review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Glenn Ford is hired by a crooked bank owner and wily stable owner Edger Buchanan to stage a fake robbery while the banker hides the real loot. With Ford a no-show, the two instead go with a trigger happy second choice, leaving Ford on the hook for killings he didn't commit.<br /><br />Columbia Pictures' first color feature, The Desperadoes looks fantastic with sets and costumes fabricated to take full advantage of the Technicolor process accentuating tons of well staged western spectacle.<br /><br />This has the irresistible teaming of a young Glenn Ford (third-billed but essentially the star) and a prime Randolph Scott leading an incredible supporting cast of great character actors in colorful roles, including scene-stealer Edger Buchanan as a good-natured but mildly villainous yokel who isn't as dumb as he looks and who has quite a few memorable lines.<br /><br />A fairly complex script effectively mixes incredible action sequences, melodrama, and comedy, well directed by Charles Vidor. This is one of the great westerns of the nineteen-forties and highly recommended. | positive |
First of all I'd like to start by saying it's a refreshing start to see a British Drama that finally looks and feels believable. <br /><br />Patrick Stewart does the role justice as (Ian Hood), the government Science adviser, with his constant and unwavering views on authority and thoughts about the future of "real world" science and how he feels It's either being used or abused by others. <br /><br />Not only is the casting thoroughly maintained all the way throughout the Series, but it makes it's characters seem more believable than most other British Drama's. <br /><br />Ashley Jensen also delivers a first rate performance as Dr. Hood's Appointed bodyguard (Rachael Young), she brings a refreshing take on the unscientific, Uninterested everyday views of science, and her constant battling with Hood makes for some very funny and memorable moments between them.<br /><br />The way the series keeps all the scientific elements more realistic I Find positive and more engaging than the psychobabble we are so used to in other Fiction or Science Fiction TV shows. <br /><br />There are however notable disappointments with the series, every time an Episode ends I find myself disappointed that they didn't seem to cover all aspects of the plot and sometimes leaving open-ended stories unclosed. <br /><br />Although bearing in mind that this is still the first series, I hope that we see a return to form in the near future where these open ended stories can finally be given a significant conclusion they so rightly deserve.<br /><br />For those who enjoy more slow paced science related plot lines, this is the ideal show to watch as it always manages to stay believable and more Importantly to the point. | positive |
Something strange is happening in remote areas of the Arctic. An Air Force weather station is found wrecked, its occupants missing. An Eskimo village is destroyed. A fishing vessel disappears. Curious spoors are found in the snow. A four-foot piece of a living organism is found near a destroyed airplane. The piece looks like half of the claw of a giant Alaskan crab. The military (Craig Stevens as an Air Force officer) and its experts are baffled. A distinguished scientist (William Hopper) and his pretty assistant (Alix Taltan) are called in from New York. Hopper deduces from this flimsy evidence that they are dealing with a monstrous praying mantis. He's right. The pretty assistant happens to look out the window of the office and sees the hideous face with its bulging eyeballs staring in at her. She drops what she's carrying, claps her hands to her cheeks, and screams in horror.<br /><br />The mantis begins flying South along the Gulf Stream, pausing now and again to attack major population centers like Washington and New York to overturn buses and eat people. Military weapons don't affect it much but finally Stevens crashes into it in his jet fighter and mortally damages the beast, which comes to earth and occupies the "Manhattan Tunnel" linking New York and New Jersey.<br /><br />Stevens, having survived the collision, leads his team into the tunnel and kills the big bug with "3RG mines" despite its fierce appearance, threatening behavior, and earth-shattering roars. Stevens and Taltan kiss in front of the body while Hopper chuckles and takes their picture.<br /><br />Ho hum.<br /><br />Like the deadly mantis itself, the formula by this time was panting and gasping for air, flopping around, seeking as its prey not human beings but anything at all in the way of a fresh or original idea. As it is, they overlooked one cliché. Hopper should have hurriedly had to invent a Super Duper DDT that, alone, could defeat the insect. That's what the 3RG mines should have been filled with, rather than ordinary explosive.<br /><br />The model work is pretty good, considering what the budget must have been. Not much money could have been spent on anything else because everything else is pretty routine. Craig Stevens is bland, a face and style made for a TV series. William Hopper looks right -- tall and silver haired -- but his instrument has only one note. The pretty assistant is rather plain, considering her role. The part calls for Joan Weldon or Laurie Nelson. They couldn't act either but carried with them slight but distinct intimations of molestibility. Anything would have helped this fagged-out movie.<br /><br />I wish the deadly mantis hadn't roared so loudly and so often because you can't roar -- you can't even whisper -- if you don't have lungs. I didn't mind, though, when the monster met its demise in the tunnel. A praying mantis is a graceful insect in its own spindly way and it's great to have them in the garden because they eat caterpillars and whatnot. But when you get right down to it, they aren't really very appealing. The male mantis is smaller and weaker than the female, as in humans, and when the couple are just about through copulating, the female bites the head off the male, also as in humans. But at least human males know when to stop. The male mantis keeps on copulating for several minutes even though he is now without a head. We humans don't have mindless males copulating with goal-driven females. Do we? | negative |
the film looks like as if the director was forced to make this movie by some gang of terrorists . it should actually be called dino crap.<br /><br />there is nothing good about this movie.. even the actors are not worth a penny. don't waste your time watching this movie. the director should be shot in the head for having the mentality to create such a bad movie . i mean isn't he ashamed of looking at peoples faces after they have seen his movie ? the dinocroc looks as if it was made in power point and pretty much cut-and-paste stuff. and its the same old story . man plays god . creates some creature . it escapes and is happy eating people . and finally a pretty girl and a guy in a sleeveless shirt has to come and kill it . bla bla.. u will figure out the plot in the first 5 minutes of the movie | negative |
The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).<br /><br />If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.<br /><br />The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.<br /><br />No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.<br /><br />I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance. | negative |
I saw this when I was 17 and haven't seen it since. The 'CBS Late Movie' used to show it on a regular basis at one point. I remember how sad and upsetting it was, it truly made me sick to my stomach. Effects then weren't what they are today, but nevertheless, it conveyed the feeling of being alone in the Amazon, after losing both parents and searching for a way out, very well. I remember the bugs and maggots the most, so realistic they were, eating her flesh. It's a dark film which was controversial subject matter at the time, even though likely it was strongly edited for TV. I wish I remembered more details, and if I ever get the chance to see it again, I can comment more. I have been looking for this for years. I believe it may have been shown on CBS under yet another title. I have no idea whether it was ever released on video. | positive |
NYC model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) rents a room in an old brownstone where she meets a few bizarre neighbors and experiences some creepy hallucinations. As lawyer boyfriend Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) goes about making inquiries on her behalf, she struggles to maintain her sanity (not to mention her will to live) as her experiences take a toll on her physical, mental, and emotional health.<br /><br />I don't want to spoil the better moments in this psychological horror film for those unfamiliar with it. The story is interesting and entertaining, but the film doesn't really offer much in terms of real scares. Or, for that matter, any atmosphere. It is sort of quietly sinister, but it's not like the traditional horror film. It's more of a story about a troubled woman's attempts to deal with the increasing unreality in her life. On that level, it works, but it's not quite powerful enough.<br /><br />What "The Sentinel" *does* offer are some eye-catching set pieces (in particular, the fascinating, fabulously creepy climax, and there's a scene with Beverly D'Angelo that must be seen to be believed). There's also some gore to be seen, but not very much. An ominous music score by Gil Melle adds to the menace.<br /><br />No review of this film would be complete without an appraisal for the film-makers in gathering such excellent actors for its ensemble cast. Some of them don't get to do too much, but to see all of them together is impressive. Eli Wallach and Burgess Meredith make the biggest impressions as, respectively, a hard-nosed detective and a solicitous neighbor. Other legendary names include Jose Ferrer, Arthur Kennedy, and Ava Gardner. Future stars like D'Angelo, Christopher Walken, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum make brief appearances, and other familiar faces include Jerry Orbach, Sylvia Miles, William Hickey, and Martin Balsam. Whoever was the casting director for this film deserves some sort of prize.<br /><br />Written for the screen by director Michael Winner, probably best known for the "Death Wish" series that he did with Charles Bronson, from the novel by Jeffrey Konvitz.<br /><br />I wouldn't consider this a truly great horror thriller but it has its moments and is reasonably entertaining.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
