesses can result in nightmares for others. Her physically aggressive behavior is more often seen in men than women, so it made me feel even more uncomfortable to see the way the lead actress behaved. I think that women might think about this behavior, but I don't think they act on it. The dark scenes added to the sense of evil that needed to be hidden. I was relieved when the prisoners escaped. I was hopeful that the end would bring a satisfying solution, but it did not. Maybe that is more realistic. Life seems to run in the same direction instead of creating a new river bed running up hill.
|
positive
|
The folk who produced this masterful film have done fine service to a novel that stands as perhaps the best fiction work centering upon human guilt and human responsibility ever published. Nolte takes the role of Howard W. Campbell, Jr., and makes it his own, remaining true to Vonnegut's depiction of a man who has lost ALL (to and) for Love.<br /><br />No weaknesses in this fine adaptation.
|
positive
|
It surprises me how much I love this movie despite the fact that I don't really like dogs. Fox, Field, and Ameche do a wonderful job with the voices of Chance, Sassy and Shadow, and the acting by the animals themselves is just amazing.<br /><br />I have seen this movie 72 times already (I know that sounds scary, but it's true!), and every time the ending scenes still get me. I highly recommend it to people of all ages and especially to animal lovers. It is indeed my all-time favorite movie!
|
positive
|
Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining "Honey I Shrunk the Kids". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.<br /><br />First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.<br /><br />Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".<br /><br />Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.<br /><br />Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.<br /><br />I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves.
|
negative
|
I'm not the type of person to watch T.V. shows because the acting normally sucks or it's unrealistic or TOO dramatic! But this show is perfect. Everyone can act, and you can relate to the characters and their situations. Everyone has their own personality and Lorelai Gilmore is the best for her sarcastic comments that can make any bad situation seem a little funny. Rory Gilmore is a good role model for all girls. She takes pride in wanting to attend Harvard and boys/boyfriends always come second in her book. She's a loyal friend and always the peace maker. There's subtle romance which is what I like, personally. Not the mushy gushy romance that not many people get to have in their lives, but a realistic type of romance. Every character eventually gets it, and they don't find their prince charming at first glance and they don't just "fall in love" with every guy that comes their way. It's a realistic show but when you watch it, you better brush up on your movies, pop culture, and random facts because Lorelai Gilmore is always making references. I fell in love with this show and if you give it a chance, so will you.
|
positive
|
Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.<br /><br />Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.<br /><br />There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.<br /><br />Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.<br /><br />So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.
|
positive
|
I remember going to drive inn with my parent and sister. I was in grade 5, and still a kid, and the drive closed down 4 years later, but the film still lingers in my memory. An adult movie, which a kid finds entertaining. That is a mark of excellence. Hoffman is one of hollywoods better actors, and this film proves it. I like the Billy put down the ice cream scene, and I remember the SCTV version in there film I factory myself. Remember Joe Flairty crying. Please email me if you like the SCTV skit. Not a bad film at all, it is a story about a father, and his son. Touching and intertaining, I love the part where Hoffman talks about Killroy, and how the streets change. Worth a second watch. 7/10
|
positive
|
This is one of the most atrocious rewrites I've ever viewed. If they want to make a movie with a lousy story, they should refrain from giving it a title of a fine book. There is hardly a relation between Wolfe's book and this movie other than the title. I don't mind changes if they help a story flow on screen. At least the changes shouldn't hurt the final product. The last scene in the movie is painfully unconvincing. The actors are miscast. The director and/or screen writer obviously could not decide whether to make a lame comedy or preach an unconvincing sermon.<br /><br />If you've seen this movie and disliked it, try the book. If you've seen this movie and liked it, read the book.
|
negative
|
Wow....it's been a long time since I've last seen such a hilarious movie like this one!!!!! I've never been a great fanatic about French movies, but ever since I fell in love with the beauty and the acting skills of Catherine Deneuve I decided to see all of her movies... however I didn't think this one would be so fantastic as it turned out to be. Lucky me, that I bought it even though I had some doubts! This is really "feel-good-time" film with class and quality. There are some great social topics and moral drama's involved that are very close to today's modern way of living, which are shown very beautiful and realistic. I also liked the dancing scene in the men's room a lot! But my favourite is the rather timid attempt of Catherine Deneuve to sing.....she brings it the way she is, with lots of grace and modesty at the same time...very tempting! Further on I would also like to express my respect and admiration for Line Renaud, who played a fantastic role (I didn't even know she acted....I've only known her for her music). So, don't wait any longer and go see the movie...you'll be surprised in many ways.
