review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
I've come to realise through watching this sort of film that I don't like them very much. Caged Women is yet another 'women in prison' film, and like the most of the rest of the genre; the plot is completely forsaken in favour of simply showing nude women. Now don't get me wrong; I love nude women, but I also like there to be some sort of plot thread to go with the nudity, and since this film has only the basic 'women are in prison' theme running through it (aswell as the essential escape, of course), I got a bit bored before the end. The film is good because there's barely a moment in it where the women are wearing clothes, but that's about the only positive element. Director (and writer, ha ha) Erwin C. Dietrich delights in showing close-ups of the naked female body, but it's never very erotic. The director was the producer on a number of trash flicks, including some directed by Jess Franco. In my opinion, he should stick to producing as his writing talents are non-existent, and he doesn't seem to know how to film a sex scene. This sort of material is rather dry a lot of the time, but I reckon Franco could have made more out of it. Overall, this might suffice for people that are really into this sort of stuff; but I can't say I enjoyed it. | negative |
This is one entertaining flick. I suggest you rent it, buy a couple quarts of rum, and invite the whole crew over for this one. My favorite parts were.1. the gunfights that were so well choreographed that John Woo himself was jealous, .2. The wonderful special effects .3. the Academy Award winning acting and .4. The fact that every single gangsta in the film seemed to be doing a bad "Scarface" impersonation. I mean, Master P as a cuban godfather! This is groundbreaking territory. And with well written dialogue including lines like "the only difference between you and me Rico, is I'm alive and your dead," this movie is truly a masterpiece. Yeah right. | negative |
The mountainous woods, young happy campers, a warning by a park ranger and a lurking figure. The ingredients are there for a horror delight, and director/co-writer Jeff Lieberman does an adequate job at achieving it. It's formulaic woodland horror, but for most part the execution is at the top the game and the story (which is quite basic in a trimmed sense) is effectively told in certain realism. Maybe a little more exposition wouldn't have gone astray, but Lieberman's craftsmanship makes up for the material's flaws and typical details with rising tension, moody visuals and a smothering atmosphere created by Brad Fiedel's very ominously lingering score. Whenever that very creepy whistling was cued in, it painted a truly unnerving sense that settled in with the beautiful backdrop. Cinematographers Dean M. and Joel King do a striking job too. There's plenty of style abound, even with its minimal scope and the build-up is slow grinding. At times the pacing can become a stop-and-go affair. It's not particularly violent, but there's still a mean-streak evident even if some of it happens of screen. The latter chase scenes and escalating fear is well done, as it has the darkness coming alive with itS burly killer/s and you get actor George Kennedy riding his white horse in a slight, but wonderful turn. There's a likable bunch of performances; Deborah Benson makes for a strong, dashing heroine. Gregg Henry, Chris Lemmon Ralph Seymour, Jamie Rose, Mike Kellin and Katie Powell round off a modest cast of believable deliveries. The final climax is rather twisted, but the ending is one of those types that leave you thinking
"Is that it?" <br /><br />A well-etched backwoods slasher item, which probably plays it a little too safe to truly set it apart from the norm. | positive |
Absolutely nothing happens in this sloooow, annoying, thrill-less thriller directed by Amenabar's usual collaborator Mateo Gil. The film, which in some way deals with the effect of boredom and the quest for thrills, actually delivers none, and seems like an exercise in boredom. The only mildly suspenseful moment is the movie's climax, which takes about 30 seconds of the whole agonizing 100-plus minutes, and is resolved too simply. The plot lacks sophistication or credibility, and while the idea is original, the way the story unfolds is arbitrary and every plot device or twist is a result of outside interference (deus-ex-machina). The hero is always passive, everything happens to him without forcing him to show any initiative or resourcefulness. If you're fans of the genre, watch "Tesis" instead. | negative |
In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled "weepies for women",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed "written on the wind" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:"tarnished Angels","A time to love and a time to die",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally" Imitation of life"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in "imitation of life",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place. | positive |
Calling this film a decent or enjoyable horror tribute is far too optimistic. Heck, you can't even refer to it as a nice spoof of the genre because it's way below average ( it's funny, but not "haha-funny, you know). But still I'd say to give it a look. If only for the huge amount of trivia elements in it. By the way, all those people who're complaining about this movie here in their comments have only themselves to blame. When you see the DVD-cover of this film, you should already know that it's not going to be on the same level as "The Piano" for example, so don't come complaining afterwards...<br /><br />Evil Ed could've been something but the totally screwed it up. I suppose the main idea behind this film is criticism towards the growing 'cutting-committee' in horror nowadays. It shows an editor named Edward who's slowly (well,not too slowly) going nuts by seeing all the violence and gore in the movies produced by his company produced. The big boss is named Sam Campbell...Funny, isn't it ? Personally I also expected a character named Bruce Raimi, but to my surprise there wasn't. Anyway, this guy became rich by making movies called "Loose Limbs". They feature ( and I'm not kidding you! ) scenes in which a girl is getting raped by a BEAVER (?) and then gets shot in the head by a bazooka !!! Now, who says horror isn't original anymore ?<br /><br />With all the gore and the 'loose limbs', it's hard to believe it but it really gets boring very quick. After a decent first 25 minutes, Evil Ed turns into complete boredom and never recovers from that. The only think left to do then ( besides pushing the eject-button, of course ) is look for the obvious amount of references to other, much better horror films. I saw scenes obviously stolen from The Evil Dead, Silence of the Lambs, Braindead and several others.And there's a huge amount of classic horror posters on the walls to admire as well.<br /><br />Evil Ed finds it origin in Sweden. I'm convinced there's a lot up talent there, far North ( take the Danish "Nattevagten" as an example )...but none of them talents joined the cast or crew of Evil Ed. Only to see if you're in a dumb mood and you don't want to use your brain at all. | negative |
The Gun is probably the worst film I've ever saw. The comedians direction is very poor, the dialogs sounds like they were written by a 13 year old teenager, the plot (what plot?) is another "suspense" in which it is very hard to get into. Finally, nothing in this movie is any good. A big thumbs down to everyone involved and particularly to the Montreal film festival who presented this movie IN COMPETITION! | negative |
I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.<br /><br />There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.<br /><br />There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.<br /><br />That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.<br /><br />The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away. | positive |
I understand this film to be a debut feature and as such, it is very impressive. It has the feel and pacing of a "true indie", yet director Todd Yellin clearly possesses the photographic and editorial vision, command and judgment of a mature and seasoned professional. The shots are well framed and thought out and serve to move the story forward. He, and screenwriter Ivan Solomon deliver a story that has much more depth and lyricism than typical "paint by numbers" type scripts. It's a story that needs Judd Hirsch caliber character talent to have a shot at working. Judd is fantastic as usual; as are Scott Cohen and the beautiful Susan Floyd. The real surprise though is Elliot Korte who plays Adam Groden. Yellin was able to coax nuance out of the young actor in a role that could have been easily devalued by stereotype or overreach. Anyway, I found the film refreshing and entertaining. | positive |
I am a big fan of the Spaghetti Western Genre, and I usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. Infamous Director Demofilo Fidani, however, is rightly known for some of the cheapest, trashiest, and, well, worst contributions to the genre. The plots of Fidani's movies were usually very weak, and since his talent was quite limited, he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous Spaghetti Western names like "Django" of "Sartana" to the titles. I the particular case of "Giù La Testa... Hombre" of 1971 he just took the title of Sergio Leone's "Giù La Testa" (aka. "Duck You Sucker") and added 'Hombre'. The movie can be found under various titles ("Fistful Of Death", "Western Story"...), I personally bought it under the name "Adios Companeros", which this movie shares with another Fidani film with almost the same cast, "Per Una Bara Piena Di Dollari", which is also entitled "Adios Companeros" in the German language version.<br /><br />The plot is rather weak, it basically follows a guy named Macho Callaghan (Jeff Cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by Butch Cassidy (Jack Betts) and Ironhead (Gordon Mitchell).<br /><br />The leading performance by Jeff Cameron is, kindly stated, not very convincing. Neither did I find Jack Betts very good as 'Butch Cassidy'. B-movie legend Gordon Mitchell, however, is always worth a try, and although he probably wasn't a very good actor, I always found his performances in the Spaghetti Westerns quite funny and original, and he actually saved some of Fidani's movies (such as the rather crappy "Django And Sartana... Showdown in the West").<br /><br />There is one very funny and original thing about "Giù La Testa... Hombre" - the great Klaus Kinski is playing a priest! I could have imagined Kinski in any role, but before seeing this movie I would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. Kinski is, once again, great, although he has only little screen time, and one scene, where he breaks up a fight, is probably the only good scene in this. One more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze Joe D'Amato did the cinematography.<br /><br />"Giù La Testa... Hombre" is a cheap, crappy film, but nevertheless, it has some funny moments. Being a Spaghetti Western enthusiast, I found it fun to watch, but if you're not, never mind this movie, or watch it only for the purpose of seeing Kinski play a priest. 3/10 | negative |