DeNiro is a master...one of my favourites. And I love GOOD sports movies {not into baseball so much, but hey, its sports movies, right?. I was expecting MUCH more for this movie. It seems to start out well: DeNiro is what I expected, Snipes {whom I don't really like} is very good as the spoiled star. Barkin's role, to me, was OK. She's a good actress, but seemed out of place in this role. To me, they always seemed to rush the scenes, and then it drags a bit in places. It just seemed tio me to be so uneven! Considering the cast and the plot, it could have been so much better. I rated it a '4', and I was being generous ~ I'm a tough one with numbers! | negative |
I am a fan of the previous Best of the Best films. But this one was awful. No wonder I had such a hard time finding it. I tried 4 video rental stores, until I found one with a copy of this movie. The acting was terrible, the plot was a joke, and the action was bad as well.<br /><br />I really miss Alex Grady, Travis Brigley, and the original kickboxing characters and theme that this film had with the first 2 movies.<br /><br />John | negative |
I caught this filmshow about the most unlikely, success? ,from a lower league, football team. The plot is thick and roles out some great tenuous twists and turns. Intercut with shots and commentary from the 70's .I was taken aback by its shear footy fun.<br /><br />A great cast includes the excellent Tim Healy as the crazed(drunk) manager , bumbling along hanging on to anything that will make his team win...? I keep remembering bits such as the stolen secret file that Don Revie( Super leeds united and england manager-loved by the fans hated by everyone else)has on Bostock United ( the underfelt men) which in its detailed report of their opposition, Bostock United, in this the FA Cup final, merely says "Sh-te".<br /><br />Lots of other footy gags a long time before the fantastic feature length "Mike Basset - Football Manager" Starring Ricky Tomlinson.<br /><br />Up there with the, Gung ho English beating Germans, at football. Well morally.Although the score lines says different , of "Escape to Victory" ( I still cheer when England score )<br /><br />And the thankless eternal grind of following a really bad team in Micheal Palins "Golden Gordon" from "Ripping Yarns" series ( with Terry Jones)the team were called Bostonworth United ,in case your interested.<br /><br />I've looked high and low for a copy of Bostock's Cup-even Nick Hancock's biography doesn't list it ( probably someone -not mr hancocks- error)<br /><br />Play it again or sell me a copy- PLEASE.... | positive |
Sometimes it is funny to watch films implode from your couch, but other times it is just horribly painful to both your eyes and your mind. House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute is one of those rare examples of when both your eyes and your mind are pleading with you to turn the film off. This final installment to the House Party series is by far the worst, not just sequel, but film released by Hollywood. It becomes very apparent early on in this "feature" that director Chris Stokes loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a passion. I say this because it becomes very clear that Stokes had no trouble lifting the originality of Bueller off John Hughes' hands and choosing to create a film completely void of humor. You would think that by "stealing" themes and images from a funnier film, your own film would at least be able to generate a giggle or two. With House Party 4, Stokes proved that he does not have what it takes to direct a sequel, much less a Hollywood film. From his confusing and choppy story, the inability to make sense of his characters, and recycled old/tired cliché moments, all Stokes is doing is hitting a bigger nail into the coffin that holds the House Party films. It reminds me of that student that forgets about his project due in an hour and quickly slops together super glue, macaroni, cat hair, chewing gum, and straws and presents it as "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". It just looks horrible and you feel embarrassed for the creator.<br /><br />So, where did this film first take the plunge into the realm of comic stupidity? Honestly, I do not think that most places will allow me to speak that long, so instead I would like to hit upon some of the larger topics that hit me the hardest. To begin, I still cannot shake the Ferris Beuller rip-off. It was as if director Stokes was ashamed of having to direct another sequel to House Party and decided to bring in a completely random formula (from a funnier film) and see if he could cut and paste elements from the original series into that formula. That was a huge mistake. When a director tries to do this, what eventually happens is confusion within the audience. We think that we are going in one direction, but instead we head in another one. That is exactly what you can witness in House Party 4. In one instance we have John-John trying to have the "biggest party of the decade" while also trying to score a record deal (ok, kinda reminds me of the original House Party), but then we whisk away to this random island where Uncle Charles is afraid of flying, Grandma gets drunk, and some idiotic mind-dulling moments with a supposed killer. Again, we begin somewhat strong, and end chaotic. This is the confusion in which I speak. Director Stokes did not have the ability to keep his hand on either the pulse of humor or the ability to tell a sequential story. He would rather cut corners, keep the jokes cheap, and think that the audiences are idiots than attempt to revive a stone-dead series. One would think that when a director was handed that task of filming another House Party film he would walk into it thinking that he/she would be the one to revive it or bring it back to life, instead Stokes just wanted to get paid.<br /><br />I realize that I am slowly growing older as the days go quickly by, but I do believe I still keep my hand in the younger generation's culture. I listened to rap and R&B growing up, but the group "Immature" never made it to either my cassette deck or my CD player. Why? I don't think they ever quite had a following, but apparently to director Chris Stokes, it would be beneficial to cast them as leads in his new House Party film. Didn't anyone at any studio realize that this was going to be in the red rather quickly? Or how about the option to have Stokes himself play the comedic car repairman, nothing like a director with no sense of comic timing casting himself as the only source of possible humor. It was one of those few instances when I actually missed Robin Harris, and I never thought I would find myself saying that to any film. Outside of a go-nowhere band playing the lead role, I also thought that the remainder of the cast only continued to suck the life out of this film. Uncle Charles was annoying when he attempted humor. Kim Whitely was completely wasted for her scenes (both literally and figuratively) while
well
everyone else pretty much falls into that category.<br /><br />Where did Chris Stokes spend most of the budget for this film? Not for special guest stars because while this film may have boasted some, there were definitely none present at the "unforgettable" House Party, nor the possible dream that perhaps Kid or Play would make one final appearance. House Party 4 followed no preset design, which ultimately ruined this feature from the foundation down. Can anyone explain to me why there was any need to use the "escaped murderer who happened to be a licensed taxicab driver" routine for humor? Stokes was reaching deep within the bottom of the barrel and only produced more muck instead of substance. For once I can admit to there being no redeeming value to this film. House Party 4 buried the series, and while I do hear that there may be more in the pipeline, I only hope Hollywood realizes that this series has died. Hollywood needs to let this series end, forget about the past and move forward in the future. I think a sequel to Who's the Man? would get them started in the right direction.<br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | negative |
This movie is horrendous. Decent fight scenes or not, the acting is REALLY bad, like you can tell they're reading their lines from a card. With painful line delivery by everyone in the cast. Think watching a high school play and cringing at the obvious lack of smoothness in the actor's interactions (weird pauses between different character's lines, combined with hurried line delivery by others). If the movie were all action, this might be forgivable, but a lot of the movie includes plot set-up and Family Guy style, irreverent cut aways (Oh, wow, are they badly done). I'm assuming they were attempting to be funny with these, but it again came off as a bunch of high-schoolers/ college entry students goofing off for the afternoon trying to set up a funny Youtube clip. <br /><br />Now to the fight scenes. They're not too bad, considering the level of quality seen everywhere else in the film. Nothing great either, certainly not anywhere near the same level as other posters have stated (Nothing like Drunken Master). The fights have an overly staged feel, with LOTS of cuts to different angles with blatantly different positions by those involved. <br /><br />In sum, the only reason to watch this movie is if you were one of the guy's friends involved with this very, very cheap production. Which guy you may ask? Oh, the same guy who wrote, directed, produced AND stared in this Middle School masterpiece. | negative |
God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess. | negative |
Stephen King TV movies can go 5 or 6 parts and no one complains, right? So why give the Stooges only 96 minutes? I'm not asking for a PBS mini-series, but would a two parter had killed anyone? The movie steamrolled over events that should have been mentioned and mentioned events that could have been omitted. I do want to give a salute to the performances of the stars...they had a tough job because they didn't really look like the Stooges, but the spirit was there. After watching the movie, I pulled out a tape from American Movie Classics that had the real deal on it and laughed myself silly. The movie was pretty tough emotionally, especially after Curly has the stroke and Moe needs to keep the business going. When Curley started crying I lost it...Like I said, the movie was good, but could have been and SHOULD have been much, much better. Maybe it's fitting though...the Stooges got ripped off when they were alive and now, 25 years later, it happens again. | negative |