|
positive
|
If you thought NBC's 10.5 was stupid, you'll be happy to hear that FX reached into the bowels of made-for-TV hell and squished it's fingers into this pseudo post-9/11 poop. Not only was the plot stupid, it was a complete ripoff of 24 and a bad ripoff at that. The filming style was the now overused "docu-action" look, complete with cuts to grainy B&W "rawcore" footage. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sure sounds like something the DP said to the director before filming. I don't know what they were going for here but it reminded me of the guy at the office who thinks Powerpoint presentations with "fly-ins" and "animations" are "cool."<br /><br />The story is that 6 "terrorists" take over a nuclear power plant in southern CA. That's right, nuclear power plants, where hundreds of people work, where there's security precautions up the ying-yang. For the sake of reality, they put 2 off-duty CHiPpies in the mix. Because, they'd be able to stop 6 people, right? Six. I mean, even Bruce Willis had to deal with more terrorists over at that stupid Nakatomi building.<br /><br />Leslie Hope (TV's Teri Bauer) plays a CHP officer who has problems talking on the phone after she's shot in her bullet-proof vest. Her voice sounds like a Sally Struther's TV ad, whiny and monotonous. Her character is only a plot device, and after she performs her one small duty, she is promptly disposed of. Yes, Teri Bauer is died! <br /><br />Bruce Greenwood stars as FBI S.A.C. Tom Shea, who continually points out how he punches foreign diplomats in the face. His boss is out, so nobody over at the Dept. of Homeland Security believes his prognosis of the situation. He's the sensible one out of a group of paranoid public officials afraid of taking blame for any type of catastrophe. He's calm, he's strong, he's BORING.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing redeeming or entertaining about Meltdown - OK, well maybe Teri Bauer getting died was pretty unnecessary and funny - other than that, nothing redeeming.
|
negative
|
Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).<br /><br />Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.<br /><br />The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned "Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words". <br /><br />You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.<br /><br />The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath.
|
positive
|
Steven Seagal....how could you be a part of such an awful film? I rented this movie because your movies usually have been pretty clean. I have lost a lot of respect for you being in an awful movie such as this one. Very, very poor taste! I am embarrassed that I even rented this movie. Steven, if you keep acting in movies like this one, I believe that your career is over. My husband and I have enjoyed watching many of your movies because you always can "get the bad guy" with a few hand maneuvers and make it clean...and also the language is pretty clean in your movies...but this one is something else. I will think twice before I rent another movie of yours.
|
negative
|
Fans of apocalyptic movies will savor this well-made low-budget thriller that is essentially a remake of the 1951 George Pal classic "When Worlds Collide." A comet is headed for a near-collision with earth, and when his fellow scientists disregard his warnings of doom, eccentric scientist Peter Crawford (Dennis Hopper) gathers a group of private investors to secretly construct an underground sanctuary.<br /><br />The story unfolds through the eyes of muscle-bound Gulf-war veteran Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati)who inadvertently discovers Crawford's hidden sanctuary and then decides that Crawford is wrong for keeping his project hidden from the rest of humanity. As the comet approaches, the subject of who should live and who should die makes for interesting drama.<br /><br />While the special effects are not in the same league, I enjoyed the story more than I did Spielberg's War of the Worlds, because I feel this screenplay is better. Some suspension of scientific reality is required, but it's worthwhile for the development of a good story. I highly recommend this film to fans of the genre.
|
positive
|
"Return of the Jedi" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a shame, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of epic storytelling. It manages to wrap up all story lines of the previous movies in one grand finale, and does so very convincingly.<br /><br />Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to slow down a bit. But the final hour is arguably the best piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, the most recognizable villain in movie history.<br /><br />Return of the Jedi did so many things right that people tend to overlook: it presented an incredible conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the "Empire Strikes Back" to very convincing here), an exciting opening at Jabba's Palace, a masterful performance of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke finally coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the extremely powerful final moments on the Endor moon.<br /><br />Yes, there are slight annoyances. But they are the annoyances of a generation of moviegoers who've had time to nitpick every single scene. It's still a magical and moving piece of cinema that also serves as a great final chapter. It's not a 'good' movie - it's fantastic!
|
positive
|
F*ck Me! I've seen some incredibly horrific movies in my time but this takes the p*ss!<br /><br />Honestly I can't express in words how bad this film actually is. Besides the plot that isn't really there, the comically crap acting, the hilariously dreadful excuses for zombies; You know what, I could go on all day. Every little thing in this film is either stupid, pointless, crap or embarrassing. I express to anyone who wants to watch this movie... don't!<br /><br />I'm ashamed to say, I have this on my rack. It's hidden away right at the god damn bottom of the huge pile. I couldn't even give this horse-sh*t excuse for a film away. That's how bad it is.
|
negative
|
This movie should not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as "The Dish"<br /><br />The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.<br /><br />Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time.
|
negative
|
I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).<br /><br />As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.<br /><br />Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.<br /><br />To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.<br /><br />Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.<br /><br />Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).<br /><br />I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.<br /><br />My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!<br /><br />I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.<br /><br />Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!