I happened across "Bait" on cable one night just as it started and thought, "Eh, why not?" I'm glad I gave it a chance. <br /><br />"Bait" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film. <br /><br />Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.<br /><br />The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.<br /><br />I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx. | positive |
Uproarious no-brainer comedy in which comedian Mark Blankfield portrays Jekyll as an uptight doctor deeply committed to his research. Once he's snorted his experimental formula, he's turned into the scenery-devouring Hyde, causing no end of problems for everybody around him.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised by this one. It has a truly insane, madcap approach; it's full steam ahead with one outrageously stupid yet undeniably hilarious joke after another. Funny lines and sight gags are in abundance; Blankfield plays each role for all it's worth. One highlight has Hyde bursting into song; "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hyde" is quite catchy and even now I can still hear it in my head. The climax even goes so far as to spoof old b & w horror films.<br /><br />The supporting cast is quite spirited as well, with Bess Armstrong as the ditzy fiancée Mary, Krista Errickson as the spunky Ivy, and Tim Thomerson as flamboyant fellow doctor Knute Lanyon. I do wish more could have been done with Thomersons' character, as I'm a fan of the man, but it's always nice to see him in something.<br /><br />A large array of familiar faces parade before the camera: Cassandra "Elvira" Peterson, Peter Brocco, Liz Sheridan, George Wendt, Michael Ensign, John Dennis Johnston, Art La Fleur, Lin Shaye, and George Chakiris in a cameo as himself.<br /><br />It goes without saying that if you prefer highbrow, intelligent comedy, you'd better avoid this one at all costs. But for those who enjoy a zany, politically incorrect, gleefully raunchy good time, this just might do the trick.<br /><br />One of the best bits is saved for last.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
My short comment for this flick is go pick it up. Chances are you are going to be positively surprised by a diversity of elements superbly explored in this criminal thriller. There is no way the character of Miklos, claiming and pushing for room in every way possible, wont push your nerves to the edge...2 thumbs up! | positive |
Marjorie (a splendid and riveting performance by Farrah Fawcett) narrowly avoids being assaulted in her car by vicious serial rapist Joe (superbly played with frightening conviction and intensity by James Russo). However, Joe steals her wallet and finds out where Marjorie lives. He pays her a visit one fateful day. After subjecting Marjorie to plenty of degradation and psychological abuse, Marjorie manages to turn the tables on Joe and locks him in the fireplace. What is Marjorie going to do with Joe? Director Robert M. Young and screenwriter William Mastrosimone concoct a harsh, gritty and often disturbing morality tale that astutely nails the stark brutality and painful debasement of rape while also showing how any person when pushed to extremes is capable of shocking acts of violence and inhumanity. Joe perceives women strictly as objects while Marjorie only sees Joe as an "animal." However, this movie to its admirable credit refuses to make Joe out to be simply a vile one-dimensional creep; instead he's a terrifyingly real and ultimately pitiable human monster with a wife and kid (Joe's climactic confession in particular is genuinely poignant). Fawcett and Russo are both outstanding in the leads; they receive fine support from Diana Scarwid as the passive Terry, Alfre Woodard as the sensible Patricia, and Sandy Martin as sympathetic policewoman Officer Sudow. Both Curtis Clark's agile cinematography and J.A.C. Redford's shivery, skin-crawling score greatly enhance the considerable claustrophobic tension. A real powerhouse. | positive |
I personally watched this to see the footage of the 60's and 70's. It was fascinating to learn how the drug movement essentially started and became pop culture and an eventual uncompromising force in life. The interviews of the classic rock stars are titillating and humorous. You feel like you're in on a secret and nodding your head at the same time...because it feels so good and familiar. I loved it, all segments from 60's-present day. I highly recommend this for all aspects, including rock music, the hipper movement, politics and good 'ol history. I check marked the box saying this contains a spoiler, only because I have no idea what some might consider a spoiler or not in this regards, since I discussed what's in all 4 segments, so just wanted to be safe. | positive |
Susan Sarandon is, for lack of a better word, incredible. In my opinion (and yes I do understand that not everyone will agree with me here), she is one of the greatest actresses EVER and should have at least 2 oscars to her credit. I mean, that was an AMAZING performance in Lorenzo's Oil (but then I think every performance of hers is amazing) and they gave it to Emma Thompson...what was that about??? And by the time she got this oscar, she'd been in the industry for some 25 years. I couldn't think of anyone who deserved it more, especially for a performance as brilliant as her portrayal of Sister Helen Prejean. But then again, she is over and above all the artificiality of Hollywood and doesn't need an oscar - people know she's good anyway.<br /><br />This film carries some very deep, thought-provocing messages, so needless to say it is not to be taken lightly. Tim Robbins, of course, can't escape credit here. You would think that, because of his person feelings against the death penalty, the portrayals made in this movie wouldn't be accurate. However, both sides of the death-penalty debate are given even weight. On one side, you see the interesting side of Matthew, the human side which makes witnessing his death rather heart-wrenching. At the same time, you see the way he savaged his victims and the constant torment of the understandably grief-stricken parents. One word for Tim - BRAVO.<br /><br />A brilliant movie and, like I said, a well-deserved and long awaited oscar for Susan. | positive |
I am very open to foreign films and like to think that I grasp what they are trying to accomplish although some things are lost in translation. But the simplicity and "intelligence" of this film were boring. I've often thought how interesting it would be to make a movie that just shows a typical day or time period that really had no point. Now that I've seen a movie like that I will no longer be thinking along those lines. There's tones about society, racism, and some desire...but South Park has that. And when I watch South Park it actually moves me to feel an emotion. The closest thing I felt to an emotion during this movie was the yawn I experienced after the first five minutes. I rate the typical movie a seven or above because I love most every film. I gave this film a one. | negative |
I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on . | negative |
An excellent film for those who simply need to switch off and enjoy the beautiful scenery of Scotland. Based on fact, the film takes you on a journey of love amidst spectacular scenery. The cast are 'dressed down' for the parts they play, so no glamorous costumes or coiffured hair in this film where acting is superb, gritty and down to earth.Each character is believable giving a convincing portrayal of island life, beliefs and culture of the time A definite for those who have even the tiniest drop of Scottish blood..... as it will tug at the heart strings and stir the soul. Something that can be shared with the family and watched time and time again..................a real classic, one that I am sure will walk alongside some of the great films that never die. | positive |
If you find yourself in need of an escape, something that will hold your attention for two hours and allow you to be lost in another world, Domino will satisfy that need. This is entertainment, after all! The plot keeps your brain in motion - one of those movies (like Usual Suspects) where you want to see it a second time to figure it all out. I wondered about Domino Harvey herself, how her life became of interest to Hollywood. As for the acting, lots of celebrity appearances not shown in the trailers. And any actor that makes me forget who they are has done their job well. Not once did I think of Kiera in a soccer uniform or pirate costume. And granted, Mickey Rourke plays Mickey Rourke well and often, but here, despite the violence, he shows signs of being capable of caring for other people. | positive |
When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.<br /><br />One of the other users commenting on this states "This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is "classic" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget "B" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.<br /><br />The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner. | negative |
Dirty Dancing - I think everyone has seen this movie at one time or another. I can remember as a kid I loved this movie and watched it over and over again without tiring of it.<br /><br />Now that I'm a little older, I bought the DVD recently and STILL wasn't disappointed with the performance.<br /><br />Swayze and Grey create the atmosphere for this movie, even though it's claimed they don't get along, the chemistry in the movie is unbelievable! As the movie proceeds, we are sucked into their relationship, and believe every single one of their actions. <br /><br />The soundtrack is amazing, the music only adds to the romantic mood of the movie and adds to the relationship between Baby & Patrick.<br /><br />The last scene makes this movie, who can ever forget the famous line "Noboby puts Baby in the corner." The song is perfect and the dancing is amazing! <br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone, at any age, it's just a fun movie anyone can enjoy 8/10. | positive |
No, it's not the horror movie...This one is actually a love story.<br /><br />The Ring is a silent film from 1927 that stars two boxers and the woman that comes between them. She loves the boxer known as "One Round" Jack. She loves him until the champion comes along, that is. Even though she marries One Round, she starts overtly flirting with the champion until the climactic final boxing fight between One Round and the champion. She comes back to One Round's corner, just when things look their bleakest, and he miraculously finds the inner strength to win the fight and win his wife love back.<br /><br />This film was very early in Hitch's career, but the limitations of the time must not have made him make a lasting film. Although there are special film tricks, and some comedy relief, this film just does not hold up to any of his later work. It must have been extremely risqué for the time period though, with the shameless adulterous wife. That may have been the draw back in 1927. While looking through all of these old films, it is amazing how I think that they could be redone on today's screen and really come off. Maybe I should be the one....<br /><br />Skip this movie unless you are planning on watching all of Hitchcock's films. You could fall asleep in the middle. | negative |