I had read online reviews praising this obscure outing as a combination of gory horror, quirky black comedy and borderline art-house; the film has elements of all three, to be sure, but they are at the service of such a supremely silly premise (the title immediately gives the game away) and amateurish production to boot that its long-term neglect due to a lack of proper distribution basically until Cult Epics picked it up for DVD release a full 30 years after its inception! was no great loss to cinema or even the genre(s). The bed was apparently created for the purpose of accommodating a demon's dalliance with a woman; anyway, a dying man who had made use of the four-poster and even painted it ends up trapped in the wall behind the canvas(!) and provides intermittent commentary to the 'action'. Several people (from teenagers-on-a-fling to gangsters-in-hiding) supply fodder to the perennially-hungry bed; latest on the menu are a trio of girls one of whom, however, recalls its mistress of long ago and, consequently, the bed seemingly fears her! Seeing various objects from cigars to pieces of fried chicken and people getting swallowed up (the belly of the bed is depicted as a vat of honey-colored liquid) makes the film mildly amusing at times (especially when a young man's hands are reduced to their skeletal formation, which he seems to take rather too easily in his stride!), but also awfully repetitious
so that, at even a brief 77 minutes, the whole pointless exercise feels strained and downright desperate. | negative |
This movie could have been so much better with a script rewrite. Not that I expect a great deal of plausibility in movies, but you'd think that even the homeless and urban-dwelling Jack Mason would question why a group of experienced hunters would want to hire him as a hunting guide. And upon reaching the hunting grounds, poor Ice-T plays his part as if he is actually going to lead these men through woods he's never seen before.<br /><br />And how does Jack Mason find Thomas Burns back in Seattle?<br /><br />I'm assuming this movie was based on Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game." A few years ago I showed this movie to a class of 9th grade students after they read the story. I reedited the movie, cutting out all the pointless scenes and all the profanity. It ended up being 43 minutes long. | negative |
Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture.<br /><br />James Stewart was an actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job in portraying their characters.<br /><br />Although this is a "light Hitchcock", one can't dismiss it as a failure. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a change of pace for Hitchcock's fans. | positive |
Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since. <br /><br />Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.<br /><br />The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.<br /><br />A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.<br /><br />Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn. | positive |
A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.<br /><br />I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.<br /><br />THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.<br /><br />CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.<br /><br />The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.<br /><br />As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church. | positive |
Olivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard. | negative |
The Merchant of Four Seasons isn't what I would call a happy movie, at all, or even one that impressed me to the point of praising it to the sky (there are other Fassbinder flicks for that, like Veronika Voss and the underrated Satan's Brew). But it's certainly no less than a fascinating experiment in taking a look at those in a society that you and me and others we know might possibly know, or not really want to know. I imagine in the early 70s in Germany a generation, coming out of WW2, had a stigma to live with but tried their best just to get by. This is a stigma that floats all over this film, and in many instances in Fassbinder's work in general, but especially because with Four Seasons he takes his eye on the middle class, and a particular married couple- the distanced, depressed, angry Hans the fruit seller and his long-suffered wife- that is nothing short than trying for realism in the guise of melodrama. If Cassavetes were a crazy German he might make this film, maybe even as just a lark.<br /><br />The story sounds simple enough, where Hans' drinking gets out of control, he beats his wife (this scene is one of the toughest to take, maybe in just any movie, the way Fassbinder's camera lingers without a cut as his wife is left helpless and their daughter trying to stop him in his frenzy) and then she's ready to leave him. As he stands in the room, her family holding him back, she makes the call for divorce and he gets a heart attack right there. He recovers, his business suddenly starts booming again with some help from some good (or not so good) employees - and yet this only continues his longing, for another woman, and his despair in general.<br /><br />And yet it's in this simplicity that Fassbinder tries, and succeeds for the most part, in attaining a mood of dread, of a tense vibe in a kitchen or in the bedroom or out on the street that you can cut with a knife and bleed out. The weakest part of this all may be the acting... at least that was my initial impression. Hans, played by Hirschmuller, can be a stilted presence, with only the slightest movements in his face and eyes, and for a while it doesn't look like he's much of a good actor. The actress playing his wife, Irm Hermann, and her sister (Fassbinder Hanna Schygulla) fare better, but only cause they're given more to do conventionally, like cry or look concerned. It takes some time to adjust to what is, essentially, a void in his guy Hans, of something from his own psychological self-torment or self-pity that pervades himself and those around him who just want to get on with some sense of normalcy, especially once Hans gets successful.<br /><br />Not everything clicks together in The Merchant of Four Seasons, but enough did to make me recommend it to those looking for a different slice-of-life than you might be used to with more modern American movies. Fassbinder's world here is a combat between the melodrama he loves in cinema and the harsh, crushing sense of humanism that he feels personally and puts into characters that, for better or worse, we somehow identify with. Are the Epps a family you know of? Or could you even be them? Who's to say. It's a methodical study of tragic emptiness in the human spirit, and its goals are all attained. | positive |
Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (1980) was the second film to star to pot loving duo of Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong. The lovable burn out smokers are now roommates. They live in a condemned building looking for ways to score more smoke and just lay about all day. But Cheech is the "responsible" one. He has a job and a steady girlfriend. One day, Cheech wants to get his freak on so he tries to get Chong out of the house. Another problem arises as well, Cheech's brother "Red" (Cheech is another role) is in town and wants to hang with him. Firguring that he could kill two birds with one stone, Cheech pawns Chong off and Red. What kind of adventures will Chong and Red get into? Will Cheech get his freak on? How long will Chong go without some smoke? Just watch CHEECH & CHONG'S NEXT MOVIE to find out!!<br /><br />Tommy Chong takes over the directorial reigns for the sequel. He received some experience when he did some uncredited work on UP IN SMOKE. Funny but not as good as the first film. But Cheech and Chong fans will enjoy it. Followed by NICE DREAMS.<br /><br />Recommended. | positive |
There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment. Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior. Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway?"). Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is. Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays; here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial). At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering. It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf. The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace; one loses hope for it early on. *1/2 from **** | negative |
I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.<br /><br />I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of "one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium".<br /><br />Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it! | negative |
This is one of those landmark films which needs to be situated in the context of time.Darkness in Tallinn was made in 1993.It was a period of chaos,confusion and gross disorder not only for ordinary denizens of Estonia but also for countless citizens of other former nations which were a part of mighty Soviet empire.It was in such a tense climate that a young country named Estonia was born.As newly established governments are known to encounter teething problems,Estonia too faced numerous troubles as some corrupt officials manipulated state machinery for filling their dirty pockets by making use of their selfish means.This is one of this film's core themes.Darkness in Tallinn appears as an Estonian film but it was made by a Finnish director Ilka Järvilaturi. He has tried his best to infuse as many possible doses of Estonian humor.This is why one can call it a comedy film of political undertones.As ordinary people are involved in this film, we can say that this film signifies good versus evil.This is not a new concept as it is readily available in most of the religious books of different faiths.Darkness in Talinn shows us as to how ordinary governments can also be toppled by corrupt people.A nice film to watch on a sunny day. | positive |
The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release). | negative |
Cheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.<br /><br />Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.<br /><br />B | negative |
After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all<br /><br /> | positive |
OK, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of "shocking scenes" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again. | negative |
There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .<br /><br />THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later <br /><br />That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive | positive |
Old People Show???? I'm 15 and have been watching the show since I was 12, recoding it onto my Sky+ box everyday from Hallmark and BBC 1. I really wish they hadn't cancelled it, they didn't even get a proper farewell. But what an adventure, all those episodes, I think I've seen them all, and not one comes to mind that I didn't like and enjoy.<br /><br />Its a shame the BBC keep swapping between Diagnoses Murder and 'Murder She Wrote'- Never watched it and don't intend to. Anyways, he characters in Diagnoses Murder are so in-depth, and the chemistry between the actors is amazing. It really was a sad day when they cancelled this show........ | positive |
Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending. | negative |