|
positive
|
An extremely dark and brooding show with an excellent cast. One of the few shows that I try to watch on a regular basis. Glad to see Bebe Neuwirth in a recurring role, but feel Andre Braugher is underutilized. He is one intense actor! Hope CBS gives it a better time slot next season.
|
positive
|
Luc Besson's first work is also his first foray in science fiction, a genre to which he will return fourteen years later with "the Fifth Element" (1997). Even if this film was strongly influenced by Hollywood cinema, it is still highly enjoyable. Back in 1983, "le Dernier Combat" reveals Besson's own approach of science fiction. He takes back a threadbare topic and his efforts are discernible to make a stylish work. Shot in widescreen and black and white, a disaster has destroyed virtually all the population from earth and we will never know what was this disaster and why men can't talk any more. Some barbarian hordes were formed. In parallel, a man (Pierre Jolivet) lives on his own and arrives in an unrecognizable Paris where he is received by a doctor (Jean Bouise).<br /><br />There are no words in Besson's work. The characters' actions and the progression of the events go through looks and gestures. Although the starting point and the backdrop are unnerving, the film has never the look of a despondent one. It seems that the man and the doctor try to reproduce gestures and actions linked to mankind before the disaster. The film opens with the man having sex with an inflatable doll. Later, the doctor tries to make him speak through a machine and he is a painter in his spare time. It's all the more intriguing as these paintings seem to come from the prehistoric times. Following this reasoning, one could argue that the bearded giant (Jean Reno) embodies evil and a threat to the efforts deployed by the man and the doctor to regain what finally made a human being. Ditto for the gang of baddies at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />The pessimistic whiff that such a film could convey isn't really at the fore and gives way to a glimmer of hope. Personally, the film could have gained with no music at all, except the one the man can hear with his cassette recorder. Luc Besson was to make better and still entrancing films like this one, he also boosted Pierre Jolivet's career as a director who will leave a patchy work behind him in the future: "Force Majeure" (1989), "Simple Mortel" (1991), "ma Petite Entreprise" (1999) or "Filles Uniques" (2003).
|
positive
|
"Problem Child" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.<br /><br />I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.<br /><br />And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.<br /><br />I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?<br /><br />In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.
|
negative
|
This film essentially contains all the elements of a great 70's exploitation film, except it was done in the late 80's for the direct to video market.<br /><br />You have a young couple in love, but the whole world around them is involved either in crack dealing or gang violence. When the boyfriend goes to jail, the girlfriend ends up vulnerable to all the criminals, who are everyone in this movie except for the cops. First she gets hooked on crack by a dealer and then because he owes drug lord Jim Brown money, she becomes Brown's property. Then she's basically enslaved in a military style crack house that the movie is named for.<br /><br />As if this isn't enough reason to see this movie, you also have Anthony Geary playing a seemingly conservative school guidance counselor, but he's really a major crack dealer. In a sleazy yet hilarious scene, he demands sexual favors from the heroine because she has no money for a fix. In an earlier scene it was established that he is her counselor. That scene and another where Jim Brown forces her to take a scalding hot shower because she stinks are hysterical. Lead actress Cheryl Kay was really good in this film. Tarantino, bring her back.<br /><br />It's not surprising to me that someone mentioned in another review that Tarantino is a major fan of this. It has just the right blend of comedy, action, sex, romance, and yes a central message to stay away from drugs. Jim Brown's villainous turn here deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as another great 80's B villain, Wings Hauser in Vice Squad. Sometimes I think there should be a b movie Oscars where performances like this could be acknowledged. In the meantime let's hope that the modern straight to DVD filmmakers learn learn to use this same type of tongue in cheek humor.
|
positive
|
You can often tell a movie didn't turn out like it should by the heavy use of a narrator. This film features this device throughout. Richard Jobson not entirely content to write direct and even fund some of this film adds to his credits by reading excerpts of his own semi- autobiographical writing which combined with some pretty editing manages to gloss over what is a dull depressing tale which he must be mistaking for genuine art-house. Kevin McKidd puts in a good performance. Everyone else is okay.<br /><br />Budget constraints meant that all scenes are shot in daylight though most are obviously meant to be at night, though if you know serious alcoholics they mainly operate in the day so for me it adds a touch of realism.<br /><br />The funniest part of this film is a waitress who fails to age a single day in the 20 odd years that elapse between her appearances - a more extreme version of the problem McKidd has who goes from 18 to 30 without changing more than his clothes. Bless.
|
negative
|
i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.<br /><br />there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are "fair targets" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.<br /><br />pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window.
|
positive
|
Oh. Good. Grief.<br /><br />I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought "I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad". Well, I was half right.<br /><br />This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.<br /><br />Low-budget does not always mean "bad" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.<br /><br />See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.