This movie is the best one forever upon the warm feelings of this real love story during the Korean war by the story of Hy sun the Eurasian doctor and Mark Elliot an American corespondent at the shadow of different habits between east and west upon his quotation in the love scene between two lovers when he invited her to dance (The relationship between east and west must be close) in spite of Chinese habits and customs that destiny made their great role by appointing between them to replace the pains for both (Elliot suffered from failure marriage ) and (Hy sun suffered from the harmful shoot of her husband by Chinese communists at the time of Mao Ze dung in 1949).<br /><br />She could not stop the decision of destiny in spite of her practical profile because love has a magnetic spirit for everyone seek for happiness , soul and brilliant memory as the final quotation by the voice of Elliot after his death and the sadness receive for Hy Sun for this hard situations when she went to the hill the source of this love under the tree to say goodbye for his body and live with his soul among their souvenirs. | positive |
I think the "Bone Snatcher" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch "U Turn". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end. | negative |
The large bell in a bar intermittently rings for last orders and the inevitable rush to queue forms at the counter do we want what we need only when it's too late? Or is the irony of the opening scene's wailing Cassandra a more resonant reflection of our perceptions on individual existence? There's an endless fascination about where writer-director Roy Andersson wants to take us in his fourth feature, "You, The Living". With fifty or so semi-related vignettes strung together by a penchant for tragicomic hyper-reality, its wistful interpretations and symbolic instances of life that bind us all in this great big cosmic Sisyphean struggle. The sheer simplicity of these vignettes act to dramatise the tenuity and immense preciousness of being apart of the symbiotic relationships we have with one another. Andersson might whittle down the complexity of the human condition through harsh and fast cynicism more than he should, but he also reminds us of the inherent, reassuring glory of waking up each morning to a new tomorrow when we're all aware of our own distinct forms of arrested development. | positive |
My taste in films continues to astound me and probably infuriate readers of my reviews but to each their own and I have a weak spot for crazy horror, slasher flicks and See No Evil happens to be exactly that and more!! I think that the biggest mistake made by producers and film makers of this film is that they hype it as a WWE film and "starring" KANE. WWE might have a big following but it's a very, very specific group that follow the incredibly cheesy and (sorry folks) kind of trailer park "sport" and those who don't love it HAATTTE IT!! It would make them steer clear of an otherwise typical gory slasher flick that people would come out in droves to see. See No Evil doesn't break ANY new horror ground, it's exactly play by play typical horror with some over the top, horrific bloody scenes that honestly make your screen crawl. They really drive it home and go for gratuitous violence just cause. There is no psychological aspect exactly although being chased by this monster has some fear elements to it.<br /><br />KANE (the wrestler) also known as Glen Jacobs plays religiously and physically tortured man Jacob Goodnight. He's the ultimate cross between Leatherface, and Jason Voorhees. He's not an original killer and even his kills don't really go for the unique or original with the major exception of choking a girl to death by forcing her to swallower her cell phone...yeeeeah!! He does a good job and the man is legitimately enormous!! He stands at 7 feet tall and without any special effects is monstrous!! Tiffany Lamb, Penny McNamee, Samantha Noble, Michael J. Pagan, Luke Pegler, Christina Vidal, Rachael Taylor all play the typical group of "think they are invincible" partying teens who will unwillingly become victim to the serial killer. The story is that in exchange for a month off their detention sentence for petty crimes ranging from theft to drug possession, they are sent to an old hotel to do "community service " by fixing it up. Turns out a serial killer lives upstairs and he's removing his victims eyes to cleanse them of their sins. Luke Pegler stands out as a scum bag who in the end becomes a hero of sorts even saving his ex-girlfriend who he used to beat up on. The rest of them all play their perspective roles quite well but it isn't a great stretch of acting ability.<br /><br />Sadly Porn director...yes PORN...Gregory Dark, does a good job putting together the modern day slasher flick. He even goes into a bit of history with the killer and although his back story is not unique either, in fact it's a little stale it's still interesting enough. And in the few shots where the film goer is actually seeing through the killer's eyes, it's interesting to hear the voices and see things distorted like he does. He throws in the obligatory soft core nude shot, and the grotesque, blood soaked scenes and turns everything up a notch. It fits nicely and for a horror fan like myself it's entertaining. Kane's serial killer is horrifying and he stalks them all down with brutal intelligence and a silent horror. The film is being panned and crapped on and I don't blame anyone because it's pretty crappy but isn't that the point?? It's a horror film and I thought it was exactly what it should be. It made me jump, it made me cringe, it even made ME turn away at several parts...impressive by any standards. It's entertaining, with a decent story, and plenty of set up to serialize See No Evil until the 15th installment if they wanted to and I say bring it on!! It's true the film is full of plot holes, laughable details but the deadly gore and horror over rides it all. It all comes down to do you love horror films?? Really love them?? If yes then you'll think this is a terrific slasher...if not...you'll hate it...plain and simple. 8.5/10 | positive |
I think a several of America's baseball movies are among the best movies ever made. When this movie was in production and heard it described as a rugby movie. I'd read about the Highland team in the newspapers, but didn't have high expectations for this film about a sport that didn't interest me.<br /><br />Last night I viewed it "on-demand" and loved it almost as much as my favorite baseball movies. Ryan Little and the cast and crew did an amazing job. Neil McDonough was especially convincing. As the "bad dad" he displayed fine range and a subtle, but moving character arc.<br /><br />I also enjoyed the Pacific Islander actors. I've been fortunate to know many of these fine people and this film captures their wonderful spirit and culture. A flashback showing how the Islander culture became such a key element of Highland's team would have been a excellent addition to the film.<br /><br />Some pretty tacky movies have been shot in Utah recently. It's good to see a quality film like this from the Beehive State. | positive |
Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...<br /><br />Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com | negative |
I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!<br /><br />Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.<br /><br />***7/10***<br /><br />On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled. | positive |
This film is a perfect example of how to take a fascinating subject, come up with 25 minutes of substantive material and stretch it into a six hour borefest resembling the shape a documentary might take if Fox news decided to make one. Even the participants in this obnoxiously obstreperous film can't conceal their laughter at the stupidity of their attempt to show one of the few great times in world history where people take a stand and work to make a better world. If only the creators had spoken with Ken Burns for 5 minutes, they might have come out with something mildly intelligent instead of this cure for insomnia. | negative |
There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with "Cabin Fever" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer. | negative |
This was a truly epic production that had all the elements that one would want in a fantasy film. The costuming, the music, the cinematography - all artistic elements of this film were absolutely beautiful and provided a rich experience.<br /><br />Ted Danson, best know for his TV roles in "Cheers" and "becker," was excellent in the role of Gulliver. Mary Steenburgen (Time After Time, Cross Creek) performed equally well in her limited role as his wife.<br /><br />Other performances I really enjoyed were James Fox as Dr. Bates, Alfre Woodard as the Queen of Brobdingnag, and Peter O'Toole as the Emperor of Lilliput.<br /><br />This would make an enjoyable children's film, but it also would definitely appeal to adults for it's deep social commentary. | positive |
A great film. The acting - from the doctor to the pavement artist to the head prostitute, with very few exceptions, was wonderful; i thought soni razdan(mrs.noble) and vrajesh hirjee(saurabh) were the best of the lesser known actors. Even Kurush Deboo (Tehmul), who might be accused of overacting, presented quite a believable and familiar character.<br /><br />Another great thing was the camera work - and the way it captured the energy of bombay streets, the tranquility of gustad saying his prayers and life within the tiny apartments.<br /><br />I liked the story of the wall that becomes a shrine and then gets broken down - and the artists philosophical take on it.<br /><br />It's great to see good movies on indian themes. | positive |
Hard up, No proper jobs going down at the pit, why not rent your kids! DIY pimp story without the gratuitous sex scenes, either hard core or soft core, therefore reads like a public information film from the fifties, give this a wide miss, use a barge pole if you can. | negative |
In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.<br /><br />As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film.<br /><br />The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and "urbanity." Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn--people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques--but anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film (if they can get a chance to see it, that is). It's hard to say what it would be like on video. | positive |
Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters. | negative |
Two warring shop workers in a leather-goods store turn out to be secret sweethearts as they correspond under box-number aliases. Within this simple idea and an everyday setting, Lubitsch produces a rich tapestry of wit, drama, poignancy and irony that never lets up. Stewart and Sullavan are perfect as the average couple with real emotions and tensions, and the rest of the well-developed characters have their own sub-plots and in-jokes. Although wrongly eclipsed by Stewart's big films of 39/40 (Destry, Philadelphia Story, Mr Smith) this is easily on a par and we enjoy a whole range of acting subtlties unseen in the other films. | positive |