Despite the lack of logic present in the storyline, Kill Shot is a highly enjoyable film. Through a moving performance Kasper Van Dien brilliantly portrays the emotional rift between a hard working wealthy father and his misguided son. Each member of the supporting cast pitches in with a solid performance, highlighted by the vivid acting of a young asian man whose name I cannot recall. A shockingly tragic ending may unnerve some younger viewers, but as a whole Kill Shot truly delivers a death blow. | positive |
If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.<br /><br />I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!<br /><br />In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you..... | positive |
I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.<br /><br />Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.<br /><br />Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.<br /><br />This film is special. Get it, now! | positive |
I decided I need to lengthen up my review for my all time favorite film. Unlike other war films that focus on the event, Apocalypse Now takes the viewer into a psychological head trip. The sheer surrealism makes the body uncomfortable, yet you can't lay your eyes off of it. Based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, Apocalypse Now slowly descends its protagonist, Willard (Martin Sheen) into madness, most likely the same way Kurtz plunged into insanity. The production of this film is notorious for its delays provided by the monsoon season and for Brando's unprepared performance (he read his lines from cue cards). There is a documentary titled Apocalypse Now: A filmmakers Apocalypse which shows the hell everyone went through in making this.<br /><br />The opening sequence is one of the most famous and popular in any film. As the blade of the helicopters are heard in slow motion and napalm is dropped in the trees, the song "The End" by the Doors can be heard. The next shot is of Willard in his bed with the fan on, so the noise of the helicopter coincides with the fan. We are informed that he does special missions for the military, mostly assassinations. When his next mission is given to him, he is baffled. "Charging a man with murder here is like giving a speeding ticket in the Indy 500." The man he has to kill was a respected colonel that has gone insane and isolated himself along with tribes people. Kurtz is ordering atrocious acts that are carried out by these people and he must me stopped. Willard does not go alone however. He is carried on a boat with several soldiers and they come across several battles. Along the way, they meet Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "Hoorah" about the war. Willard ponders that if Kilgore is that crazy, what could Kurtz be like. There are many scenes that portray Willards plunge into insanity: The tiger attack, the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese, the nonstop rain, the piled dead bodies scattered about, and the deaths of his crew members. When he reaches the Kurtz compound, he is greeted by the village people and a hippie photojournalist (Dennis Hopper). Instead of assassinating Kurtz right away, Willard begins talking with him and his conscience begins to doubt what he should do. Kurtz, on the other hand wants to die. He is tired of the war and wants to go down as a soldier. Willard kills him with a machete while in unison, a buffalo is sacrificed with several machetes by the people. Once they realize their leader has been slain, instead of killing Willard, they hail him as their new king. Willard rejects the offer and leaves them.<br /><br />The cinematography here is absolutely breathtaking. The colors are grain free, something that is rare in older movies. I can watch it muted and admire the beauty of the scenery.<br /><br />The acting ensemble is terrific, with everyone playing their parts well. Many criticize Brando for some reason, but I think he nails his role as a depressed lunatic who is beaten up by the war.<br /><br />The soundtrack and the score are haunting, and provide the mood for the film. I am wondering what instrument they used in that guitar-like sound when the credits roll? There have been many parodies of this film, but my favorite quote comes from Marge Simpson when she explains to Homer why a character with the same name on a police show is behaving like an idiot: "Your character provides comic relief for the show, like um, Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now." Those who have seen the movie know why this is hilarious. | positive |
If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic "popular" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to "parodies" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth "wisecracking" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE. | negative |
An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - "Nagin" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.<br /><br />Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.<br /><br />So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.<br /><br />Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more "Religiously correct" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an "Om") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.<br /><br />Music and songs are below average.<br /><br />Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills. | negative |
I watched this film recently for the first time in over 30 years and was very pleasantly surprised. I remembered a film that caught the mood and feel of Britain in the mid 1960s without falling into the 'Swinging Britain' clichés that so many other films thought they had to propagate, my memory proved correct. Those who feel that this is like a TV play are not entirely wrong but while Andrea Newman was to become famous for risqué TV drama, this film is more in the tradition of the 'kitchen-sink'films such as 'Saturday Night And Sunday Morning' but with an emphasis on middle-class rather than working-class life. Rod Steiger is excellent as the middle-aged angst-ridden lead, unhappily married to a repressed and apparently barren wife (Claire Bloom). The onset of the 'Technological Revolution' is the the backdrop for the drama in which old values and certainties are challenged. This is the stage for the central character played by Judy Geeson, a role which at the time was a shocking departure from the typical prim behaviour of contemporary heroines. The reversal of roles, with the girl rating her conquests in a little-black-book was a precursor to the Feminist movement and was criticised at the time for promoting promiscuity among young girls. The irony of these criticisms is to be seen in both Claire Bloom's and Peggy Ashcroft's characters who are both acceptingly dissatisfied. Peter Hall made few films and on this evidence that is a great shame. Steiger is exemplary and wholly credible showing why he was so highly regarded | positive |
When Jean seduces the young gardener for the sole purpose of annoying her husband little does she realise the explosive drama that is to follow.<br /><br />The short scenario does not waste a word or a frame in this brief interlude in the day of a dysfunctional family. The lives of the father, mother and son are all linked in some way with the gardener. It's this fact that makes the script so intriguing.<br /><br />For such a short film the production is every bit as professional as any major work and the casting is ideal.<br /><br />A wonderful little film that can guarantee a few laughs from beginning to end. | positive |
Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.<br /><br />But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.<br /><br />Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.<br /><br />In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.<br /><br />The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever. | negative |
This is one of the best films I've seen in the last years.Belmonndo and Deneuve shine in their respective roles, he as a naive plantation owner and she as an enigmatic trickster.Words won't do this masterpiece justice,suffice it to say that this is a movie that explores the darker side of love and the pain,humiliation and capacity for self-delusion that go with it, although it's dressed as a film noir. Forget that feeble remake with Jolie and Banderas, see the genuine artticle instead and treat yourselves to some moments of great cinematic beauty. | positive |
bottom at its absolute highest perfection. who ever says slap stick comedy is dead and boring is completely wrong. not that this film will only appeal to those who are of a masculine nature. this is another quality British dark comedy with many many jokes not violence related, but it helps if you can let your senses go and laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all.<br /><br />this is a true example of thriving British ingenuity and homegrown talent hats off to them. on a performance level it reminds me very much of the early works of the marx brothers where the same level of enthusiasm and devotion are present in their acting styles, resulting in a performance where the audience can really engage the innate human desire to see others suffer, yet to be detached and still feel safe, much like the principle many TV chat shows operate on. a truly marvelous bit of manipulation leaving all parties feeling better off. | positive |
Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go. | negative |
I don't think anyone besides Terrence Malick and maybe Tran Anh Hung makes cinema on a purer level than Claire Denis. That said, I don't love this, her newest film, quite as much as her 2001 masterpiece "Trouble Every Day" (although it comes very close), which itself is one of my absolute favorite films. It it only because the narrative here is possibly slightly too elliptical for it's own good. Don't get me wrong, the fact that this film barely has a plot at all is really one of the best things about it, but I think Denis took it about one degree farther than it needed to go and consequently the film does flirt with incomprehensibility, and a few key plot points should have been clarified somehow (like that the main character goes to South Korea to get his heart transplant, instead of just showing him there all of a sudden without any explanation of where he is or why he is there). Also some of the other characters seemed unnecessary and as if they were just excuses for Denis to use actors she likes yet again (Beatrice Dalle's character in particular is a little distracting because you keep expecting that she is going to have some significance). Still, the film is incredibly absorbing and the cinematography is beyond amazing. It is definitely very much a masterpiece in it's own way. At least as good as Denis' more highly-acclaimed "Beau travail", if not better. Claire Denis has to be my favorite French director at this point, better than Leos Carax even. Also I have to admit that the South Korean sequence really does do "Lost in Translation" better than that film itself does (and I, unlike some, am a huge fan of that film as well). | positive |