|
negative
|
Where to start, where to start....hmmm...well how about some of the stiffest, most unnatural, unbelievable and camped-up performances one can imagine? How about stereotypical "characters", situations and locations? Or what about a manipulative, cloying, utterly wretched script? I can't think of one element in this movie that was original, worthy of watching or interesting.<br /><br />Note to all you Josh Hartnett/Chris Klein/LeeLee Sobieski fans - enjoy their collective fifteen minutes, folks, because they're not going to be famous much longer...
|
negative
|
This is a great movie. The best role Peter Strauss ever did. The music is good, the message harsh, the actors great and the story is both emotional and raw. Only in the seventies did they make them like this one!
|
positive
|
To a certain extent, I actually liked this film better than the original VAMPIRES. I found that movie to be quite misogynistic. As a woman and a horror fan, I'm used to the fact that women in peril are a staple of the genre. But they just slap Sheryl Lee around way too much. In this movie, Natasha Wagner is a more fully-realized character, and the main bad guy is a gal! Arly Jover (who played a sidekick vamp in BLADE) is very otherworldly and deadly. Jon Bon Jovi... okay, yeah, no great actor, but he does OK. At least he doesn't start to sing. Catch it on cable if you can. It's on Encore Action this month.
|
positive
|
In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello
.Reality check time
. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio.
|
negative
|
I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best "teenager" horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless "Saint Ange".) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.<br /><br />With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clichés are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.<br /><br />The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; "How can two people build an entire house of wax?", "Where do they get all the wax from?". These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.<br /><br />So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now.
|
positive
|
A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.<br /><br />First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.<br /><br />Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.<br /><br />If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.
|
positive
|
The BBC surpassed themselves with the boundaries they crossed with Tipping the Velvet. In the past they've been 'daring' with Dennis Potter's works but this mini-series (as it was screened in the UK) is superb. Andrew Davies work is top notch - I've not read the Sarah Water's novel but I can imagine he's done it real justice. I comment on the bawdiness - most men have watched it for that - proved to be a main talking and selling point when originally advertised. The fact is, it portays the lesbian side of society in the 1800s - a time when most thought it was old men and rent boys - well it was - lesbianism took place mainly behind closed and often respectable doors.<br /><br />You can also look at Tipping The Velvet as a 'love story' - it actually is - as well as 'self discovery' that many gay/bi and straight people go through and comments on this occur and repeat all the time.<br /><br />If you've not seen it yet - either repeated on TV or on DVD - get it - you'll be in for a treat - and even the production and filming of it is perfect. Just try to hide your blushes in parts - like I said - 'bawdy' is the order of the day - and beware a 'phallus' or two!<br /><br />Enjoy!
|
positive
|
It's a funny business, reviewing movies. These days when "internalized emotions" and "emotional detachment" are favored over straightforward sentimentality, it must be hard to stay faithful to your true feelings.<br /><br />Soon after completing jury duties at the 58th Berlinale, I managed to catch Yoji Yamada's Kabei.<br /><br />After the screening, I watched folks dreamily amble out of the theatre hall, watery-eyed, men, women, and reviewers alike. Even the director of the Berlinale, obviously a hardened viewer of cinema, confessed to having been caught unawares and found himself crying three quarter's way into this unashamedly sentimental experience.<br /><br />But what really surprised me were the reviews that came after. Despite being ineffably moved by the film, many reviewers chose to be tepid and emotionally non-committal in their writing. Apparently, post weeping, they had put on their "thinking cap", and consequently, missed out on what I felt was the genius about Kabei.<br /><br />Allow me to explain.<br /><br />Set in pre-war Japan, the story of Kabei revolves around one writer's family, and their fate therein, after he is held in jail for what was described as "thought crimes" against the Imperial will. Through a series of protracted emotional scenes, Yamada gets us familiar with the man, his loyal wife and two daughters, as well as three side charactersthe man's pretty young sister, a bumbling ex-student, and a cad of an uncle all come to help the family cope with their plight, in the absence of the man of the house.<br /><br />The story moves along at a slow albeit steady pace, and heartbreaks occur at precisely the moments everyone is able to predict. This of course makes it near impossible for anyone in the audience to get too emotionally distraught by any dramatic event.<br /><br />In other words, although you learn to love the family and their helpers, and sympathize with their unfortunate situation, you get so lulled by the certainty of the plot that you find yourself expecting a particular kind of ending.<br /><br />However, two hours into the film (don't worry, Yamada provides the viewer with sufficient moments of gravity and levity to tide you along), he slaps you with what I can only describe as "the sting". All that you have assumed to be what the story was aboutan innocent man wrenched from his faithful wife and daughters now suddenly points to one of the family helpers. Someone you have hitherto taken for granted is now thrown into an unexpected twist of fate.<br /><br />At this point, something curious happened in the theatre I was in. Everyone started sobbing with little or no inhibition.<br /><br />"My word!" I muttered under my breath. It struck me then that "Kabei", in the final analysis, was more than a film about a family torn apart by an empire on the verge of war. It was, in fact, a cunning examination of one common human foible: How little we cared about the secret feelings of people who are closest to us.<br /><br />Now, the most common criticism made about the film was that it was technically solid, but lacked innovation. That's what happens when reviewers put on their proverbial thinking cap, I guess. With Kabei, I believe Yoji Yamada knew exactly what trick he was going to employ to touch on one unique aspect of humanity. A wicked old trick he so seamlessly applied in the Tora-san series, and later, in Tasogare Sebei.<br /><br />After lulling the audience into a sort of narrative comfort zone, he throws us into a realm of emotions rarely explored in cinema.<br /><br />This, to me, is the most effective cinematic tool of all. One which avoids detection, but affects you deeply. And proof of its effectiveness was a thousand wet pieces of Kleenex, thrown into a litter bin just outside of that thousand-seater cinema hall.<br /><br />Now if only some reviewers would resist being so caught up with being smart that they forget what cinema is really about. Human emotions. Pure and simple.