This is, by far, the best movie I've seen in a long while. It is a wholly original and beautiful plot. It is not boring, nor is it too dramatic. The characters are tangible and realistic, but it does not take away from the story line. The fact that is not in English is most likely the final touch. The end leaves you fulfilled in a way I've never experienced in a movie before. <br /><br />I wish I had found this movie earlier.<br /><br />More lines.<br /><br />more lines.<br /><br />more lines a lot more lines c'mon, i'm done | positive |
Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.<br /><br />I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.<br /><br />The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy. <br /><br />I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake "phone" voice when greeting clients.<br /><br />I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.<br /><br />I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental. | negative |
I didn't really care for this. Had they gotten rid of the comedy/slapstick and focused on the dramatic/philosophical aspects of the script, this might have been worthwhile.<br /><br />The more the film went on, the less I liked the protagonist/mailman. He does have interesting things to say, but he's also a hypocritical, insecure jerk.<br /><br />3/10 | negative |
This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills. | negative |
This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last film.<br /><br />A good film by a great director! 7,5/10 | positive |
A young woman who is a successful model, and is also engaged to be married, and who has twice attempted suicide in the past, is chosen by a secretive and distant association of Catholic priests to be the next "sentinel" to the gateway to Hell, which apparently goes through a creepy old, but well maintained Brooklyn apartment building. Its tenants take the stairway up and can reincarnate themselves, but apparently can't escape as long as a sentinel is there to block the way. The previous one(John Carradine) is about dead, so she, by fate or whatever, becomes the next one, and the doomed must get her to kill herself in order for them to be free. Lots of interesting details lie under the surface, her relationship with her father, the stories of the doomed, her fiancé, so one can pass this off as cheap exploitation horror, but given the sets, the great cast, and overall level of bizarreness, this is definitely worth seeing. | positive |
I finally got hold of the excellent Sazuma DVD of this film which is loaded with interesting extras. I have read quite a lot about it, and I unfortunately missed it at the Stockholm Film Festival. It doesn't quite deliver as I thought it would but it is still worth watching if you like strange and unique movies. I much rather watch this again than any of the recent so-called horror films vomited out of Hollywood these days. What detracts from the experience for me, is certain music cues which sound dated and rely too much on cheap synth sounds. For me, all these tonal/harmonic elements of the score could have been lifted out, and replaced by David Kristians excellent sound design. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise this is a daring, angry picture with welcome meditative and poetic parts, like the fading of the photograph sequence which is beautiful. I look forward to seeing Ascension, and I applaud Mitch and Karim for their efforts in producing non-mainstream cinema. They are a great inspiration as I soon embark on my own short film production. | positive |
<br /><br />I still can't belive Louis Gossett Jr. agreed to appear in this film. Everything about this move feels artificial, forced, and contrived. The air sequences are flat. The enemy characters seem like puppets. This is just a poor excuse of a movie. At least Top Gun had air sequences that looked good (the external shots anyway). The songs by Queen are cool, though. Rent Midway instead. | negative |
There is a running thread in film comedy that all the great comics are just falling short of the law or on going to jail. Think of that conman's conman W.C.Fields in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, or the Marx Brothers in A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, or Chaplin in THE ADVENTURER, of Mae West in SHE DONE HIM WRONG. The skirting of the law is inevitable, and when they end up on the side of the law the results are actually still hostile between the forces of law and order and the comic. Think of Lloyd in his first talkie, WELCOME DANGER, trying to "assist" the San Francisco Police Department in the midst of a crime wave, and making police sergeant Edgar Kennedy want to kill him. Think of Laurel and Hardy as ill-fated cops in MIDNIGHT PATROL. I find this type of hostility is so patent in all these giants' (and their peers') comedy that even a fake title for a film deals with it. Think of Jerry Seinfeld in one episode of his series creating a Three Stooges short, SAPPY PAPPIES, where the boys end up being electrocuted for murder.<br /><br />Buster Keaton frequently pulls in the forces of law and order to be his opponents in his comedies. Look at STEAMBOAT BILL, JR., where he tries to spring his dad from a calaboose. But he actually had more conflict from police forces in his shorts. In CONVICT 13 he is dragged back to prison when mistaken for an escaped convict. In COPS (perfect title - if you see it you'd understand) the police force of a large city is repeatedly looking for Keaton, mistaken for a terrorist). And in THE GOAT he is unable to avoid the police for most of the film.<br /><br />Keaton is a tramp just looking for food. But he is totally unlucky. When he sees a stranger throw a lucky horseshoe (which Keaton earlier ignored) over his shoulder, and then find a wallet full of money, Keaton tries the same thing, and hits a cop in the head. The cop gives chase, and Keaton (as luck would have it) runs into another cop, tries to act normal, but ends by throwing the other cop into the path of the first. Soon he has three cops chasing him. Briefly shaking them he walks by a window at the local jail where local murderer "Dead Shot Dan" (Malcolm St. Clair*) is being photographed. Passing in back of the barred windows, Keaton is stupid enough to stop and look straight in. The desperado notes this and ducks as the picture is taken. When Dead Shot flees the police, it is Keaton's face on all the wanted posters.<br /><br />(*St. Clair would eventually be a successful director of silent and early sound comedies, although in his later biography would be a stint at 20th Century Fox where his work with Laurel & Hardy was below par.)<br /><br />Keaton flees to another town by train (disconnecting the passenger cars containing his pursuers from the locomotive and tender). This is the film (by the way) that has two famous Keaton jokes. His arrival on the locomotive is done in a distant shot, with it coming closer and closer, and suddenly the audience sees Keaton sitting on the cowcatcher. <br /><br />The second famous sequence goes later (and may have influenced Chaplin somewhat in the beginning of CITY LIGHTS). Keaton had accidentally knocked out a man who was arguing too violently with a pretty woman with a dog (Virginia Fox). When he sees the poster's calling him a murderer he thinks he killed the man. He is being chased in this town by a suspicious chief of police (Joe Roberts), and momentarily loses Roberts in the park. A statue of "Man-of-War" is being constructed and the sculptor is unveiling a clay model of the horse). Keaton is seen seated on the clay model, trying to maintain his dignity as the clay legs of the horse start collapsing under his weight. <br /><br />Keaton manages to meet the pretty Ms Fox, who invites him home for dinner. Only he doesn't realize her father is Roberts. The last five minutes of the film deal Keaton fleeing and avoiding Roberts while he and Fox get away together.<br /><br />It's a funny comedy, and a wonderful example of Keaton's work at his best. | positive |
I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible. | negative |
What's the matter with you people? John Dahl? From "Rounders" and "Unforgettable"? TOO Quirky? Knocking emma Thompson and Alan Rickman for having fun playing against type? And somebody liked the Gingerbread Man?<br /><br />I rented this not knowing anything about it and found it about as nifty a video find as you can get. Never insulting, well thought out, funny, scary. I disagree with the naysayers, clearly. I thought the story itself was unremarkable but the great cast, which most likely means the director was paying attention, lifted it to super cool status. Good sound design also (much more appreciated in surround, but I'm not bragging). And yes, I'm a girl, so maybe it has a slight female slant (the guys in the gang are pretty worthwhile). All in all, a 9 and a hearty RECOMMEND. | positive |
I liked this movie. It was pretty cool. It has it all: cars, gun shooting, fighting, and even a token girl. It does not excel in any of this things, with the exception of the cars. A bit of shooting, a bit of fighting, a bit of smooching around, and LOT´s of car, with a great chase near the end. The jump, you may say, is impractical, but according to our good friends here at the IMDB it is possible, so the movie ain´t as bad as people are painting it. It has some quality, and I liked to watch it. In fact, I loved the film. And I didn´t need to turn off my brains to watch it. I wasn´t always thinking "Is this possible?" or tramp like that. 9 in 10. | positive |
Minor Spoilers will follow.<br /><br />This movie is even more odd and unconventional than "songs from the second floor". There is no main character we follow around. There is no "plot" in the conventional way. There is no emphasis on an happy end. There is no crowdpleasing. In other words Roy Andersson is back with a vengeance. Instead of falling back on convention and fixed formula Roy Andersson concentrates his film around an idea. I will not go into what that idea is, but even if you don't "get it" i promise that you will see the greatest visual depth ever put to film. The majestic scenes from "songs" pale in comparison here. A work of visual splendor.<br /><br />So be kind to your fellow man, because after all "we are the living", and only you and I have the power to change our lives. That is at least what I thought when I saw the final scene in the movie, with the inhumane bomber planes sweeping in over the city in the film to take our lives away. <br /><br />And of course don't forget to see this movie when it gets a limited release near you. This is one of those movies that actually have the power to make you a better person, like de Sica's "Bicycle Thieves". A very warm and humanistic film. | positive |
The first time you watch this movie you may hate it, but the 2nd time you see this movie I guarantee laughs all around. The owners of the dogs are so ecclectic that you can't help but look at them and laugh. From the littlest toy poodle to the announcer, everything will make you laugh. And you may learn every single nut there is! | positive |