I was actually satisfied when i played this game.The graphics were something new.The missions were great.But yet,I felt i wanted more out of this game.For a James Bond game its pretty good but not as good as his other games.It would be great if they could make a 360Remake for it.It would be much better then.This may just be cuz I'm into games as Resident evil,Dead rising and those kind of games.So it could be better but it was OK to play.One thing i absolutely hated about this game was Natalya!She was irritating dying all the time and she couldn't run either.I recommend this game for those who like FPS games more than i do.7/10 STARS | positive |
I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!! | positive |
The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.<br /><br />Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.<br /><br />That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them. | positive |
I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look bad....<br /><br />but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute humor.<br /><br />All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as well.<br /><br />It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait till it is back on!! | positive |
This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.<br /><br />Seeing "Sailor Beware" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing "Fireman Save My Child", now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten. | positive |
It came before "the ten commandments" "land of the Pharaohs" "Ben Hur" and it's overlooked today.How unfair!Based on Mika Waltari's mammoth novel ,it doesn't cheapen it!Waltari's novel was so huge only a miniseries could have done it justice (I hope it will be done some day).Waltari,whose message is essentially Christian remains intact(another of his books "the secret of the kingdom" (first part) takes place after Christ's death in the Holy Land).<br /><br />"The Egyptian" is the rising of a monotheism close to Christianism long before Christ:the Pharaoh(Wilding) is some kind of Messiah who sacrifices his life because he knows that the true kingdom is not in the material world:he asks to return good for evil!And he has disciples ,who will eventually turn into martyrs (the scene when Simmons and the other worshippers of the Sun God are slain is visually stunning,looking like some pagan ballet).For the priests ,on the other hand,this new religion would mean the end of their influence on the populace,and that's why they look for a strong man (Mature)who can lead the army against the Hittites as well as against their dangerous compatriots.Another religion,or non-religion should we say, is Sinouhé's (Purdom)who during two hours believes in nothing (the sequence of the grain of sands is absolutely sensational and rises the whole movie well above the average peplum !!)<br /><br />There's another fascinating side:the movie looks like a flamboyant melodrama.Not only for the screenplay (notably pharoah's sister's (Tierney)final revelation which predates "the ten commandments" by two years),but also the splendor of the cinematography:Viviani ,in his book about Curtiz,talks about a Baudelairian atmosphere ,blue and gold,notably in the scenes which involve the prostitute (Darvi)who contemplates her reflection in the water of her bath,supreme narcissism. Around the hero,all the characters appear,disappear,appear again,but when they reappear ,they have followed their way and all the subplots come together with consummate skill.Besides,as such is often the case in "modern " melodramas ,the story is a long flashback,framed by two short sequences showing Sinouhé an old man who's remembering.<br /><br />This is a wonderful sword and sandals,that had a strong influence,not only in America but also in Europa,notably in Poland where Jerzy Kawalerowicz directed a spellbinding "faraon" (1966) which owed a lot to Curtiz. | positive |
The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine.<br /><br />PETTICOAT FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play "Danny" in NIGHT MUST FALL the next year.<br /><br />PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women) for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter) who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so that he believes she has given up on him.<br /><br />Dinsmore's world is rocked when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a Canadian captain of industry).<br /><br />There is something surreal about this film - probably due to the original play. While the "Labrador" scenery is quite phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his guests, a dinner of "pemmican steaks", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!! Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide.<br /><br />The course of love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship). Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny, and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this would be their last film together.<br /><br />One last interesting point - at the start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the great cartoonist/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the flapper and "Jazz Age". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's plot or Labrador. | positive |
There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever<br /><br />I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series. | negative |
A western through and through. As the title character portrayed by Glenn Ford says, "No, I don't want to fight, but I will if it's forced on me." This movie is about being intelligent, strong, and fighting for one's beliefs. With courage, never stop striving for what you feel is right. Great action and mostly quick paced. Good to see Brian Keith in this role and Edward G. Robinson as an older western man. Glenn Ford lives up to his western image. Thoroughly enjoyable film includes strategic non-military warfare. Of course it's violent, like the title states, but not too graphic like in the computer-generated era films. It's mostly about strong personality clashes. | positive |
Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in "Silence of the Lambs," or "The Sixth Sense." Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of "Saving Private Ryan," the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the "enemy" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike "Jarhead," or "Blackhawk Down," the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars. | positive |
Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid. | negative |
Interesting characters, lots of tension. As close to black and white without being black and white. I was turned off by how casually the supposedly sympathetic mainstream character, a quiet, near deaf secretary, was able to turn to crime to ruin colleagues, rough up people in her way and finally participate in a heist, and set up someone to be bumped off as a decoy to her own get-away. I'm a little put off by the trend for otherwise quality movies to portray criminals in a sympathetic way without addressing the injury they've done to others other than to portray their immediate opponents as jerks. In this film we never know who's money it really is they abscond with, or what happens to the innocent wife who the sympathetic deaf-secretary uses to set up the of the sleazy bar owner to take the fall for the missing loot. Too bad, the film could have been great. | positive |
This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.<br /><br />To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie... | negative |
My spoiler is in my pants because thinking about this movie made me so angry I crapped myself.<br /><br />Once you finish watching it, you stare at the TV set in confusion and horror. Then, there's a soft tap on your shoulder and a voice hisses, "You will die in seven days." You turn around, and one of your best friends is standing there with a look of absolute hatred for the one that suggested this movie when you were in Blockbuster.<br /><br />I won't lie: this is the worst movie on the face of the Earth. I saw it with 5 of my friends all 18-year-old guys, and these were our reactions: -One person actually began crying and punching himself -One person screamed and passed out -One person stood up and staggered out the front door to reappear more than an hour later -One person simply blacked out (this one was me) -One person started babbling incoherently, as if he had both cerebral palsy and Touretts' Syndrome -One person went into a sort of catatonic trance and did not respond to our voices for more than twenty minutes<br /><br />The movie really is that bad. There's one part where the retarded cameraman actually trips (while holding the camera), but the producers decided to leave it in. Seriously, you can hear him grunt and swear when he hits the ground. There's only one special effect, and it's special in the same way that a retarded kid trying to solve a Rubix Cube is special: the camera rotates so that the on-screen action (action, n. Some dumbass lost in a corn field for 80 freaking minutes) does a barrel roll.<br /><br />Under NO circumstances should it be watched, and the movie itself even warns you of this fact. Do you know what the tagline on the back is? "Some warnings should not be ignored." I honestly think that the release of this movie to the public is a sick practical joke on the producers' part. That's not to say, however, that you should pass it by if you see it at the movie store - it would then sit on the shelf for some other poor sucker to see. Rather, buy every copy of it you can get your hands on and mail them to people that you hate. | negative |
I guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.<br /><br />I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.<br /><br />Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.<br /><br />Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.<br /><br />No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes. | negative |
The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.<br /><br />The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"<br /><br />Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.<br /><br />This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10. | negative |