|
positive
|
I have seen this movie many times and i never get sick of it. it is about a man coming out of the closet, that he doesn't know he is in. Kevin Kline's character is a teacher and when one of his former students announces Kline's character is gay the people in his town start to speculate whether he is straight or gay. Kline's character starts to wonder if he is straight or gay too. The acting is absolutely fabulous and hilarious by all the cast. I found the movie very funny and heart-warming. i love this movie, it makes you laugh and makes you feel good while watching it. i recommend this movie to everyone, you will have a great time watching it.
|
positive
|
Night of the Demons (1988) was another in a long line of "teen" horror films that were released on video and pay-t.v. during that mecca of film making the eighties. But unlike most of the crap that was being peddled around, this one was actually a decent watch. A group of bored "teenagers" decide to party Halloween night away with a pair of bizarre sisters (Mimi Kinkade and Linnea Quigley) at the infamous Hull House. Your usual cast of stereotypical teenagers are invited to the party. But an average teenage bash turns into a night of terror as they try to survive Halloween night when they undead residents of Hull House decide to crash the party. Who'll survive this night of bloodshed and horror?<br /><br />A nice horror film that is best seen in the unrated version. If you watch the R-Rated cut then you'll miss all of the splatter effects and nudity. Stay tune for the amusing epilogue! A gory film that was followed by an equally entertaining sequel. For horror fans only!<br /><br />Highly recommended.
|
positive
|
"Der Todesking" is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry
Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous "Nekromantik", exists of seven short episodes one for each day of the week revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, "Der Todesking" is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, "Der Todesking" isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful but also indispensable aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too!
|
positive
|
First ever viewing: July 21, 2008<br /><br />Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.<br /><br />One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!<br /><br />Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made.
|
positive
|
The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the "monster" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the "terrified" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst "Alien" rip-off around (the two "Xtro" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
Syriana swept the critics upon release and everything seemed to be raving about it. I suppose it's one of those films that is intensely intelligent...so intelligent that I think you need to be well versed in the oil industry and a politically brilliant mind. I don't consider myself unintelligent, I've been studying politics since my early teens and I enjoy an intelligent film but for the most part unless it's a documentary films are meant to be primarily entertaining as well as have a message. Syriana tried to be strictly intelligent and it does turn some people away. I would even go so far as to say that those who rave about it and insist it's a 10/10 are lying because they think they look better. This film was the most confusing, senseless, mindless dribble I have seen in awhile...Especially considering the critical acclaim, the Oscar nods, and the cast. Screenplay writer Stephen Gaghan has disappointed me yet again. His horribly written Havoc preceded this film and I think he's just trying way too hard. I can't believe he was offered the opportunity to write the Da Vinci Code screenplay. On top of that Gaghan directed the film which made it an absolute mess. I had no idea who anyone was, why things were happening, who was who and what was what. It was a disaster.<br /><br />Because I don't really know who anyone was I can only mention the actors and what I thought of their performances because despite the horrendously complicated script the actors did alright. George Clooney plays C.I.A. field agent and assassin I think?? Bob Barnes. Clooney has never been a favorite of mine but lately he's managed to churn out some decent performances and this seemed to be a pretty good performance on his part. Barnes was a complex character with a sordid history and if I knew what was going on with him I would have really enjoyed his character. Matt Damon plays Bryan Woodman and he is rather bland and always looks like a deer in the headlights which I can understand his confusion after reading this script and then trying to perform it. Amanda Peet plays his wife and she does well in the few scenes she is given. Christopher Plummer makes a cameo appearance as someone doing something. I like Plummer and love seeing him show up even if he doesn't get top billing anymore.<br /><br />The cast is intense if only the story made sense. I'd like to exact quote the description of plot on IMDb. "A missile disappears in Iran, but the CIA has other problems: the heir to an Emirate gives an oil contract to China, cutting out a US company that promptly fires its immigrant workers and merges with a small firm that has landed a Kazakhstani oil contract. The Department of Justice suspects bribery, and the oil company's law firm finds a scapegoat. The CIA also needs one when its plot to kill the Emir-apparent fails. Agent Bob Barnes, the fall guy, sorts out the double cross. An American economist parlays the death of his son into a contract to advise the sheik the CIA wants dead. The jobless Pakistanis join a fundamentalist group. All roads start and end in the oil fields." WHAT!?!? Say who now?? Syriana might be the thinking man's movie but it bored me to tears and no matter how hard I tried to stay with it I eventually surrendered and turned it off after an hour and a half and you couldn't have bribed me enough to get me to finish it. I suppose if you want to form an opinion than by all means watch it but I promise you someone looking for entertainment or an enjoyable film will be asleep in the first half hour. 1/10