This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.<br /><br />Heres what i didn't like:<br /><br />1 They were shooting at the father<br /><br />2 The tribes was really annoying<br /><br />3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked<br /><br />4 The bad scientist well he was annoying<br /><br />5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad<br /><br />What i DID like: <br /><br />1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.<br /><br />2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.<br /><br />3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing<br /><br />4 That funny scene with the tent. <br /><br />5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses. | negative |
I recently saw House of Wax and must say i really enjoyed it.<br /><br />it's been one of the better Horror/Thriller films in the past few years, if not one of the best and most entertaining.<br /><br />i've heard a lot of people bashing the so-called slow start and character development which takes up the Films opening 45 minutes.<br /><br />yet if the film dived straight into the deaths, audiences and critics would have criticised the film for not having decent characters who they couldn't care less about.<br /><br />well as for the character development, i think it worked amazingly well.<br /><br />taking into my own response and others (from reading posts off the message board), a lot of people ended up wanting the characters to live, one of which i've noticed many people mentioning being Paige Edwards (Paris Hilton). taking into consideration Warner. Bros. have been marketing her death, its a surprise turn around that many audiences ended up cheering her on for survival.<br /><br />speaking of the chase/death scenes, they were some of the most inventive and suspenseful i've witnessed in a while, and enjoyed each one very much.<br /><br />the acting in the film was absolutely fine, i couldn't fault any of them, especially Paris Hilton, i thought she was very decent and i was hoping for her the get more than a mere 25 minutes screen time in a 120 minute film, yet her chase scene made up for that, and believe me when i say Paris can act scared, (Watch the scene where she's hiding in a car from Vincent and he walks past her .... the look of terror on her face comes across as VERY real).<br /><br />Overall i give House of Wax maximum stars, for entertainment value and suspense and even gore ...... only criticism is i wish that during the marketing for the film, they hadn't revealed the death list and who dies and who survives, as it would have been ten times better not knowing if the character being chased was going to live or die and horrible death.<br /><br />can't wait for the DVD, but go see it at the Cinema while you can, it won't be the same in your own front room, yet if you do wait for the DVD, watch the film in the dark with no interruptions, trust me you wont be disappointed. | positive |
It's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish. | negative |
This movie was the most out of line and liberally fed movie i have ever seen in my life. (Besides Farenheit 9/11). All of the information was only supported on the opinion of FIVE scientists while 80% of the Asssociated Press highly criticize the science promoted be Gore. Global Warming is a Mass Media Hysteria and nothing more. Most of the information in the movie was either misquoted or it was wrong all together. THis movie has been investigated over and over again and has been shown evidence against that prove its lies were nothing but lies.<br /><br />LIBERAL BLINDNESS! An to think that they show this in school proves that the media has brainwashed us into believing this garbage! | negative |
"The Bank" (1915, Chaplin) "The Bank" was one of Charlie's 1915 Essanay films. While these group of films are more watchable than their 1914 counterparts, this one seems a bit below average. The gag with the janitorial double combo-locked vault and the tough-luck ending that has Charlie waking up from a dream, in which he is stroking the lead lady's hair, only to be stroking the head of a mop he had used as a quasi pillow, are both classic Chaplin moments. They are both ironically the beginning and the end. The middle is filled in with fighting with the rival co-worker janitor and busting up a bank robbery to win the girl. The mop is probably the greatest physical prop of this movie and Charlie uses it to expert comedic effect whether while it is the intention of his character or not. The mop seems to be Charlie's alter-ego doing things he wishes he could do but wouldn't with his own two hands. Interesting stuff but there's better. | negative |
"Handsome Guys With Bad Haircuts !!" "Beautiful Girls Without Any Clues !!" "Stupid Gangsters Who Cannot Shoot Straight !!" From Dragon Dynasty comes the Hong Kong gangster drama, "Dragon Heat." For reasons which will probably forever be completely obscured, the production and casting call for this 'criminals-on-steroids' movie somehow got both Maggie Q and Michael Biehn to sign on as villains. But they don't get all that much to do in this horrid slug-fest.<br /><br />They are two of the best contemporary actors around, each with their own resume' and list of accomplishments, and Biehn in particular has had the courage to take some rather challenging and non-heroic roles.<br /><br />Maggie Q was the super-bad "Mai" in "Live Free Or Die Hard," so 'nuff said.<br /><br />Biehn is, of course, famous for being the soldier-from-the-future who made "The Terminator" of 1984 such a believable science-fiction/fantasy romp, by crashing up against Big Arnold, who is now the Governator of California !! <br /><br />Michael Biehn is almost wholly wasted in this terrible train-wreck of a police drama. There is absolutely no reason for that, as the incredibly convoluted plot -- given mostly in Chinese, as it is a Hong Kong story -- could have been better elaborated for non-Chinese audiences with a foreign narrator.<br /><br />In other words, if Biehn had been used as something like an Interpol observer or coordinator, or an agent under deep cover, who needs to get some 'splaining given to him every five or ten minutes, that would have been great. But no, he's brought in as a part of an odd group of special forces-type bad guys who seem to be freelancing their own corrupt deal, in the middle of somebody else's totally corrupt deal involving the local king of corrupt deals. <br /><br />Yes, there, I said it all. Confused ? Me too. "Welcome to the party, pal."<br /><br />In the truly superb Hong Kong crime drama, known by its English title as "Breaking News," there are also a number of fascinating characters at work, but there is only one story line in the plot. <br /><br />Bad guys vs. good cops. In this wretched and excessively violent foray into the world of a Hong Kong Triad, or gang, it seems that the hot-shot police force is little more than a parade of ducks in a shooting gallery, the way the criminals mow them down.<br /><br />So, not surprisingly, there's an almost otherwise incomprehensible scene ( several scenes, in fact ), where kids are trying to shoot wooden ducks in an arcade game, to win stuffed animal prizes. And so the hot shot good-guy police officers quite naturally intervene on their behalf, so that the arcade owner has to give up the Kewpie dolls.<br /><br />There's also a half-hearted attempt at creating a "love interest" between one of the 'visiting cops' and the sole female 'visiting cop'.<br /><br />The visiting cops are supposed to be material witnesses against the Triad gangster leader, who gets hijacked on the way to his court appearance, but not by his own team but by the mercenaries ( Biehn, Maggie Q, and some others ). These killers all want something but we don't get to learn about what it is, until the very end of the film !! That was a stupid mistake inside of the overall story.<br /><br />You cannot build suspense in a crime drama without something to obtain, or get, or get away from, being introduced very early in the story.<br /><br />Add to that some "cut-away scenes" done for purely artsy effects, all showing the bad-bad guys' and the regular bad guys' recent pasts, and any film buff can readily understand why this barking dog gets a 1 rating from this fan of all things cinematic with criminals and conspirators and Hong Kong. | negative |
First of all, I have watched this show since I was a little toddler, and I have always loved it. Sure, maybe I didn't understand it when I was that young, but I still enjoyed it! And now that I have been able to understand it for several years, I love it even more. The score of this musical is the most wonderfully detailed score I have ever heard! Every note is perfect, I don't even need to hear the singing to enjoy it!<br /><br />Moving on to this particular production- This is magnificent! Of course no one could play Mrs. Lovett besides Angela Lansbury, and she does it perfectly. And she should, she has been playing this part for several years. George Hearn is absolutely brilliant. The best Sweeney Todd I have ever heard. He has a wonderful voice, yet he can throw his voice so well! His "epiphany" is incredible, as you can tell by the audience's reaction to it. The Judge, Toby, Antony, and Pirelli are also so wonderful in their roles. Everyone is perfect! Well, I still have to fast forward through Johanna's Green finch and linnet bird. She just doesn't sing that song well at all.<br /><br />This show CAN be appreciated at all ages, but it is not always accepted. I am not your typical middle-aged theater lover, I am only 15 years old, yet Sweeney Todd has given me a greater appreciation for music than I have gotten from any other musical. | positive |
Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc. | negative |
My left foot is an epic outstanding film explaining the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the odds<br /><br />I have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally brilliant each time.I wonder how did this amazing film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the greatest directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is excellent in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel your in the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are amazing as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is equally brilliant as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.<br /><br />The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.My left foot was the start of a wonderful period in Irish film. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a powerful outstanding film.<br /><br />Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the best ever film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.<br /><br />this is an excellent masterpiece in film,see it! | positive |
Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.<br /><br />One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.<br /><br />Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.<br /><br />Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.<br /><br />Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.<br /><br />By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.<br /><br />I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.<br /><br />Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.<br /><br />I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.<br /><br />Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy. | negative |