Aim For The Top! Gunbuster is one of those anime series which has classic written all over it. I totally loved this series, and to this day, it remains my favorite anime. And while it was not Gainax's first animated product, it was their first OVA series.<br /><br />Mainly starting out as a parody of the 1970's sports drama Aim For The Ace (Ace O Nerae!), Gunbuster picks up steam as a serious drama toward the ending of episode 2, when Noriko Takaya is forced to relive the death of her father, who was killed in mankind's initial encounter with the insect race Humanity is at war with. It is because of her father's death that Noriko wants to become a combat pilot. But her lack of confidence proves to get in the way at times and she falters. Her friend, Kazumi Amano, even has doubts about Noriko being chosen as a pilot. However, Noriko's coach, Koichiro Ota, has faith in her. And he has made it his personal mission to see that she succeeds at becoming a pilot, for he was a survivor of the battle in which Noriko's father was killed.<br /><br />Other characters include Jung-Freud, a Russian combat pilot assigned to serve with the squadron Noriko and Kazumi belong to, Smith Toren, a love interest for Noriko who is killed in their first sortie together, and Kimiko Higuchi, Noriko's childhood friend. Kimiko's involvement is also of interest, as while Noriko is off in space, Kimiko remains behind on Earth to live a normal life. And because of the acts of time dilation, Kimiko ages normally on Earth while Noriko is relatively the same age as when she left school. By the end of the series, Noriko is roughly 18 years old while Kimiko is in her mid-fifties.<br /><br />All in all, this is an excellent anime series to watch if you are a fan of giant robot mecha and of Gainax animation. If you like Hideaki Anno's other shows, or are a fan of Haruhiko Mikimoto's artwork, then give this show a chance. It will grow on you. | positive |
First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10. | negative |
I think a lot of people just wrote this off as another one of Tom Cruise's weird movies (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut) but Vanilla Sky is definitely its own movie. Many people said it was weird; it wasn't. It was different and confusing but not weird. Weird is Stanley Kubrick or Pauly Shore. Different is The Truman Show. Confusing is The Matrix or The Game. And unlike Kubrick, this movie has a conclusion. Everything makes sense -- maybe not immediately, maybe not even today, but it will make sense. Vanilla Sky is confusing because David Aames (Tom Cruise) is confused. THAT'S the point. That's where the so-called "weirdness" that turned critics away came in. If they had bothered to "open [their] eyes" as the original 1997 Spanish movie, they would have seen that. And if that's not enough reason to see it, go see it for the music. Cameron Crowe offers a wonderful soundtrack; he uses it to set the "feel" -- that notorious element that many movies lack. With songs like The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" playing at the dramatic and emotional climax of the movie, he creates an offbeat, yet astoundingly "right" feel. A wonderful film, in its script, music, acting, and images, Vanilla Sky is sadly, a superficial bandwagon movie that critics chide in order to appear intelligent. Excellent: A+ | positive |
Fulci is one of my all time favorite Italian splatter directors. He is also a very good story teller mixing horror, the supernatural, and psychedelic themes altogether very well. This film was truly his last great story before he directed such disappointments as "Voices From Beyond". The story is simple as Fulci plays himself, a horror director. After years of filming splatter and gore films it seems that Fulci starts to suffer a breakdown in which he starts hallucinating about people being slaughtered. He decides to see a psychiatrist who only makes matters worse when he convinces Fulci that he is killing people.<br /><br />Fulci used gore scenes from several pictures around the same time. These films I don't believe he directed but certainly produced. Some of those films are "Massacre" directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground), "Touch of Death" directed by Fulci, "The Murders Secret" and I can't remember the rest of the films.<br /><br />Nightmare Concert is a very underrated film, even by Fulci fans. But I loved this movie and have watched it many times already. It is sad that Fulci didn't get a chance to direct anything worth while after this but nonetheless this is a great film and I do recommend it to any Fulci fan, whether you like it or not. 9/10 stars | positive |
I say sadly because if you see this movie now, you realize how low our media has sunk- all the warning signs are in this movie.<br /><br />It's a great film, I think the last great James Brooks film, but others may disagree. It has rich characters (who are believable as well), great acting, great writing, and although the music got a little cheesy, I even liked that.<br /><br />William Hurt has never been better. Holly Hunter is stunning. And Albert Brooks walks away with every scene he's in- this triangle of people is beautifully drawn and compelling and made the whole movie soar above it's vital and important topic of the News, and how it's slowly being compromised in our nation.<br /><br />Watch this with NETWORK for a truly fun and frightening evening. | positive |
This film is hilarious, original, & beautifully directed. I have become a BIG BAD SWIM groupie, tracking it to film festivals whenever & wherever I can. I've seen it about half a dozen times now, & each time, enthusiastic audience response has confirmed my feeling that this is one of the best films to come out in years. At nearly every festival it has screened, it has either sold out, or won the Audience Favorite award. It's clear that people love this film, & even clearer why they do. The cinematography is superb, the characterization & acting brilliant, the ending fantastic, & the direction filled with compassion, wisdom & the art of perfect timing. It's hard to believe this is Ishai Setton's first film. I hope it will be released soon so everyone can see it. | positive |
I watched this on the movies with my girlfriend at the time and I can say that I didn't have the best time mainly because I didn't know about Ned Kelly or his story.<br /><br />But since this is a biopic, it's important to at least know what to expect from the character.<br /><br />I don't know if the manner the events are told are true, or if it everything is fictional. But the way Ned Kelly is portrayed as a hero and a fighter for justice really makes me want to believe everything is true. I don't think he's portrayed as a redneck criminal or thief, but that's just my opinion.<br /><br />This is a solid Western-type movie for everybody's tastes. Heath Ledger is great as always and the sexy Naomi Watts charms the screen.<br /><br />Give this movie a chance if it airs on cable. Otherwise, I don't think I could recommend it. | positive |
Passion In The Desert exemplifies spatial grander. It is a visual narrative, illuminated by the magnificent cinematography. Passion was filmed on location in the deserts of Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Namibia, and Tunisia. <br /><br />We are in Egypt, 1798. Augustin, a Napoleanic soldier, is escorting writer and artist Jean-Michel Venture De Paradis on an official mission to document, measure, draw, and paint the cultural landmarks of the Egypt: its dunes, stupendous ruins, and mysterious people. <br /><br />But, can you truly "document" majestic sandscapes, fractured edifices, and wild Bedouins? Can you truly capture the essence of Egypt, nature, man, and time?<br /><br />Jean and Augustin become lost in the mesmerizing glittering, gold desert, whose vastness overwhelms their senses. <br /><br />"You can't get lost in Egypt! There's the Nile, and there's the sea!", says the dehydrated Augustin, and soon he discovers an ancient, winding cave that leads to a palatial ruin. <br /><br />Delirious and near-delusional, he attempts to rest; a perplexing sound rouses him; his eyes, body, and emotions become hypnotically locked in time as he stumbles into a sensual, sensory experience.... <br /><br />A wild, sleek female leopard stares back at him, and their love affair begins....<br /><br />A daring love affair, a daring film. | positive |
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.<br /><br />If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!) | negative |
Without a doubt, Private Lessons II is the greatest movie I have ever seen. A Japanese import (poorly) translated into English, its a joy to watch. Not much of it makes sense, but that doesn't matter. It's the greatest comedy around without ever being intentionally funny.<br /><br />The film is rare and unavailable on video, but I have caught it a couple of time late, late at night on pay cable. My taped copy has been watched dozens and dozens of times as I slowly, person-by-person, introduce this film gem to the world.<br /><br />Joanna Pacula plays the tutor/lover to Ken, our hero. (She apparently was just working for her check.) Ken is played by Goro Inagaki, of the Japanese pop band SMAP, who gives it his all and has great hair through out the movie. Stacy Edwards, of "In the Company of Men" fame, shows up in the movie too and is probably happy that she found other film work afterwards.<br /><br />It takes at least three viewings to sorta figure out what the plot is. On repeating viewing you can enjoy elements like the abnormal amount of vases Ken has in his house (at least 50) or that Ken is wearing a shirt with embroidered husks of corn in the movie's finale.<br /><br />The movie is predictable, but highly quotable. My friends and I reenact entire scenes. Yes, it sounds like we're lame losers and we are ... but we're lame losers who have seen "Private Lessons II." Be one of ten people in the world who have seen this movie. You'll thank me for it. | positive |
There's about 25 years worth of inspiration packed into it. Beginning with existential themes of Blade Runner, as well as the vision of the future - with corporate billboards advertising their products, to the technology of the later Matrix films and Spielberg's A.I., and finally the black and white graphic novel look similar in style of Sin City. The creators have put in a lot of effort in the visual department and the outcome is a well crafted future neo-noir. Add a detective story and you've got an interesting film. I know what it wanted to be, but regardless of the stunning visuals, it wasn't enough to get it to the final destination. | positive |
The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen "Bull" McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald "Shadow" Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.<br /><br />I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action cliché in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
This is speculation. This movie could of inspired Paramount Pictures to film the movie The Core. Both movies have something in common nature.The only improvement for Inferno is a better cast. Inferno's cast is still good though. Excellent movie 8 out of 10. This is worth watching. This movie does have truth to it heat waves are real. Another piece of truth is heat related power outages. Where I live i have actually heard transformers blow. Unrest from heat is possible because people seeking to cool off may get rowdy. There is a considerable amount of team work in this movie. Again this a movie worth watching. The movie has a good cast. The movie has no slow spots. | positive |