|
negative
|
Barney and friends...the Dora the explorer of the 1990s.<br /><br />OK, i'll admit it. as a kid, barney was my ultimate hero. i had my barney plush toy and i used to watch the same barney episodes over and over on videotape. maybe cause it was so sugar coated and mind-numbing.<br /><br />However, by the time i turned 7, i started to hate barney. everyone at school would Dis barney, and i went along with it (mainly because it was funny) and it's what little boys do. but a few years later, I discovered something else about barney that i will never forget.<br /><br />a person known on the IMDb as Angel_meiru did an Essay for school, explaining the dangers of watching barney, and he or she posted it in the message boards. a lot of those dangers made sense.<br /><br />Barney is a dinosaur who can magically come to life during a day at school. he is supposedly educational, or so Sheryl Leach (Barney's Creator) says, but really, all i can remember him teaching me, is that magic can solve anything, which is not true.<br /><br />to end off this comment, I'd like to tell you a little story. There was once a young boy who watched a particular episode of barney. one day, he was alone, when a stranger lured him into his car and drove away with him. i don't know the outcome (but it's safe to assume the child died) but why was he abducted in the first place? because he watched the Barney and friends episode titled "A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet." <br /><br />0/10
|
negative
|
Ponyo is a beautiful animated film with some dark undertones. It features a kid-sized story of longing and love with ecological implications, but it is not preachy. Hayao Miyazaki has fused Andersen's Little Mermaid with Japan's native myths and his trademark steam punk flights of fancy, and the result is very rewarding. There are some scary moments of oceanside storms and flooding, but they are thrilling, not horrific.<br /><br />If you've ever wanted to run with the waves along the shore, ride on a jellyfish as an elevator, completely transform yourself, or make a friend for life, Ponyo is a fable for you.
|
positive
|
Deep Water (2006) ****<br /><br />"It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you to make one slip up." Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it. <br /><br />After the first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day. He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go after all, they ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over. <br /><br />The details of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa (certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home, he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon thereafter. <br /><br />Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. Our dreams so often turn into fears, and the consequences of our actions often leave us so few options for a happy ending. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it progresses. <br /><br />There are also inquiries into some of the other competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family. <br /><br />To read briefly on the Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels.
|
positive
|
OK...i have seen just about everything....and some are considered classics that shouldn't be ( like all those Halloween movies that suck crap or even Steven king junk).......and some are considered just OK that are really great.....( like carnival of souls )........and then some are just plain ignored............like ( evil ed ) or ( pumpkin head and brain dead "the bud Cort one" ) then some stick in your head once seen and never leave...........that's what this did to me........and for my money this is much better than last house on the left............last house was great till the ending...then it blew chunks.....what kind of dummy is gonna give a blow job to someone who just killed their kids ????.completely stupid ..go find the movie "bully" or even "funny games" if ya want realism and to be creep ed out.........but this damn thing stuck with me for years.........one cause chuck Connors always was scary.........two Tanya Roberts is the best female victim ever........three the chick being smothered in plaster still is one of the all time worst killings on film........and 4th the telekinetic powers thing blew my mind and came totally unexpected.......not to mention the dummies wax figures puppets etc.......it should be right there with psycho,last house,Texas chainsaw,etc....... it's a classic..............and deservedly so...........
|
positive
|
I was 15 years old when this movie premiered on the television. Being raised in Texas, I understood the boredom & monotony of teenage life there. This movie touched my impressionable teenage heart & I remembered it fondly through the past 12 years. I recently got to see it for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th times thanks the the LOVE channel. I still cry because the movie reaches in & touches my inner confused teenager.