The title creatures wreak havoc at a peaceful little desert town. That's basically the whole plot for this film, and while the scenes devoted to the Munchies themselves are somewhat fun (in a lowbrow kind of way), all the rest is just filler, and bad filler at that. From the "hero", who is a painful Woody Allen wannabe, to the ultra-dumb town cop, it's hard to pick the most irritating character in the film. There were some times when almost all of them were on the screen together and I was thinking, "OK, at least the girlfriend is cute, but why do we have to put up with the rest of those morons?". The film is also filled with pop references (from Ozzy Osbourne to Linda Blair), which probably made it already dated by the early 90's. (*1/2) | negative |
In his 1966 film "Blow Up", Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of "Blow Up", they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.<br /><br />With "Zabriskie Point" Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of "Blow Up" and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly? <br /><br />The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in "The Passenger", Mark just wants to be free.<br /><br />As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.<br /><br />In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.<br /><br />The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!<br /><br />Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised "Zabriskie Point" as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.<br /><br />Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of "Fight Club", nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?<br /><br />3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, "Blow Up". As such, "Zabrinskie Point" comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say "Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!"<br /><br />There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight "the system", but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like "Network", "Cool Hand Luke", "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Spartacus". These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the "spirit of revolution" survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.<br /><br />Then you have films like "Fight Club", "Zabriskie Point" and "Falling Down", which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.<br /><br />Then you have the "flight rather than fight" category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like "The Passenger", "Red Desert" and "Badlands" show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.<br /><br />Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's "The Lives of Others", Ashby's "Bound For Glory" and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm. | negative |
Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and on top of that it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended. | negative |
The British horror film was in terminal decline by the start of the Seventies, but out of the blackness came three films that were among the best our island produced. The Wickerman, Blood on Satan's Claw and The House That Dripped Blood made the future seem rosy, even though a lot of people knew by this point there wasn't going to be one. THTDB has the sort of cast that could easily form a wishlist, if it hadn't actually been assembled, in the bleak hinterland of 2008 you may well find yourself expecting to wake up. Waxworks is the most overlooked of the four stories and is, naturally, my favourite, Cushing's life and art are interlinked so firmly that you can't tell where performance ends and pain begins. One can only guess how this role affected such a gentle, sensitive man. Death and the maiden. RIP Peter. | positive |
Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.<br /><br />Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine. | negative |
DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least. | negative |
Why isn't this movie on the bottom 100? Raptor is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have seen in all of my fifteen years of life. I have never before witnessed such a catastrophic mess as this. Absolutely everything about it is awkward and cheaply done.<br /><br />Nobody in the cast gives a somewhat decent performance. The dialogue is utterly incoherent and the humor is anything but humorous. Corbin Bernsen was the most painful part of the whole thing. I can't help cringe when I recall some of his lines, like "In or out? You're worse than a cat!" and "Your lady friend isn't a very good poker player. She's just revealed her hand."<br /><br />The raptors are a joke. Even I could make more realistic dinosaur effects than these filmmakers have shamelessly done. It is an insult to the actual velociraptors, or any dinosaur for that matter. Not only that, but the killing scenes are too gruesome even for me. I don't seriously think these animals would rip their victim to shreds and throw pieces all over the ground just to make everything look gorier. Besides, the blood and guts are all useless when you can see the deaths coming from miles and miles away.<br /><br />I am a big fan of Jurassic Park movies and of dinosaurs. Maybe the filmmakers didn't anticipate anybody with a shred of intelligence or sense to disregard bad filmmaking to stumble upon this movie on HBO late at night, like I did. If I could say one thing to anybody involved in this film, I would have to quote Dr. Alan Grant from the first Jurassic Park...<br /><br />"Just try to show a little respect." | negative |
This is a great horror movie. Great Plot. And a person with a fear of midgets will definately love the evil midget! This is a must see for any horror fan. Finally a lower budget movie with decent effects and a great cast! Highly recommended. | positive |
Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't. <br /><br />This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players. | negative |
After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin! | negative |
What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost. | negative |
I know that many people will/have automatically given this film a rating of 1, just because it doesn't have the huge budget and top-of-the-line special effects that they are used to. I, however, knew what I was getting myself into when I popped this into the VCR.<br /><br />I don't think we get much more low-budget that this, unless we are filming a family reunion. The lighting is awful, sound quality is at times incomprehensible, and the acting is ultra-bad by almost all involved. BUT, this is still a fun movie and the plot is interesting enough. It centers around a fellow named Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt), who has been down on his luck with his job. He is very protective of his wife and does not allow her to work, putting even more pressure on himself. As he begins working more hours, we see him slowly transcend into madness and obsession and he becomes suspicious that his wife cheating on him and begins to brutally murder the various men (most repair guys) that he feels are responsible. <br /><br />I must say that the gore effects are extremely cheap, but fit with the overall tone of the film.. The brutal ways that Tom Russo comes up with to murder these men gives us an idea of just has mad he has become. The pacing of the film is also very good and there is rarely a boring moment. The ending really doesn't follow the rest of the plot of the film, as it seems to want to go from a psycho-slasher film, to a "Dawn of the Dead" wannabe, but it is entertaining nonetheless and I must give Tim Ritter credit for wanting to use an unconventional ending. <br /><br />I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film, but it is by no means a good film, if that makes sense. It's budget is its main stumbling block and the consequences are almost too much to overlook. I DO NOT recommend this to people who are totally spoiled by the big-budget movies and who can't have an open-mind to ultra-low budget films. You simply won't enjoy it. For others, and fans of gore--I say give it a shot. You will find at least SOMETHING redeeming in it! <br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
Fans of goremeister Herschell Gordon Lewis should look elsewhere if they are picking up this film for his usual buckets of blood being sloshed about, for there is precious little in the way of bloodletting in this film. Instead, Lewis decides to try and tell the bizarre story, relying on bargain-basement special effects on a budget which could have probably been doubled if the cast had turned out their pockets for change one day. Oddly enough, while cheap and very poorly acted (especially by McCabe as Mitchell), the total outlandishness of the plot keeps attention throughout. Imagine what this film could have been like with a decent budget! Overall, it strains for champagne tastes on a beer budget. | negative |
haggard doesn't even need to be graded, since it was never designed to be graded like Oscar-winning movies are and it was never intended to have won an Oscar (obviously). if you just look at some of the stuff that Bam and Bran tried, like the fast-motion shots, it comes across as a film thats something more than just cky or jackass (even though those are cool too). For pure enjoyability i definitely give this film a 10; almost every scene made me laugh until my sides hurt, like falcone's trail movie. If you haven't seen this, see it and then buy it. Personally my favorite character is brandon (falcone), he's just so smooth and natural and random that its hilarious, he freestyles great (with the action figures) and makes up the funniest stuff- lol a diamond mountain bike? haggard is definitely a movie that in overall humor is only rivaled by anchorman and napoleon dynamite. | positive |
I found 'Time At The Top' an entertaining and stimulating experience. The acting, while not generally brilliant, was perfectly acceptable and sometimes very good. As a film obviously aimed at the younger demographic, it is certainly one of the better works in the genre (Children's Sci-Fi). Normally, I would say that Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia produce the best movies and TV shows for children, and 'Time At The Top' does nothing to discount this theory! I don't think that continuity and great acting are important to younger people. A good plot and an imaginative screenplay are far more important to them. Both are in abundance in this film. The special effects are good, without detracting from the story, or closing the viewers off from their own imaginations. It would have been very easy to inject an over-load of SFX in this film, but it would have totally destroyed its entire 'Raison D'etre'. <br /><br />The settings and camera work are of a very high standard in this movie, and complement the fine wardrobe and historical accuracy. Overall, this film is highly satisfactory, and I recommend it to all viewers who can see the world through children's eyes, or those that try to, like myself! Now, I really must read the original book, as soon as possible. | positive |