If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy." | negative |
I found this movie to be a big disappointment, especially considering the cast. The characters are not believable, as are the ridiculous circumstances in which they find themselves. The only part of the film I enjoyed was when the most annoying characters finally get killed. The special effects consist mostly of scenes of gory dead or dying bodies. A typical unimaginative slasher flick.<br /><br />It's hard to believe, make that impossible to believe that a reclusive creature that sneaks up on goats in the middle of the night could be captured by a group of clumsy, noisy idiots. Equally impossible to believe is how they knew exactly were to find it, in spite of the fact the creature has evaded capture, or even photographing.<br /><br />The man that pulls off the impossible in capturing the Chupacabra alive is our one dimensional Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito). The only thing Dr. Pena is more obsessed with than the creature is his dart gun. A dart gun that works were mere bullets fail.<br /><br />The captain of the ship (John Rhys-Davies) is introduced as a 'war veteran'. He employs his military prowess by having his men shoot at the creature, regardless of were on the ship they happen to be. The Navy Seals that show up from nowhere repeat the pattern of shooting at everything.<br /><br />Dylan Neal plays an insurance investigator brought on board the cruise ship to catch a thief. He spends most of the movie tagging along with whomever is trying to kill the creature at the moment.<br /><br />The creature doesn't even closely resemble a Chupacabra. It doesn't behave like one either. Instead of a small, shy, secretive animal that hunts by stealth at night, we get a bulletproof Freddy Kruger, killing everything in sight. A simple search on Google would have been very helpful to the writers and the special effects crew. | negative |
had some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling "you lazy bastard" at the screen when the credits popped up. | negative |
"Panic" is a captivating, blurred-genre film about a brooding and conflicted middle aged hitman's reconciliation of infatuation with a younger uninhibited hairstylist, his love of wife and son, his duty to his employer/father with his own identity. Although the film has a nebulous purpose and an ambiguous ending, it is a superb production in almost all aspects. The characters' clarity and sincerity in such an improbable story may both fascinate and annoy audiences. | positive |
I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the "Spirit of St. Louis" was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.<br /><br />Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather dull story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel. | positive |
What's in a name? If the name is Jerry Bruckheimer expect it to be filled with action.<br /><br />In producer Bruckheimer's latest film, Gone in 60 Seconds, its all about the nomenclature. With character monikers like Kip, Sway and The Sphinx and cars idealized with names like Diane, Sue and the elusive Eleanor, it's only the non-stop action that keeps you from wanting to just play the name game.<br /><br />Not a deep script by any means, but it is a great vehicle for action as Nicolas Cage as Memphis Raines, along with Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall, comes out of car-thievery retirement to save his brother's life by stealing a list of 50 exotic cars in one night. A remake of the 1974 cult hit, this film may not be destined for the same cult status but it is entertaining.<br /><br />Surprisingly, it's the action that keeps you watching not the acting. Although loaded with stars, none of them have standout performances, including a very weak performance by one of my favorite up and comers, Giovanni Ribisi. Even Jolie, coming off her recent Oscar win, is just a token love interest with hardly any screen time.<br /><br />Can a series of beautiful cars and the car chases they become involved in make a great film? I think so. The film is a pleasure to look at and although one particular scene takes you into the realm of unbelieveablity, the action is non-stop and the suspense is compelling. Just be wary of other drivers fighting for a pole position as you leave the theatre.<br /><br />3 1/2 out of 5 | positive |
From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly, mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival, he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim. Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers. The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent, especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man, does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives one of the best performances of the year. | positive |
John Cassavetes' 1977 film Opening Night is, what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist, 'overlooked'. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It's not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it's about a half hour too long, and there's a bit too much emphasis on the drunkenness of the lead character Myrtle Gordon, played by Gena Rowlands, the wife of Cassavetes, long after we've gotten the point. But only Woody Allen's masterpiece, Another Woman, which also starred Rowlands, eleven years later, is a better portrait of the internal conflicts of an aging woman. Yet, Rowlands did win the Best Actress Award at the Berlin Film Festival for this portrayal, and it was well deserved. Often this film, written by Cassavetes, is easily compared to his earlier- and inferior- film, A Woman Under The Influence, but it's a spurious comparison. Rowlands' character in that film is severely mentally disturbed from the start, as well as coming from a blue collar background, while her characters in this film and in Allen's film are both artists who are haunted by apparitions. In this film it's the ghost of a dead young woman who can be seen as Myrtle's younger doppelganger, while in Allen's film it's her character's own past
. Many critics have taken this film to be a portrait of an alcoholic, seeing Myrtle surround herself with enablers, such as a stage manager who tells her, during opening night, 'I've seen a lot of drunks in my time, but I've never seen anyone as drunk as you who could stand up. You're great!', but this is wrong, for alcohol isn't her problem- nor is her chain smoking. They are merely diversions from whatever thing is really compelling her to her own destruction, and much to Cassavetes' credit, as a storyteller, he never lets us find out exactly what's wrong with Myrtle, and despite her coming through in the end, there's no reason to expect that she has really resolved anything of consequence. This sort of end without resolution links Cassavetes directly with the more daring European directors of the recent past, who were comfortable in not revealing everything to an audience, and forcing their viewers to cogitate, even if it hurts.<br /><br />Yet, the film recapitulates perfectly the effect of a drunk or fever lifting out of the fog, and as such the viewer again is subliminally involved in its drama. Whether or not Myrtle Gordon does recover, after the film's universe irises about her is left for each and every viewer to decide, and as we have seen before that lid closes, one's choices do matter. | positive |
the fact that the movie is predictable is not a problem. this movie is like a beautiful painting to be enjoyed. the museum scene is like a nice music video. the apres sex scene is an all too familiar scene in all of our adult lives. but the movie would not hold any interest for me without keith gordon. keith gordon is maybe one of the most underrated actors of our time. almost everything i know about acting came from studying mostly his eyes. he had the most compelling face. his character possesses the qualities i look in a guy, sensitivity and dedication. keith gordon is gorgeous. BTW, i kinda wish he'd shave his beard now as his lips, jawline and adam's apple were his prettiest set next to his eyes. | positive |
For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.<br /><br />Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.<br /><br />The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.<br /><br />The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.<br /><br />Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it. | negative |
I would just like to say that The Cure was a fabulious movie to help inform how people who are HIV positive have to function in life. Expecially a young boy who cant go to school because he could contaminate someone. and the ignorance of the boys who called them FAGGOTS. that just shows how much children are not educated about aids. | positive |
Chapter One: Once Upon a Time
At A Table (1941)<br /><br />In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.<br /><br />Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)<br /><br />In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content. <br /><br />Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking<br /><br />In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table. <br /><br />Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking<br /><br />In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.<br /><br />Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table<br /><br />In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.<br /><br />The End | negative |
I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work.<br /><br />I STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that "Park has not moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah." Because you know what? He HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with, how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of "Sympathy For Mr Vengeance" with the frantic and extravagance of "Oldboy"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style, but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true with the release of "Thirst". <br /><br />"Thirst" is an incredible picture, it literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore, great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story. Watch it as soon as you can! | positive |
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess. | negative |