|
positive
|
I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I.<br /><br />For that matter, I think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to the "How to be a Man" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w/ Joan Cusack are three of the funniest scenes in any movie.<br /><br />Sure, the last scene is a bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect.
|
positive
|
Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.<br /><br />This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap.
|
negative
|
The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.
|
negative
|
A wide variety of snakes stage an uprising on tourists "invading" their island due their captain's boat damage. The few remaining survivors who aren't caught vulnerable by the snakes will attempt an escape mission, their goal to flee to available boats which can get them safely off the island.<br /><br />Presented straight-faced with injected doses of visual humor featuring lots of snake gags, Wayne Crawford's SNAKE ISLAND features plenty of different breeds of the slithery predators, in striking position, ready to attack their prey. Star William Katt, as an author researching snakes for a forthcoming novel, has fun in his role along with writer / director / co-star Wayne Crawford(..as the tourist boat captain) as put-upon heroes who stare down a most serious crisis. Kate Connor is Crawford's attractive love interest, a lawyer on vacation. The other cast members serve as either tourists or crew, mostly fodder for the snakes. <br /><br />As in many other movies of this type, director Crawford features live snakes with computer generated ones, and the violence is really tame. Crawford even incorporates the point-of-view technique with the camera as the eyes of the snake as it faces the potential victim(..with the actor looking directly into the camera). Never to be taken seriously, the tongue-in-cheek approach was probably the best way to shoot SNAKE ISLAND because the premise is just too ridiculous to accept on it's own.<br /><br />The effects and suspense scenes rarely work because Crawford is often unable to successfully stage the sequences where humans face off with the snakes. The snake attacks themselves also never happen on screen(..one or two tops), or are so limply presented they leave little impression. That's a no-no for a genre such as this. Fans of Katt will probably want to check it out because he does provide some facial comedy that establishes the overall tone of certain scenes where he must defend himself against the snakes. The CGI scenes where we see a large number of snakes in a general area aren't very effective which remove the realism Crawford might've attempted to establish. There are plenty of better horror films featuring snakes as the aggressors than SNAKE ISLAND. Surprising moments of nudity, relegated to a scene where the tourists and crew unwind after a long day with the bubbly, not knowing what danger lie ahead.
|
negative
|
One of the great mysteries of life, suffered from daily, is why nice girls so often are more interested in the jerks and heels than in the nice guys.<br /><br />Worse, when the nice guys even want to marry those girls, the girls STILL prefer the jerks and heels, even after the jerks and heels have shown their contempt, have shown they're just interested in using the girls.<br /><br />Stu Erwin is the nice guy, who continues to be nice after being lied to and cheated and even after losing the girl completely.<br /><br />Clark Gable is the jerk, and he is perfect in the role, rather a sad note to his fans.<br /><br />Jean Harlow comes across as a more slender Mae West, even sounding like La West in some of her cynical throwaway lines.<br /><br />Somewhat puzzling is that so many of the other characters, intended to be bad guys -- I mean, heck, they're locked up, so they must be -- are so obviously nice people.<br /><br />In fact, there are lots of nice people here, people who, in a lesser film or story, would be snarling and back-stabbing but here go out of their way to help someone else.<br /><br />So, maybe the story is rather clichéd, at least by modern standards, but ultimately the viewer will be glad to have watched.<br /><br />The biggest complaint I have is that so many really good actors are not given credit. Once again, we can say a fervent "Thank You" to IMDb.com.
|
positive
|
For those of you looking for the crazy stunts that typified a Harold Lloyd silent comedy, this is not the film for you. What The Cat's-Paw gives us is an interesting and atypical character for Lloyd who was trying to establish himself in sound.<br /><br />For me the closest movie comparison to Lloyd's character is that of Peter Sellers in Being There. For all the education that Lloyd has received in dealing with the world, he might as well have been brought up in isolation as Sellers was.<br /><br />But where he was brought up was as a missionary's child in China and I don't know how much Christianity he and his family were able to teach the Chinese, but young Harold has learned the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Lin Po whom he quotes constantly like a fortune cookie aphorism. As it turns out Lin Po turns out to be one wise dude.<br /><br />Anyway Lloyd's father Samuel S. Hinds has decided his son needs some education in the modern world of 20th century America and he sends him back to be the guest of the pastor of the home church which sponsors the mission. The pastor there is the perennial candidate of the 'reform' movement of that town of Stockport. But no sooner does Lloyd arrive and the pastor dies.<br /><br />Now the reform movement is a sham and the pastor a patsy of the political bosses who need a straw-man opponent in every election. They decide Lloyd just might be a better patsy than the guy who just died.<br /><br />Of course as it goes in these type of films the patsy proves to be not so easy a proposition. In fact Lloyd constantly quoting from Lin Po, the way Charlie Chan used to dispense wisdom proves quite the adversary for the crooks who run Stockport. In addition Lloyd gains the admiration of Una Merkel, as cynical a dame as Jean Arthur was in Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith. <br /><br />The Cat's-Paw is still a nice political satire though it did not establish Harold Lloyd as big a comedy name as he was in silent films. A nice cast of players was selected by director Sam Taylor topped by George Barbier who plays a political boss who discovers Lloyd and actually proves to have a streak of honesty in him.