You don't see the meaning of the title till much later, but you get the point of it in the first few minutes. This directorial debut from Golden Globe nominated (for actor) Danny DeVito, also playing Owen/Ned 'Little Ned' Lift, is a terrific Hitchcock-like film about one man's hate for his wife's book (she stole his), and one man's hate for his mother. Basically, Owen wants to be a good writer, like his teacher Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), and he inspired by murder stories. Larry suggests he see a Hitchcock film, quite ironic, and that is when Owen has the idea to kill Larry's ex-wife, Margaret (Star Trek Voyager's Kate Mulgrew). Owen is inspired by 'Strangers on a Train', swapping murders, so Larry must kill Owen's horrible Momma (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Anne Ramsey). Larry was convinced Owen killed Margaret, and also that he had to/wanted to kill Owen's Momma, but there is a happy ending when months later both Larry and Owen bring out books, Momma died naturally, and they went on a holiday with Beth Ryan (Kim Greist). Also starring Rob Reiner as Joel and Oprah Winfrey. With hilarious moments, a great director/actor and his support, this is a must-see comedy. Very, very good! | positive |
"Women? They're all scrubbers...!" <br /><br />No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...<br /><br />All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair. <br /><br />But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time. | negative |
This is a new approach to comedy. It isn't funny.<br /><br />The joke is that this, in and of itself, is supposed to be funny.<br /><br />The story is based on a French short story, located in Paris, and the characters have French names. Louis Aubinard, for example ... played by ... Bob Hoskins? The movie also stars the equally French Jeff Goldblum and Natasha Richardson. The situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those Carry-On movies from years back.<br /><br />I believe these are also jokes - to cast these actors who make no attempt to act French in any way, to have them cavort in the manner of broad English dance hall comedy, and to leave the whole bloomin' mystery unexplained to the audience.<br /><br />In the humour department, this is practically the Algonquin Round Table, isn't it?<br /><br />The movie tries to be charming and quirky, and I guess these characteristics are sort of funny. Not as funny as Duck Soup or Love and Death, perhaps, but funnier than The Deer Hunter or The Battleship Potemkin.<br /><br />It is an example of personal filmmaking. It makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience, but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. Although all the situations are unbelievable, they are logical within the film's own bizarro world.<br /><br />I generally like this kind of eccentric movie, but I found this one to be paced too slowly, to be dull-witted, tedious, and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. It just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways, and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. It has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars, who are all otherwise distinguished players. I found it to be the biggest waste of talent since The Betsy, and I wish I had never seen Goldblum and Hoskins in this thing.<br /><br />So, call it an interesting miss, and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill.<br /><br /> | negative |
Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film. | negative |
After reading some of the earlier nasty remarks, I had to put in my two cents. This show was NOT, despite what that goon in Essex thinks, the worst thing that ever aired on TV. I think most of today's TV is much worse (when is this stupid "reality" fad ever going to end??) and there isn't a current show I can stand to watch. Gimme the stuff I grew up with. I'm a 1965 baby and not ashamed to admit it.<br /><br />This show has been my all-time favorite for almost 30 years. I was in high school when it originally aired and I think it helped me to hang on throughout those miserable days. I was such a misfit back then, and "Fantasy Island" appealed to my imagination. As I was a budding writer in those days, it provided incredible opportunities for me to practice the craft. What a wonderful premise! I won't say it didn't have its faults. Sometimes the scripts were pretty bad, and some of the problems seemed trivial; but it could be good too, and it was a blast to watch and still is. As for the cheesiness factor, well, I think it's unfair to label every single 70s product as cheesy. There was a lot of great stuff back then and this was among the ranks. (BTW, most of the seasons aired in the 80s!!) My favorite episodes came from seasons 2, 3 and 4 mostly.<br /><br />To those who disparage Hervé Villechaize for his heavy French accent and his short stature: GROW UP and LEARN SOMETHING! It's so easy to make fun when you're "normal" and "perfect". That man made the best of what he was dealt in life, and if you don't like it, that's just tough. Have a little compassion. He's been dead 15 years, and how easy it is to cut down someone who can't defend himself. There's just no shame anymore.<br /><br />I love this show. So it looks dated. Hate to tell you this, but we didn't have splashy special effects and Blu-Ray discs. We were lucky to have VCRs. Live with it. Accept it for what it is, and that's just plain fun. "Escapist TV" describes it perfectly, and that's what it was for me -- an escape from my rotten real life. And it's still a lot of fun to watch. | positive |
My first Fassbinder was a wonderful experience. Film and alternative cinema (small hall, with uncomfortable seats; public had to wait while filmrolls were changed ) were perfect match.<br /><br />There were many cliches used in the film, but Fassbinder presented them so cleverly that I found them really amusing. Sound was also brilliant (sometimes back being louder than dialogue).<br /><br />Everything seemed to be in right place. And I loved the way how after-war-time was presented. Real fun!<br /><br /> | positive |
When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak. | negative |
This film is the smartest comedy I have ever seen, a lot of jokes are either a parody of another film, (from star wars to dragon ball to power rangers to kung fu etc..) or somehow related to history of whatever, (Otis creates the elevator), a lot of jokes are also related to the modern world and made fun of because it was B.C. (Like the wheels of the horse wagon spinning) Other jokes are just plain total non-sense but also hilarious (like the famous scene, with the dog running after the roman guy with the little music) In fact in this movies they mix pretty much every kind of humor. I watched this film 6 times already and every single time I watch it I find other subtle jokes. (like the scene where waldo is part of the Egyptian crowd). It is the funniest movie I have every seem, finally a laugh-out-loud comedy, that doesn't include toilet or sex humor. Numerobis is also what makes the movie, everything that comes out of that guys mouth is hilarious. This movie is nearly perfect except a few clichéd thing, like the fact that Asterix gets his power back because he is kissed, that is plain stupid. But overall an excellent movie!! 9.5 out 10 | positive |
Some weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag "The Latin Godfather". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like "The Latin Godfather", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most. | negative |
The China Syndrome is a perfectly paced thriller and not slow or boring at all, as some people tend to say. The transitions from one scene to another are great and the tension build up in the film will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire two hours. Jack Lemmon is great, as always, as the somewhat nervous plant operator and Jane Fonda succeeds again in bringing some real emotions into the story. You can see this film as a political statement of the time, or just as an intelligently made thriller. Either way it is definitely worth watching. | positive |
My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party. | negative |
What's the point of this film? It's totally forgettable. Unless you have a serious bunny fetish, look elsewhere. So the bunnies had a merit/demerit list. No chewing gum in front of the customers. Are we supposed to find that interesting? | negative |
Evening is the beautiful story of the flawed love of a mother. The movie split in time, is magically shot, amazingly acted and has a touching script. Vanessa Redgrave plays Anne Grant Lord, a woman sun-setting out of life. Lying in her bed, her mind remembering and misfiring, she recalls her first mistake. Claire Danes plays the young Anne, giving a youthful vitality to dying bed ridden woman. Daughters Nina (Toni Collette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson) try to decipher the real story from the disheartening dementia. Her first mistake revolves around Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson); the man her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) deeply loved. The daughters must come to terms with their mother's past, and their futures. The cast is glowing in Evening. The collective acting energy of this movie could have powered the equipment for the production of this entire film. I am so glad to see Claire Danes working again, especially in this role. She is so young, and alive, fully living the joys, mistakes and heartbreak of young Anne's first mistake. This is a true feat when you realize she is playing a woman, dying in bed. When her life overwhelms her, you can feel her desire to crack and her hopeless hope that she won't. Some of her facial expressions grinded on me a little, but over all her performance was so radiant, I was left with that only as a side note. Toni Collette continues to prove that you can be a powerful actress without being a super model. She plays the black sheep of the family; a little lost. Nina finds a great deal of strength in her mother's mistake. Collette delicately avoids creating a cruel character who revels in the mistakes of her mother, instead choosing the wiser path of learning from her mother's mistakes. There is a great deal of infighting between Nina and her sister Constance. Their fights remind me of ones I have with my sister all the time. Mamie Gummer, who plays Anne's youthful best friend, is wonderful. Her character is stuck between her heart and her status in society. Even when she is crying and her heart is breaking, she is incredibly regal and charming. I can't wait to see her act in something else in the future. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is very hard for me to describe. Her talent at making her mental status ambiguous without being wacko or even especially tragic is why it is so powerful. The audience does not know if she is making up the story because she is slipping away or if these events truly happened. Physically and emotionally speaking, Redgrave is acting in a box. Not much physical space and limited emotional range might have been a stunner to a lesser actress but she makes the limitations work for her. I was constantly amazed. The movie is definitely woman-focused but the men in the movie are not just accessories. Patrick Wilson is mesmerizing as Harris. It is no wonder that everyone in the movie is in love with him, I sure was. Buddy Wittenborn is Lila's brother, spiraling out of control. Hugh Dancy spirals Buddy out of control without sending his acting down the drain. Glen Close has my favorite scene in the movie. It reminded me of the famous scene from Monster's Ball. It is terrible and jaw dropping grief. I was utterly stunned. The one acting disappointment was Natasha Richardson. While her fight scenes were memorable, most of her acting reeks of melodrama. It would have suited her to take an acting bath before we had to breathe her stink. It's a good thing she wasn't in charge of the visuals. The visuals of the movie are sparkling. Cinematographer Gyula Pados couldn't make a film richer in color, light so perfectly matched to mood and emotion. The visual concepts of the flash back sequences are powerful and resonating. There were many scenes that could have been stopped, printed, mounted and sold as art. I admit it, I cried. Evening is a powerful movie. Evening is defiantly a chick flick but a really great chick flick. If you want to impress a woman with a movie choice, pick Evening. | positive |