I can find very little thats good to say about this film. I am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting I am afraid is not the standards I would expect from some very talented people. I would doubt that this features highly in their CV Filmography. Michael Caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the Doctor, and at no time no did I actually believe in his character. The plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. Some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films, that at times I wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. The lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all. | negative |
I don't usually watch Hollywood dribble, but I was dragged along with some friends to see this one, which turned out to be amusing in places but totally devoid of any originality. Don't worry, you won't have to think - Tarantino-like storyline leaves enough over-obvious hints for us to correctly predict where this one's going about fifteen minutes before every "twist" - I sat there worrying that the film was building up fairly nicely for a Hollywood flick but that it would have nowhere to go at the climax. And boy were my fears realised - YMCA couldn't save this one, but Liv Tyler almost did. I suppose being male and in my twenties helped, but she delivered a really good performance - obviously she didn't have to do much except look absolutely stunningly over-the-top sexy, but what she did she did well! McCOOL'S is certainly not going to go down as one of Hollywood's great successes (or should I say "shouldn't" because the mainstream American film industry is not going anywhere at present, and hasn't for a decade at least, save the odd hit like AMERICAN BEAUTY, TITANIC and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and even those had major flaws), but if you're a teen male, do yourself a favour and see Liv - she is one hot chick. Rating: 5/10. See also: anything by Quentin Tarantino, any American teen film over the last decade, anything with sex as its main selling point. | negative |
This film is one of the historically most accurate war films ever made in that it displays the reality of soldiers in a battle situation as well as the particular circumstances of the Battle of Stalingrad, obvious when one compares this film to works such as Anthony Beevor's book "Stalingrad".<br /><br />Unlike the better known "Enemy at the Gates" where the plot diverts into a sniper/hunting story, this film shows what war can do to individuals. Although filmed by Germans, "Stalingrad" is anything but a nationalistic apologetic film. It shows that war films can be something beyond flag-waving, jingoistic distortions of the grim truth of war, like so many Hollywood "war" products seem to be.<br /><br />The scripting, acting, direction and other film techniques in "Stlingrad" are of the highest caliber.<br /><br />It's a must-see film for anyone contemplating to join an army and to obey orders from any type of "Fuehrer". | positive |
Thomas Edison had no other reason to make this film except to show that film can capture the electrocution of an innocent elephant. Edison was not a genius but a man out for money and profit; his love for life was measured by dollars, not experiences, as this film shows. | negative |
Bela made 9 pics for Monogram, but it was only at THIS one, the 4TH, that things started to come together. All the rest in the series would use this one as the essential template for production, writing and character development. From here on, better or worse, the series would also deal with one essential theme: a scientist (usually Bela) makes experiments in the basement or the old house (sometimes IN the basement in the old house) that causes things to go blooey. This was also the first time that Art Director Dave Milton got a chance to spread his wings. He came on board for BLACK DRAGONS, the flick before, but THIS one is where he gets to make his craft start to click. Lewis made great atmosphere for next to nothing, and was around for all the rest of the Monograms. Casting is key in these, and it's a pretty good one B movie wise, here. You get Barclay and Harlen (also from BLACK DRAGONS),along with Russell, who would star in Lewtons' CAT PEOPLE movies..and Rosetto, from SPOOKS RUN WILD...a nice slice of Poverty Row talent. If you have limited time and budget, start with this one...it sums up everything they had learned up to this point, and gives you something to compare the rest to. The plot? Bela steals gland juice to keep his nasty wife young. They both like to sleep in coffins. If you can read that and smile, the rest will be easy. | positive |
I remember being so excited on Saturday nights when I was a kid, waiting for Dr. Who. I thought it was the best show ever made. Then, I grew up, Dr. Who went off the air, and no one I knew had ever heard of it. Then I found out there was going to be a new series. I was a little nervous about it. Was it going to live up to the expectations I had carried around since I was little? Would they screw it up? Would the Dr. suck? Would his assistant suck? Would they create a more intimate relationship with the Dr. and his assistant? YES, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! This show is wonderful!! I love the new Dr. I love his assistant. I love the show. And I find myself excited on Friday nights now, waiting for the "new" episode. I'm just now seeing 2005 episodes, as I live in the States, so I'm a little behind the rest of you. I hope the next Dr. is as great as this one! | positive |
I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.<br /><br />However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.<br /><br />I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does. | positive |
This was a very nice soft-core movie for both men and women. Plenty of nudity/sex, but without the overall raunch you'll usually find. They could not have done a better job in casting as the entire ensemble was stunning. Trust me guys, if you want to get your woman in the mood, get something with Bobby Johnston in it! And I'm sure lovely Monique Parent, Samantha McConnell and the rest of the ladies would do it for any heterosexual male. Unfortunately, Bobby and Monique do not share a scene together and if you are aware of a movie where they do, please PM me! I'd love to know. The photography was much better than usual. So was the story. Predictable, but nice, sweet natured and romantic. At the very least it was not one of those annoying predictable murder mysteries full of bottle blonde women with huge fake breasts. I give this 7/10! | positive |
Sleeper Cell is what 24 should have been. 24 is a cartoon. (I watch 24 but feel cheated with every stupid episode, all four or five seasons so far. Who can keep track as they are all the same. Jack gets in trouble, Jack gets out of trouble and then immediately gets back in to trouble and then...) Sleeper Cell is really well done and is far superior. Unfortunately they blew it with the ending in season two. I can think of a half dozen better endings off the top of my head that would have worked better for the writer's obvious goals and not been so contrived. Shame on the writers for wrecking what had been up to that ending a really good series. | positive |
"The Great Dictator" is, arguably, one of Charlie Chaplin's most widely-known films. It is notorious for it's blatant satire of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Until watching it, I only knew of it's fame. Now I know how much the film deserves it.<br /><br />The film basically shows the exploits of the somewhat clumsy, ambitious, short-fused and impressive dictator of Tomania, Adenoid Hynkel; and with him, his near and dear staff: Field-Marshall Herring and Herr Garbitsch. Also, it entails the exploits of an amnesiac, emotional and often clumsy Jewish barber, a veteran of the First World War.<br /><br />Stopping with the plot, I would like to say that this film has various qualities that make it both unique and wonderful. While the comedy is decidedly both verbal and slapstick and incidental, the entirety of the film shows how serious it takes Nazism or aggressive nationalism as a theme with various interludes. Chaplin's impeccable acting skills range far and wide in the film, he keeps revving it up and up until he simply explodes. Paulette Goddard's position as an ambitious Jewish would-be revolter and Henry Daniell's delivery of a nasal, calm-as-Death-serious-as-a-heart-attack lines makes for wonderful viewing.<br /><br />Further, one aspect of the film is what makes it so special: it pulls no punches. It isn't "covert", it has no business being covert. It is an "overt", blatant, in-your-face, obvious lampooning of both Hitler and Nazism.<br /><br />To sum up briefly, watch it. Just watch it, you'll see it. | positive |
Recently I was looking for the newly issued Wide Screen DVD of FLY AWAY HOME and came upon interesting title that I had never heard of: GREY OWL. The fact that it was a Richard Attenborough Film caught my attention (he responsible for such fine films as GANDHI, CHAPLIN, and SHADOWLANDS). I noticed that the screenplay was by William Nicholson (author of SHADOWLANDS). This "Special Edition" was full of interesting sounding material and the price was just under $10.00 -- so I chanced it & bought it. WOW! What a beautiful film. Pierce Brosnan stars as Archie Grey Owl, a real life trapper in the 1930s, who came to love and respect the wild lands of Canada, and worked to help protect them. Brosnan (who starred in a James Bond film) gives a shaded, warm, powerful performance as does Annie Galipeau as the young woman who loves and influences his feeling for the creatures of the land -- especially the beaver. A fine score by George Fenton (THE CRUCIBLE) and beautiful photograhy by Roger Pratt add greatly to the effectiveness of the film. AND the extras on this DVD are something else! Includes two shorts made in the 1930s with the real Grey Owl as well as audio commentary tracks by Attenborough and Producer Jake Eberts; 2 Featurettes; and many other fine additions PLUS options for those having access to a PC with DVD-ROM features. GREY OWL has been released directly to DVD in the United States -- a fact that Richard Attenborough attributes to Hollywood's lack of interest in distributing something that isn't loaded with a lot of violence and sex. This is a film that not only informs and entertains but leaves you with something to think about. I had a very warm feeling at the films conclusion -- and a whole new love and understanding for beavers! GREY OWL is a very fine film -- worth checking out! This is one I look forward to sharing with others. | positive |
Wynorski films are always excreble. This is just another case in point. Out of the five naked women shamelessly flaunted here, MAYBE one has real breasts. And that's a strong MAYBE. No humor, no gore, just boobies, boobies, boobies. And some tepid softcore lesbo action. But know what? For fifty cents less than this video rental, I could have rented legitimate porn. Do I feel cheated? With Wynorski, always. So I prepared myself for a letdown, as one must always do. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.