|
positive
|
This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career.
|
negative
|
An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history.
|
positive
|
I got to see an early preview of this movie and I hope they have time to edit it in what ever way they can to improve on it before it comes out Aug 3rd. It stars Andy Samberg from Saturday Night Live as 'Hot' Rod Kimble. He's plays a teenager in a small town who wants to be a stunt man like his late father. When we meet him, he's jumping a mail truck on his mo-ped, yes, a mo-ped, and almost makes it. This would be worthy of a 'Jackass' movie if he wasn't honestly trying to do this. Isla Fisher plays the slightly older and much more mature girl-next-door, Denise. She seems to like Rod enough to join his 'crew'. Jorma Taccone (also SNL) plays his half brother, Kevin, who documents the stunts with a camcorder. Sissy Spacek plays Rod's mom, Marie. She remarried Frank Powell, played by Ian McShane. Frank's a real tough guy who enjoys beating Rod in some real drag out brawls. It's clear that Rod's not going to earn Frank's respect till he can beat him. We find out Frank needs a $50,000. heart transplant and Rod is determined to raise the money just so he 'can beat his ass' once he's healed, and prove himself a man. A long fall down a mountain side convinces Rod to 'go big' on one stunt. Rod sets out to get seed money by charging for doing stunts that would make you cringe if you saw them in real life. Like the human torch- at a children's birthday party. There were those at the showing who managed to laugh at most of the stunts. Just when all hope and money is lost, along comes a sponsor who saves the day by getting the 15 school buses Rod wants to jump. He gets exclusive broadcast rights and sets up phone lines to get donations. Rod gets a new outfit and a real motorcycle. The whole town turns out and the world tunes in. Does he make the jump? Does he get the girl? Do they raise the $50k? Does Frank get his ass beat by Rod? Wait till this 90 minute movie comes out on video to find out.
|
negative
|
I resisted watching 15 Park Avenue despite of recommendations, discarding the movie as a clichéd topic of extreme emotional dramas and over-the-top acting.<br /><br />Once in a while, movies like 15 Park Avenue come by and sweep you off your feet.<br /><br />The movie grasps your attention pretty early on and there is no moment to rest after that. Aparna Sen has done a wonderful job of gluing the audience to every line of the movie. The impeccable character development, "just right" amount of emotions and an enigmatic end to match it all...<br /><br />I have a renewed respect for Konkana Sen Sharma, who convincingly plays the schizophrenic Mithi. She beats expectation yet again after Page-3 and Mr.& Mrs.Iyer. Prof. Anjali's role is very well developed and Shabana does full justice to the character. Rahul Bose, Shefali Chaya, Waheeda Rehman add incredible flavor to the movie.<br /><br />I define "shower moments" as thoughts of scenes from a movie that you ponder over in your shower endlessly, till your wife/girlfriend/mom bangs at the door. 15PA delivers many "shower moments" especially the conversation between Anjali and her mother where the mother is cautious when talking to Anjali about her thoughts. It immediately brings out Anjali's personality to the audience.<br /><br />The end is a very bold statement by the director; probably too westernized for the Indian audience; yet delivers the elements to promote the movie from a "good" to a "great" status.
|
positive
|
Look, we rated this a 10 on entertainment value. It's a comedy sure, not an epic like Lord of the Rings, or Gone with the Wind. Still for comedy, particularly these days, it's a 10.<br /><br />Not a long movie, moves quickly and easily. Kelsey Grammar right at home is this role as a loose but brilliant captain of a diesel sub, pitted against the US Nuclear Navy in a war game, designed to see if Terrorists could get a nuclear bomb through our defenses. (kinda ironic this plot...pre 911) Don't take this topic seriously cause it's mostly laughs from start to finish.<br /><br />Rob Schneider is 2nd in command (like "Frank Burns") and pulls many laughs. All the others are perfect for their parts as well. Rip Torn and Bruce Dern.<br /><br />Look plain and simple, you got 90 minutes and need a laugh or pick me up and you're not a prude (their is some language and innuendo) then rent it, or buy it (we did) and enjoy! I wish they would make a part 2!
|
positive
|
I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.<br /><br />This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.<br /><br />Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.
|
negative
|
R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.<br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.<br /><br />Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other
Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35
. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin
Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.<br /><br />Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The "Satyagrah" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.<br /><br />On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar!
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.