I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was "FBI, OPERATION CAT!") That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie. | negative |
SPOILERS BELOW<br /><br />`A Dog's Life' was most noteworthy for its excellent comic timing. In Charlie Chaplin's other movie from 1918, `Shoulder Arms', the silent film genius focuses on an entirely different brand of humor. His war comedy specializes in surreal, exaggerated set pieces in which Chaplin demonstrates unprecedented creativity and mastery of composition. When the soldier's bunker gets flooded, the water level reaches just the right height so that Chaplin can execute his gags most successfully. In a later scene, the soldier dresses up as a tree, a disguise that belies Chaplin's much increased ingenuity and goofiness. Naturally, when the enemy discovers his ruse, the soldier darts straight for the forest. The ensuing chase is a visual marvel: Chaplin not only hides the soldier from the Germans, but he uses the forest to mask the soldier from the audience, as well, such that the camouflaged soldier stands unblocked in the middle of the frame yet somehow remains invisible. All the while we thought our little hero was pulling a fast one on the German army; to our delight, the joke is on us, too.<br /><br />Rating: 8 | positive |
This movie was good. I can't say it was one of the best, but it still was good. The only reason that I watched it was because of Ryan Phillippe. He is soo hot! (Don't get mad Reese). But I think that it was sort of funny- not a laugh your head out kinda thing, but still O.K. | positive |
Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.<br /><br />The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.<br /><br />Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.<br /><br />Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.<br /><br />On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.<br /><br />All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise. | negative |
This movie is an insult to ALL submariners. It was stupid. It appeared to have been written by monkeys. The acting was absurd. If this is the view most people have of the Navy, then I weep for our defense. This movie was awful. I put it below "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" as far as submarine movies go. Gene Hackman must have really needed rent money to do this crap. Denzel Washington must have been high. Little in the plot makes any sense. And the ending. For a mutineer to be rewarded for his crime? Only Hollywood would think of this garbage. If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't like it. And if it wasn't for all the pro comments, I would not have bothered to post. | negative |
Film noir meets anime... brilliant! This was one of the highlights of the surprisingly creative Animatrix shorts. This was one of my favorites if not my favorite (I also loved World Record). This is basically a reference to those classic film noir detective stories and movies of the 40s, except it's animated and involves the Matrix. But by being animated, it is able to take the extreme camera angles, the detective life style, the shadows, and everything film noir to an entirely new level. The Femme Fatale? Trinity. The detective in this story seems to be living in the 40s in his mind but stuck in a modern world, and everything becomes too much for him when his case suddenly involves science fiction and agents when a mysterious woman in black walks into his office...<br /><br />My grade: 9/10 | positive |
This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.<br /><br />I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers. | negative |
The Write Word<br /><br />What you see is what you get. Not really! What Madhur Bhandarkar's brave and brilliant 'Page 3' does is destroy the myth attached to the glam and glitterati that colour the pages of our newspapers and whose lives(read party habits) we follow with such maniacal fervour which only our intrinsic voyeuristic streak can explain. <br /><br />The page 3 phenomenon is as deplorable as it is enigmatic. How exactly did it gain such control over the printed word and when did it start to encroach into the front page is subject for another debate. Bhandarkar cleverly avoids that. He is concerned only with the mechanisms of this grotesque existence. And in doing that, he pieces together the various elements of this way of life. Like Robert Altman(although I'm not comparing Bhandarkar to Altman's genius), Bhandarkar uses myriad characters to further his motive. Whether it is a page 3 wannabe NRI, the gate-crashers, the newly-rich, an upcoming model, a socialite politician or an erotic novella authoress; all the characters are introduced with an objective and each of them has a separate character-sketch, even if their parts may be miniscule. And therein lays the film's appeal. <br /><br />Konkona Sen Sharma plays Madhavi Sharma, a young and talented journalist who covers page 3 for Nation Today. Initially content with her job, she soon begins to see the ugliness of this underbelly that is covered by its fake and cosmetic profligacy. But Bhandarkar resists the temptation to make this subject into a moral-policing movie and avoids concentrating on one character alone. Hence the movie is not only about Madhavi, but also equally about Deepak Suri(Boman Irani)- Madhavi's editor who passively accepts his role as a cog of a larger machinery, Anjali Thapar(Soni Razdan)- a socialite suffocating from the social pollution, Abhijeet(Rehan Engineer)- a homosexual make-up artist and Madhavi's roommates Pearl(Sandhya Mridul)- the sassy airhostess and Gayatri(Tara Sharma)-an aspiring actress. It seems like an impossible task to assimilate so many characters(and more) in one story, but full credit to Nina Arora and Manoj Tyagi for penning a tight screenplay. The dialogues by Sanjeev Datta and Bhandarkar have been written with great attention to detail. <br /><br />Any narrative, no matter how good, can fall flat with the lack of genuine performances. Thankfully, 'Page 3' brims with actors and not stars. Konkona goes through her author-backed role with effortless ease. Ditto Boman. Sandhya Mridul gets the best written part, but almost overdoes it. Atul Kulkarni is wasted though with an underwritten character. At times, the director seems too keen to incorporate as much as possible(paedophilia, homosexuality, etc.). But the contexts in which they are used do not make them look rushed. <br /><br />Ultimately, Bhandarkar's attempt is to satiate our voyeurism, but he takes it a step further. He takes us inside the photographs and exposes us to the gruesome realities of this sect of humanity that strangely seems to be living in a different and remote world. These are the same people that indulged in new-year's revelry while a few hundred kilometers away their fellow countrymen had been ravaged by nature's ferocity! Clever writing, skillfully incorporated songs, able performances and a genuine feeling of sincerity are what make this film worthy in spite of its lack of finesse and poor production values. 'Page 3' is an optimum way to enter a new year of cinema.<br /><br />- Abhishek Bandekar<br /><br />Rating- ****<br /><br />* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent<br /><br />29th January, 2005 | positive |
Screenwriters Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, and (of all people) Dorothy Parker enable director Alfred Hitchcock to expound on what may have been his favorite movie theme: innocent man, wrongly fingered for crime, takes it on the lam. Hitchcock, who some credit with originating the story, engineers a great deal of suspense in plot about a warehouse worker blamed for the explosion which killed his best friend; he sets out on journey to find the real culprit. Plenty of excitement on a grand-scale, with usually-colorless actors (Priscilla Lane, Norman Lloyd, Alan Baxter) doing surprisingly fine work. Even eternally-smug Robert Cummings gets into the proper spirit! *** from **** | positive |
I sell the dead revolves around convicted grave robber Arthur Blake. Blake's friend and fellow grave robber Willie Grimes has just been executed and Blake is going to follow suit the next morning. While he sits in his cell awaiting his execution a priest named Father Duffy comes in and asks him if he will tell all he has seen as a grave robber. He then proceeds to give Father Duffy a quasi biography of his more interesting exploits.<br /><br />The plot pretty much consists of several incidents only tied together by chronology. This prevents the viewer from ever getting bored but it also makes the events less significant as you could easily add or remove a lot of scenes without noticing it much. Though flawed, I thought overall this method added to the fun loving nature of the film and kept it very entertaining. Most of the various stories are good, specifically the alien, the Murphy's and the vampire, but others weren't so great.<br /><br />The acting isn't amazing but I didn't find it bad at any point. Dominic Monaghan had a good performance as he managed to be serious when it mattered and also play very well into the comedic parts of the film.<br /><br />The characters were not extremely in-depth, but they were all interesting. I also enjoyed how a number of the villains were done in a over-the-top almost comic book manner. The part with the back story of the Murphy's and their gang is priceless.<br /><br />So overall, I Sell the Dead very successfully combines horror, comedy and sci-fi into a mish mash of fun and excitement. It is one of the more interesting and original movies I have seen in a while, and it's unfortunate that independent films like this don't get more recognition. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.